West Sacramento City Council
August 20, 2025

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the development generally complies with applicable adopted design guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the proposed development is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base zone, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and certified that the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and SEIR prepared for the General Plan and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project, pursuant to Sections 15183, 15162, and 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Tentative Parcel Map and Planned Development Permit subject to the Conditions of Approval included herein as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of West Sacramento this 1
st day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Jackson, Olivarez, Sablan, Wong
NOES: None
ABSENT: Andersen, Delgado, Linker, Squires
ABSTAIN: None

Dolores Olivarez,
Acting Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:

Seamus Laffey, Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: D1B64F56-E5F8-4D9E-977C-0CE6F476BEB1 259
Resolution 25-5PC

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
Project Specific Conditions & Mitigation Measures:

1. The specific project approved by this action is identified as the 3071 Davis Road Tentative Parcel Map 5247 located at 3071/3055 Davis Road prepared by Under the Sun Services and CSI Engineering, dated January 2025, for the creation of four legal lots from one ±5-acre lot. All notes and conditions shown on the Map are hereby included in this approval.

2. Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures in the General Plan 2035 and Southport Framework Plan EIRs.

3. Subdivider shall comply with West Sacramento Municipal Code Title 20 regarding the Yolo Habitat Conservation Program/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Yolo HCP/NCCP), including payment of applicable Yolo HCP/NCCP fees and filling out the screening form, prior to issuance of a grading permit.

4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, all monies owed on the project’s Work Order account (#97931) shall be paid in full.

Engineering Division

5. The design and construction of all public improvements shall conform to the City of West Sacramento Standard Specifications.

6. All drainage infrastructure improvements shall be designed and constructed per City Standards Specifications, the Southport Drainage Master Plan and The PostConstruction Standards Plan.

7. Project frontage on Seymour Avenue and Davis Road shall be improved to meet City Rural Road Standards. Improvements shall be limited to half street improvements including widening necessary to provide a 12-foot-wide travel lane, a 6-foot-wide gravel shoulder and a roadside drainage ditch. Said roadside ditch shall match capacity and cross-section of the existing roadside ditch. Timing of said public improvements may be deferred as follows:
• Parcel 1 frontage on Seymour Avenue and Davis Road shall be improved concurrently with the development of Parcel 1.
• Parcel 2 frontage on Davis Road shall be improved concurrently with the development of Parcel 2.
• Parcel 3 frontage on Seymour Avenue shall be improved concurrently with the development of Parcel 3 or Parcel 4, whichever comes first.

Docusign Envelope ID: D1B64F56-E5F8-4D9E-977C-0CE6F476BEB1 260
Resolution 25-5PC

Should a Building Permit be issued within the boundary of this Tentative Map prior to this Tentative Map being approved by the Planning Commission, the frontage improvement obligations, as outlined above, shall be improved for the effected Parcel concurrent with the Parcel Map.

8. If required public improvements including roadway widening and undergrounding of overhead utilities are not constructed at the time of the final parcel map, the subdivider shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City in compliance with the City Subdivision Ordinance.

9. Reasonable measures shall be implemented, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to minimize any nuisance from dust during grading and construction operations.

10. Each individual lot shall have a private septic system and a private well system designed and constructed in accordance with Yolo County Environmental Health Department Standards.

11. The final parcel map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and local Ordinances.

12. A current title report (completed within 30 days of final map submittal) shall be submitted with the final map. The title report shall include the entire legal boundary of the property being subdivided.

13. Closure calculations shall be provided at the time of final map check submittal. All calculated points within the map shall be based upon one common set of coordinates.

All information shown on the map shall be directly verifiable by information shown on the closure calculation printout. The points of beginning shall be clearly defined. All lot acreage shall be shown and shall be verifiable from information shown on the closure calculation print out.

14. The developer shall comply with the City’s digital mapping ordinance.

15. Unless otherwise waived by the Planning Commission, any existing overhead utility lines located within the subdivision boundary or along it’s frontage with a public road shall be placed underground. All proposed new utilities shall be placed underground.

Timing of undergrounding may occur as outlined for the frontage improvements above, in condition #7.

16. Existing public and private facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the subdivider, at his sole expense, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

17. Easements of record no longer required to serve this subdivision shall be abandoned prior to the first phased final map.

Docusign Envelope ID: D1B64F56-E5F8-4D9E-977C-0CE6F476BEB1 261
Resolution 25-5PC

18. All proposed private easements shown on the tentative map shall be recorded prior to development of any parcel.

19. A right-of-way dedication or improvement shown on the map that is not consistent with requirements contained in the City Standard Specifications shall not be deemed approved by approval of the tentative map unless specifically allowed as a condition of approval of the tentative map, and that approval of the final map shall be subject to dedicating rights-of-way and easements or constructing improvements that are in accordance with the Standard Specifications and the Southport Design Guidelines.

20. At the time of the final parcel map, Developer shall dedicate to the City a public drainage easement lying immediately adjacent to the Seymour Road right-of-way across the entire map frontage on Seymour Road. Said easement shall be wide enough to include the existing drainage channel located east of the roadside ditch and be wide enough to provide for a 10’ wide maintenance access road on the east side of the channel. Said access road shall be constructed with the first building permit issued within the parcel map boundary and shall be 10’ wide and constructed of 4” of class II aggregate base material. Should an alternative drainage solution be approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval which provides maintenance access which is acceptable to the City for the channel from Seymour Road, then the public drainage easement can be modified to only include the width of the channel and that area located between the Seymour Road right-of-way and an additional access road will not be required to be constructed on the east side of the channel. Said drainage alternative shall be constructed along the entire Seymour Road frontage at the time of the first building permit.

Standard Conditions & Mitigation Measures

21. Subdivider shall hold harmless the City, its council members, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from liability for any award, damages, costs, and fees incurred by the City and/or awarded to any plaintiff in any action challenging the validity of this permit or any environmental or other documentation related to approval of this permit. Subdivider further agrees to provide a defense for the City in such action. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such action and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

22. The subdivider shall comply with the requirements of all other agencies of jurisdiction, including the City of West Sacramento.

23. This approval will expire in 36 months from the date of Tentative Map approval by the Planning Commission unless it is extended pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act.

24. The subdivider shall pay all applicable City and County fees and charges at the rate and amount in effect at the time such fees and charges become due and payable.

Docusign Envelope ID: D1B64F56-E5F8-4D9E-977C-0CE6F476BEB1 262
263
264
265
266
267
268
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Johnny Zapara <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 5:48 PM
To: Cusmir, Jennifer
Cc: Johnny & Jeannie Zapara
Subject: Appeal to City Council
Attachments: PastedGraphic-2.tiff; PastedGraphic-1.tiff; TO- West Sacramento City Council - FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

TO: West Sacramento City Council,
A Formal Appeal Regarding: West Sacramento’s Planning Commission regarding 3071 Davis Rd division of land requirements.

We realize that our emotional investment in this project, hopefully resulting in our forever home location, is not the Council’s concern, so we’ll get right to the point. The City Planning Commission - concluded on May 1,2025 that as conditions for dividing our 5 acres of farm land into four 1.25 acre parcels for single family homes we must:

1. Widen the roads (Seymour and Davis) to rural road standards - requiring filling in the 4’ deep ditches and creating new ones, extending the shoulder over the previous ditches and paving the newly formed areas

2. Regrading the Seymour section, (though it should not be our personal responsibility), creating a 15’ wide sloped shoulder for street water to run directly into the larger canal parallel to the east side of the road, thereby making easy access for city to clean the ditch, and

3. Underground 4 power poles (including electrical, cable, and phone lines) It’s this last condition that we are specifically appealing on the grounds listed below:
1) There are 2 recent projects in West Sacramento, one similar and one a full blown subdivision, where this was not required - (Otis and Harmon)

2) Though nothing was put in writing by the city, it was clearly implied more than once by the previous department head, Dave Tilly and others, that this requirement would likely be waived given these specific streets and the unique location and placement of the current poles. When I casually appealed this in person on April 2, 2025 (post Dave Tilley) with my surveyor, Amy Morrow, we were told again that these four poles could remain. She made copious notes to that affect on her plot map (see included pictures) and was requested to amend her drawing with the amments and resubmit. Had I known a new department head would be unwavering on this requirement, I would not have started the project, simply because of reason #3 below. It is my suggestion that if the Planning Dept and or Council deems existing street undergrounding, a non-negotiable condition for any and all projects, then there needs to be a future date determined for that to start. All projects started before said date should not be required to do so unless it’s an actual legal subdivision. We had three different supervisor changes at the county level that caused us much delay and confusion and now two different heads at the Planning level. Each person has their own idea on how ordinances are enforced. No one wants to find out mid-stream that it’s their project that is becoming the hard and fast case this rule will hang on. We are feeling more burden than this process should cause. Everyone agrees that the condition applies when full subdivisions are being created or if the other side of the road is open land, but our address would negatively impact a lot of neighbors if the poles move. I’m expecting the Planning Department to keep their word. As of yet, they are clearly choosing not to. 3) The cost of under-grounding these particular four poles has been established to be a minimum of $650,000 by a certified PG&E subcontractor (see enclosed comments). That, added to the widening of the two roads, plus the additional cost of creating of a large runoff shoulder in order to service the maintenance of the larger ditch, brings the ‘imposed conditions’ cost to a point that make the project financially unfeasible. Local developers I’ve consulted say all three conditions as currently stated, could easily be $800,000 and maybe reach nearly $1,000,000. 4) Common sense would dictate that to underground these particular four poles, which requires four other new ones to go up, makes no sense, especially when the ‘new’ poles would be placed on my neighbors properties where currently there aren’t any. The impacted neighbors are seriously hoping this doesn’t happen. 269
2 5) It’s possible that even more poles would be required since a four direction intersection pole is one of those proposed to be removed.
6) Two of the existing poles (on the required list to under-ground) have just been replaced by PG&E within the last 12 months and one of those two have a brand new transformer installed on it - intended to service my specific parcel - a portion of which was already billed to me and I have paid. 7) PG&E said to me that it does not recommend digging trenches for power lines under existing bigger and deeper ditches, which the canal is.
8) Mark Collier, the city engineer, has determined that the existing poles, though being partially closer to the new shoulder in a couple cases, would not be in conflict with the road. Mark was present at the city meeting with my surveyor and can attest to this.
9) There is no mathematical net gain to the city by taking four poles down and putting four (maybe more) back up. 10) The time frame for PG&E to engineer and complete said requirement would likely be way over a year. My project is already going on 3 years and I STILL haven’t been allowed to break ground yet. 11) None of my neighbors want any changes at all. THEY JUST WANT THE CITY TO DO IT’S JOB AND KEEP THE DITCHES AND CULVERTS CLEAN BEFORE EACH WINTER, TO STOP THE FLOODING. This particular ditch may not have been cleaned in over 10 years.
12) Because virtually all development on Davis and certainly on Seymour is done, this short section of improvement serves very little purpose. Both roads are dead-ends at our location. 13) Seymour was just repaved by the city this past year. 14) I am not a developer. Creating four lots does not meet the definition of a ‘subdivision’ which starts at five or more. 15) We have already spent over $200,000 in required tests, environmental regulations, engineering, surveying and empty land mortgage. We have been paying significant property taxes, and because the city’s infrastructure is too far away will yet have to spend $60,000 on a well, $20,000 on septic, unknown number on easements over deep ditches, grading for runoff, and under-grounding electrical from the street and that just gets us to where conventional home building starts. 16) Each decision delay is very costly - monies spent on land mortgage, that we cannot recover and being told by well contractors that prices are going up.
17) Our understanding is that all conditions must be proportional to the project. Fulfilling all three requirements above clearly makes it disproportional.
18) Planning has said each parcel could fullfill the required conditions when it applies to them. It is completely impractical to underground 1 pole at a time. PG&E is typically 7-18 months behind. The same goes for widening the road one parcel frontage at a time.

The bottom line reality is this: If the Council cannot see clear to waive the under-grounding of the power poles (and perhaps the 15’ shoulder that is really the city’s responsibility), we will be forced to abandon the project, put all four lots up for sale and hope upon hope that someone has deeper pockets than we and be willing to buy land under such harsh conditions. The idea that we can simply charge more for each parcel, thereby deferring the costs, puts the lots above market. They are only worth what they are worth.

We have invested our life savings here, hoping to live near our daughter and young grandkids. If allowed, we will make excellent neighbors and West Sac residents. Hopefully the Council can see the logic in the above request for waiver of #3 and possibly #2 above. Though we don’t want to do any of the three, #1 will provide the most practical impact for the city.

Whatever the conclusion, I am also hoping the decision is not carried over to a subsequent meeting. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Johnny and Jeannie Zapara
Exibits included
Directly from Amy Morrow regarding meeting on April 2, 2025 270
2713
2724
2735
2746
2757
TO: West Sacramento City Council,
A Formal Appeal Regarding: West Sacramento’s Planning Commission regarding 3071 Davis Rd division of land requirements.

We realize that our emotional investment in this project, hopefully resulting in our forever home location, is not the Council’s concern, so we’ll get right to the point.

The City Planning Commission - concluded on May 1,2025 that as conditions for dividing our 5 acres of farm land into four 1.25 acre parcels for single family homes we must:
1) Widen the roads (Seymour and Davis) to rural road standards - requiring filling in the 4’ deep ditches and creating new ones, extending the shoulder over the previous ditches and paving the newly formed areas 2) Regrading the Seymour section, (though it should not be our personal responsibility), creating a 15’ wide sloped shoulder for street water to run directly into the larger canal parallel to the east side of the road, thereby making easy access for city to clean the ditch, and
3) Underground 4 power poles (including electrical, cable, and phone lines) It’s this last condition that we are specifically appealing on the grounds listed below:
1) There are 2 recent projects in West Sacramento, one similar and one a full blown subdivision, where this was not required - (Otis and Harmon) 2) Though nothing was put in writing by the city, it was clearly implied more than once by the previous department head, Dave Tilly and others, that this requirement would likely be waived given these specific streets and the unique location and placement of the current poles. When I casually appealed this in person on April 2, 2025 (post Dave Tilley) with my surveyor, Amy Morrow, we were told again that these four poles could remain. She made copious notes to that affect on her plot map (see included pictures) and was requested to amend her drawing with the amments and resubmit. Had I known a new department head would be unwavering on this requirement, I would not have started the project, simply because of reason #3 below. It is my suggestion that if the Planning Dept and or Council deems existing street under-grounding, a nonnegotiable condition for any and all projects, then there needs to be a future date determined for that to start. All projects started before said date should not be required to do so unless it’s an actual legal subdivision. We had three different supervisor changes at the county level that caused us much delay and confusion and now two different heads at the Planning level. Each person has their own idea on how ordinances are enforced. No one wants to find out mid-stream that it’s their project that is becoming the hard and fast case this rule will hang on. We are feeling more burden than this process should cause. Everyone agrees that the condition applies when full subdivisions are being created or if the other side Attachment 1
276
of the road is open land, but our address would negatively impact a lot of neighbors if the poles move. I’m expecting the Planning Department to keep their word. As of yet, they are clearly choosing not to.
3) The cost of under-grounding these particular four poles has been established to be a minimum of $650,000 by a certified PG&E subcontractor (see enclosed comments). That, added to the widening of the two roads, plus the additional cost of creating of a large runoff shoulder in order to service the maintenance of the larger ditch, brings the ‘imposed conditions’ cost to a point that make the project financially unfeasible. Local developers I’ve consulted say all three conditions as currently stated, could easily be $800,000 and maybe reach nearly $1,000,000.
4) Common sense would dictate that to underground these particular four poles, which requires four other new ones to go up, makes no sense, especially when the ‘new’ poles would be placed on my neighbors properties where currently there aren’t any. The impacted neighbors are seriously hoping this doesn’t happen.
5) It’s possible that even more poles would be required since a four direction intersection pole is one of those proposed to be removed. 6) Two of the existing poles (on the required list to under-ground) have just been replaced by PG&E within the last 12 months and one of those two have a brand new transformer installed on it - intended to service my specific parcel - a portion of which was already billed to me and I have paid. 7) PG&E said to me that it does not recommend digging trenches for power lines under existing bigger and deeper ditches, which the canal is. 8) Mark Collier, the city engineer, has determined that the existing poles, though being partially closer to the new shoulder in a couple cases, would not be in conflict with the road. Mark was present at the city meeting with my surveyor and can attest to this.
9) There is no mathematical net gain to the city by taking four poles down and putting four (maybe more) back up.
10) The time frame for PG&E to engineer and complete said requirement would likely be way over a year. My project is already going on 3 years and I STILL haven’t been allowed to break ground yet.
11) None of my neighbors want any changes at all. THEY JUST WANT THE CITY TO DO IT’S JOB AND KEEP THE DITCHES AND CULVERTS CLEAN BEFORE EACH WINTER, TO STOP THE FLOODING. This particular ditch may not have been cleaned in over 10 years.
12) Because virtually all development on Davis and certainly on Seymour is done, this short section of improvement serves very little purpose. Both roads are dead-ends at our location.
13) Seymour was just repaved by the city this past year. 14) I am not a developer. Creating four lots does not meet the definition of a ‘subdivision’ which starts at five or more.
277
15) We have already spent over $200,000 in required tests, environmental regulations, engineering, surveying and empty land mortgage. We have been paying significant property taxes, and because the city’s infrastructure is too far away will yet have to spend $60,000 on a well, $20,000 on septic, unknown number on easements over deep ditches, grading for runoff, and undergrounding electrical from the street and that just gets us to where conventional home building starts.
16) Each decision delay is very costly - monies spent on land mortgage, that we cannot recover and being told by well contractors that prices are going up.
17) Our understanding is that all conditions must be proportional to the project. Fulfilling all three requirements above clearly makes it disproportional. 18) Planning has said each parcel could fullfill the required conditions when it applies to them. It is completely impractical to underground 1 pole at a time. PG&E is typically 7-18 months behind. The same goes for widening the road one parcel frontage at a time.

The bottom line reality is this: If the Council cannot see clear to waive the undergrounding of the power poles (and perhaps the 15’ shoulder that is really the city’s responsibility), we will be forced to abandon the project, put all four lots up for sale and hope upon hope that someone has deeper pockets than we and be willing to buy land under such harsh conditions. The idea that we can simply charge more for each parcel, thereby deferring the costs, puts the lots above market. They are only worth what they are worth.

We have invested our life savings here, hoping to live near our daughter and young grandkids. If allowed, we will make excellent neighbors and West Sac residents. Hopefully the Council can see the logic in the above request for waiver of #3 and possibly #2 above. Though we don’t want to do any of the three, #1 will provide the most practical impact for the city. Whatever the conclusion, I am also hoping the decision is not carried over to a subsequent meeting. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Johnny and Jeannie Zapara
Exibits included
278
279
Attachment 2
280
Attachment 3
281
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
3071 DAVIS ROAD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #5274 – ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

SUPPORTING FINDINGS THAT PLANS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WEST

SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN
The City of West Sacramento has evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed 3071 Davis Road Tentative Parcel Map (Project) and assessed whether the potential impacts are within the scope of analysis of the certified West Sacramento General Plan 2035 (GP 2035) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #201404287 & 202207093). The EIR was certified in November 2016 by the West Sacramento City Council following all required Native American consultations (Senate Bill [SB] 18 and Assembly Bill [AB] 52), a 45-day public comment period, and workshops and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. This analysis was prepared to determine whether potential impacts of the proposed project, which qualify as “later activities” covered by the GP 2035 EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, are within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR.

Project Location
The Project is located at 3071 Davis Road in West Sacramento (APN 045-212-013-000).

Project Background
2016 General Plan Update
The West Sacramento General Plan 2035 was approved and its EIR certified in November 2016 by the City Council. The city’s current population is estimated to be approximately 53,082 (West Sacramento 2016a), and is projected to reach 81,840 by 2035 (West Sacramento 2016a). Much of the anticipated growth would continue to occur in the Southport area, although other areas, such as the Bridge District and Broderick and Bryte Neighborhoods, are expected to redevelop over time.

As noted above, GP 2035 emphasizes community sustainability and consistency with regional planning efforts, including the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SACOG further found that GP 2035 is consistent with the SCS.

Consistent with CEQA requirements, an EIR was prepared that evaluated the potential physical environmental impacts of plan implementation and was certified by the City Council in November 2016. The project is identified as part of GP 2035 through adopted goals and policies (LU-1.9; LU-3.4; LU-3.6; UD-1.2; PFS-6.7; PFS-9.8; NCR-2.4; NCR-3.3; NCR-4.6; S-1.16) (West Sacramento 2016b).

Project Description
The proposed project is a division of an existing ±5-acre parcel into four separate legal parcels at 3071 Davis Road (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4). All proposed parcels would be utilized as future residential development sites consistent with the General Plan and current zoning standards for the Residential Rural Estates (RE) zone. Proposed Parcels 1 and 2 would front Davis Road.

Proposed Parcel 3 would front Seymour Avenue and provide a new driveway access road and easement for Proposed Parcel 4. All parcels would be served by wells and Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)/septic systems. The property is zoned RE (Residential Rural Estates) – the RE zone is intended to provide a for residential development on large lots and provide a transition between agricultural lands and residential designated lands including detached singleunits and accessory dwelling units, limited agricultural uses, public and quasi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses.
282
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Use of a Program EIR with Later Activities
CEQA Statutes and implementing regulations allow for use of a Program EIR when considering potential impacts for subsequent activities, provided new or substantially more severe environmental impacts do not occur, including impacts associated with a changed condition.

Pending such determination, the agency, in this case the City of West Sacramento, “can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(2).

As noted above, on November 16, 2016, the City of West Sacramento certified a Program EIR that evaluated a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. After certification of the Program EIR and approval of the GP 2035, the City received an application for the 3071 Davis Road Tentative Parcel Map. The GP 2035 EIR is both recently prepared and comprehensive, and based on the analysis presented below, the impacts of the proposed project are determined to be addressed programmatically by the GP 2035 EIR.

Environmental Analysis
Using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines as an analytical tool, the following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed 3071 Davis Road Tentative Parcel Map in the context of the GP 2035 EIR to determine if those impacts are sufficiently covered, or if additional analysis is necessary.

Aesthetics
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.1 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Aesthetics”, describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of visual character and quality, light and glare, and views of and from the planning area (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area is composed of mostly suburban and rural development and agricultural open space with some light commercial and industrial development, educational facilities and riparian corridors. The natural landscape of the planning area is mostly flat with raised levees and is composed of vegetation in the form of residential landscaping, agricultural crops and hedgerows, and riparian vegetation along the river and in swales and drainages throughout rural residential lands.

Residential landscaping and riparian vegetation, when combined with development in the planning area, act to restrict views largely to the foreground. The southern portion of the city, Southport, is predominantly new suburban development, while the northern and central portions of the city are characterized by older suburban development with pockets of modern redevelopment. There are no federal, state, or locally designated scenic roadways within the planning area.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 could result in substantial adverse modifications of existing topography, vegetation, or land uses such that existing visual character and views would be affected. This potential adverse change would occur predominantly within open space, agricultural, and undeveloped area that may be altered over time. Impacts to existing visual character were determined to be significant and unavoidable with GP 2035 implementation. Additionally, development anticipated under GP 2035 could also result in an increase in light and glare within the planning area, and impacts were also determined to be significant and unavoidable with implementation of the feasible mitigation related to glare reduction and lighting type and efficiency requirements. 283
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road. The project would not affect a scenic vista or damage any scenic resources. The project would be located within an existing rural residential environment and is not expected to impede the visual character of the existing neighborhood and not create any sources of light other than those which are typical in a rural residential neighborhood. The proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts beyond those which were analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics and associated with the proposed project are within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.2 of the GP EIR, “Agricultural and Forestry Resources”, describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of Important Farmland, land under Williamson Act contracts, and land used for agricultural uses (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area is composed of mostly suburban and rural development, with agricultural activities taking place in the southern portion of the planning area.

Agricultural land within the planning area includes both Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The principal crops include wheat, alfalfa, vegetables, and fruits. There are no Williamson Act contract lands within West Sacramento.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that land currently being farmed is planned for urbanization. As such, the GP 2035 EIR concluded that the urbanization resulting from buildout of GP 2035 would remove existing farmland from agricultural production. No feasible mitigation was available, and this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Because GP 2035 supports agricultural uses and preserves existing farmland, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that its implementation would not result in other changes that would result in indirect conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road. The project would not substantially affect any existing agricultural operations. The project site is located on vacant land classified as “Farmland of Local Potential” on the California Important Farmland Map. No portions of the site are actively used for farming. Because of this, none of the actions identified as part of the proposed project would result in conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to agricultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.
284
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Air Quality
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.3 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Air Quality,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of ambient air quality, regional climate, and air quality regulation attainment status (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area is located in Yolo County within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is bounded on the north by the Cascade Range, on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the Coast Ranges. The SVAB contains all of Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Sacramento, and Shasta Counties, as well as a portion of Solano and Placer Counties.

The GP 2035 EIR notes occasional violations of the ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national and state standards, but no violations of the large particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards were reported during the monitoring period for the GP 2035 EIR (West Sacramento 2016a:3.3-7). The GP 2035 EIR concludes that while implementation of the General Plan would not be expected to conflict with applicable air quality plans and regulations, buildout would result in pollutant emissions that could be significant and unavoidable. While adherence to measures required by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) would help reduce construction and operational emissions, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that the lack of project-specific information made it infeasible to calculate construction and operational emissions such that it could be determined whether mitigation measures would reduce emission levels to below the thresholds of significance. Hence, construction and operational emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable, despite mitigation.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not include substantially increase operational air emissions. However, construction activities to implement the project would result in air pollutant emissions. These activities would be subject to the YSAQMD requirements and City rules regarding best management practices and processes required to reduce air quality impacts. Mitigation measures included in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to all actions undertaken as part of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 and applicable YSAQMD requirements identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with the project but would not preclude potentially significant, site-specific impacts, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

As such, the potential environmental impacts related to air quality and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Biological Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.4 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Biological Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of land cover types, wetlands and jurisdictional waters, special-status species, critical habitat, and wildlife corridors (West Sacramento 2016a).

That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. 285
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
The planning area includes the following landcover types: agriculture, annual grassland, fresh emergent wetland, lacustrine, oak woodland, orchard, riverine, urban, and Valley foothill riparian.

The GP 2035 EIR noted that 24 special-status plant species, 16 special-status wildlife species, and 9 special-status fish species occur in or near the area. The GP 2035 EIR also noted that the planning area includes critical habitat for multiple special-status fish species.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The analysis concluded that compliance with GP 2035 policies, including policy revisions required by Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO- 7, and BIO-12, would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Yolo County Natural Heritage Program, a countywide multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation plan, was adopted by the County in 2018. The HCP/NCCP is overseen by a jointpowers authority, of which the City is a member. Title 20 of the City’s municipal code implements the HCP/NCCP.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road. Certain activities/improvements identified within the proposed project could result in impacts to biological resources due to land disturbance from construction of new residential units and the driveway access road. The project applicant has submitted an application for incidental take permit coverage under the Yolo HCP/NCCP and associated Planning Level Survey. The project applicant will also be required to obtain a Tree Permit for any proposed tree removal. Mitigation measure BIO-2 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would reduce impacts associated with the project but would not preclude potentially significant, site-specific impacts, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to biological resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Cultural Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.5 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Cultural Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic contexts (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The studies conducted or reviewed during preparation of the GP 2035 EIR indicate that there are 71 historic era resources and 10 prehistoric resources within West Sacramento (West Sacramento 2016a:3.5-10).

The GP 2035 EIR notes that project-level review would be required for all future projects, and that future projects would be consistent with the General Plan and would comply with all state and local laws regarding historical resources. However, because the impacts of individual future projects cannot guarantee that historical resources would not be adversely affected, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts on historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. The GP 2035 EIR notes that future construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 dictate procedures to be implemented, including the treatment of resources, in the event of discovery, 286
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
but would not reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. Thus, all impacts related to cultural resources were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect historic resources. However, certain activities/improvements identified within the proposed project, especially those that may involve the disturbance of previously undisturbed soils, could result in the construction activities that could result in discovery of previously unknown resources. Should any resources be discovered, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be implemented, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with implementation of the project but would not preclude potentially significant site-specific impacts, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.6 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of seismicity, geologic formations, and soil characteristics (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Although the planning area is located in a region of California characterized by relatively low seismic activity, seismic hazards are present.

The nearest active fault is the Cordelia fault approximately 30 miles west of the planning area (West Sacramento 2016a:3.6- 5). The GP 2035 EIR noted that 24 soil series occur within the planning area, most of which are disturbed as a result of agricultural cultivation or construction of suburban and urban development. The GP 2035 EIR also noted that most of the planning area is immediately underlain by Holocene dune sands, which are unlikely to contain fossils (West Sacramento 2016a:3.6-9).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would not result in significant impacts related to geology, soils, or paleontological resources. GP 2035 policies and California Building Code (CBC) require that new structures be designed to withstand seismic activity.

Furthermore, preparation of project-specific geotechnical reports and implementation of their recommendations, as required by GP 2035 policy, would minimize impacts related to unsuitable soils. Because GP 2035 does not include policies or practices to specifically protect paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure GEO-7 requires the City to determine whether discretionary projects would be located in an area of paleontological sensitivity.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect seismic hazards in the area. However, earth-moving activities could result in impacts related to soil erosion, unsuitable soils, or paleontological resources. While the extent and location of future ground disturbance are not known at this time, all activities would be 287
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
carried out in compliance with GP 2035 EIR policies. Further, the CBC requires specific design and soil compaction measures be implemented on a case-by-case basis such that impacts related to geology and soils would be less-than-significant, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce potential impacts related to paleontological resources.

The potential environmental impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.7 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

The specific chemical properties of GHGs enable them to become well mixed within the atmosphere and transported over long distances. Consequently, unlike other resource areas that are primarily concerned with localized (e.g., within 1,000 feet of a project site) project impacts, the global nature of climate change requires a broader analytical approach. Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The principle anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorinated carbons (PFCs). The global warming potential (GWP) of various GHG emissions is expressed on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition). West Sacramento prepared an inventory in 2011 that indicated that West Sacramento residents and businesses generated approximately 447,387 metric tons CO2e. The transportation sector represents the largest source of community emissions (48 percent), followed by building energy consumption (36 percent) (West Sacramento 2016a:3.7-8).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in substantial GHG emissions and therefore significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions, as well as potential inconsistencies with policies and regulations that seek to reduce GHG emissions.

The analysis noted that while the City’s climate action plan (CAP) is still in draft form, it is anticipated to focus on reducing community emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets.

The analysis also noted that while GP 2035 did not propose any specific development projects, construction would occur as buildout of the planning area proceeds under GP 2035. The level of construction activities that would take place with implementation of GP 2035 was reported as unknown. While compliance with measures that would reduce GHG emissions (e.g., limits on truck idling), the GP 2035 EIR concludes that it may not be feasible in all cases to ensure that emissions would be below applicable thresholds, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
288
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not result in substantial GHG emissions. However, construction activities would result in GHG emissions, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Such activities would be subject to City requirements regarding GHG emissions reduction. Because the project constitutes a project associated with implementation of GP 2035, policies identified in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to all actions undertaken as part of the project.

The potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.8 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of hazards to the public’s health and safety (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. West Sacramento has a substantial number of industries and activities that transport, store, and use toxic or hazardous chemicals, posing significant potential safety hazards.

There are 50 facilities and activities in the planning area that store and/or use toxic materials.

Additionally, there are 15 active open cleanup sites listed in the Geotracker database, and two active sites listed in the Envirostor database. Two sites within the planning area are listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List. The Capitol Plating site is a former metalplating facility located at 319 Third Street. Site assessment has been underway since 1999 and the status has been listed as Open-Inactive since 1999. The facility was demolished in 2005. The C & S Battery site is a former battery recycling facility located at 860 Riske Lane. A site characterization workplan was completed in 2023. The facility ceased operations in 1978. (West Sacramento 2016a:3.8-8).

West Sacramento is within the flight path of several airports. The closest public airport is the Sacramento Executive Airport, approximately 1.60 miles west of the southern portion of the city.

Mather Airport is located approximately 15 miles east, Sacramento International Airport is approximately 5 miles north, and McClellan Airfield, formerly an Air Force base, is approximately 10 miles northeast of the city.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that, with implementation of federal, state, and local regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in significant effects related to hazards. While multiple airports are within two miles of the planning area, no part of the planning area is within the safety zone of any airport.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that while future construction activities could cause temporary changes in emergency access, existing City requirements for construction projects require signage and an access plan to ensure accessibility during construction.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not involve any new use of hazardous materials or create new hazards. Compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous materials would minimize potential impacts, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR. 289
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
The potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.9 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of surface water flow, groundwater, potential for flooding, and water quality (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

The Sacramento River is the largest river in California, flowing along the east and northeast boundaries of the city. According to the 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), all areas within the planning area but outside the main waterways are mapped as Zone X—area protected from the 1 percent chance (100-year) flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure of overtopping during longer floods.

FEMA’s flood risk maps are being revised and based on the results of these studies, new draft revised FEMA maps are expected to show that all or parts of West Sacramento may neither meet 100-year flood standards nor 200-year level of flood protection required by the Central Valley Flood Protection Program (CVFPP) for urban areas (West Sacramento 2016a:3.9-23). West Sacramento is within the natural floodplain of the Sacramento River at the confluence with the American River and is surrounded on all four sides by a series of levees designed to provide flood protection. The river levees channelize the river into a fixed alignment by preventing future channel meandering and separating the channel from its historic floodplain. In light of the flood risk to West Sacramento, the West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program (WSLIP) is undertaking extensive measures to reduce risk and achieve a minimum of 200-year flood protection for the entire city within the existing levee system by improving the approximately 50 miles of levees protecting West Sacramento (City of West Sacramento 2016a:3.9-29).

Most stormwater runoff is West Sacramento is conveyed by gravity flow to the larger earthen channels or pipelines, the City or a reclamation district also operates twelve pumping stations. A pump station near River City High School discharges to the RD 900 drainage canal. There are two pump stations in Southport which discharge into the Sacramento DWSC. The main pump station for Southport is located at the southwest corner of Southport Industrial Park and serves the industrial park and the Bridgeway Island subdivision. In the south section of the city, rain water is conveyed by gravity pipe to a retention basin. As needed, flows are then pumped out of the retention basin into a drainage canal (mostly the Main Drain). The drainage canals flow to the main pump station at the southwest corner of Southport where excess is pumped over the levee into the Sacramento DWSC. In the south half of the city, all drainage facilities are owned, operated, and maintained by RD 900. Both the Yolo Bypass and the Deep Water Ship Channel drain southward into the San Francisco Bay–Delta (City of West Sacramento 2003).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology or water quality, with the exception of placing housing units within the 100- year floodplain. Impact WQ-8 noted that while new development would occur within the existing levee system surrounding the city, some of these areas may not meet the 100- year and 200-year flood protection requirements. Policies in GP 2035, as well as requirements of other state and local programs, require all new development to demonstrate 200-year flood 290
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
protection or to contribute in-lieu fees toward making physical improvements to the existing levee system. However, it will be many years until the flood protection goal is achieved, meaning that new development may not have 100-year flood protection. Thus, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that adherence to state and local regulations and GP 2035 policies would generally preclude significant hydrology and water quality impacts. In particular, construction activities pursuant to GP 2035 would be required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as part of compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not place housing within the 100-year floodplain. However, construction activities associated with activities/improvements identified by the project description could result in temporary construction impacts related to hydrology and water quality, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. As discussed above relative to the project background, the proposed project is consistent with the approved GP 2035. Policies identified in the GP 2035 EIR would reduce but not prevent impacts associated with their implementation, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Land Use and Planning
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.10 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Land Use and Planning,” describes the planning area in terms of physical division of established communities, existing and proposed changes to land use and land use designations, conflicts with City land use policies and regulation, and conflicts with any applicable conservation plans (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Existing land uses in the city range from small single-family residences to industrial complexes and the Port of West Sacramento. The northwestern quadrant is largely industrial and commercial. The northeastern quadrant includes commercial and office uses as well as existing and developing residential neighborhoods. The area immediately south of the Ship Channel is largely industrial.

Farther south, the Southport area contains residential areas and associated commercial uses that are still largely undeveloped.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that although no change in the distribution of land use types are proposed, revisions to some land use designations would provide for more intensive development. Because GP 2035 includes numerous policies to avoid dividing established communities and ensure that new development remains interconnected, the EIR concluded that GP 2035 would not result in physical division of existing communities.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that GP 2035 would not reduce the effectiveness of any plans or regulations that protect the environment and that GP 2035 additional policies also provide for environmental protection. Therefore, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts related to GP 2035 291
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
conflicts with applicable policies and regulations intended to protect the environment would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect existing land use and planning upon completion of the project.

Creation of the additional residential development parcels would not result in the physical division of established communities, nor conflict with City land use policies and regulations that protect the environment. None of the actions resulting from the project would result in land use changes beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to land use and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Mineral Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.11 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Mineral Resources,” describes the planning area in terms of known mineral resources of value and natural gas resources (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Most of the planning area is designated as MRZ-1 (no significant mineral deposits), with a band of MRZ-3 (unknown) along the river. None of the planning area is designated as MRZ-2 (likelihood of significant mineral deposits).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that because there are no mines regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) or MRZ-2 areas of value to the region that occur in the planning area, no impact to known mineral resources would occur. Further, GP 2035 does not delineate any land uses within the planning area for mineral resource extraction; therefore, no impact related to development of land delineated for mining on a local general plan would occur with implementation of GP 2035.

Impact Analysis
The planning area is not located in an area associated with mineral resources or mineral extraction. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources or extraction. As such, the potential environmental impacts related to mineral resources and associated with implementation of the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Noise and Vibration
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.12 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Noise,” describes the planning area in terms of City noise level standards, groundbourne vibration and groundbourne noise levels, ambient noise levels, and noise-sensitive land uses (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. 292
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Existing noise sources in the planning area include motor vehicle traffic, rail operations, aircraft overflights, motorized watercraft on the Sacramento River, industrial facilities, and events at Raley Field. Sensitive noise receptors typically include residences, religious facilities, schools, child care centers, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

All of these land use types, except hospitals, occur within the planning area. No airports or private airfields are within 2 miles of the planning area and the planning area is not included in any airport land use plan; therefore, employees and residents within the planning area would not be exposed to adverse levels of noise from aircraft overflight.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that policies outlined in GP 2035 would help to reduce the potential impacts of construction- and traffic-related noise on noise-sensitive land uses as well as potential increases in ambient noise levels. However, mitigation of these potential future noise impacts may not be feasible in all cases. These impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that future projects that can comply with City Municipal Code Section

17.32 would result in less than significant impacts related to construction vibration. However, GP 2035 notes that it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate vibration to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Development of new noise- and vibration- sensitive land uses located adjacent or close to railroad tracks could be exposed to vibration levels in excess of FTA vibration standards. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of a vibration standards policy added to the General Plan (Mitigation Measure NOI-2) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road. Construction of new residences would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and would not result in substantial noise impacts. The primary noise associated with construction of the residences would be from motorized construction equipment. Further, none of the construction from the project would result in noise or groundbourne vibration changes beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to the proposed project and reduce any potential vibration impacts of the proposed project to less-thansignificant levels, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to noise and vibration associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Population and Housing
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.13 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Population and Housing,” describes the planning area in terms of population growth trends and housing trends and projections (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area encompasses 21.4 square miles and had approximately 51,272 residents in 2015. According to 2000 and 2010 census data, West Sacramento’s population increased by 54 percent between 2000 and 2010; however, between 2010 and 2015, this trend slowed to 5.2 percent citywide. As noted above, SACOG projects the population of West Sacramento will reach 81,480 by 2035, an increase of approximately 30,208 residents or 59 percent from the 2015 population (West Sacramento 2016a:3.13-4). 293
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Citywide, the California Department of Finance estimates indicate that there were 18,048 occupied housing units in 2015, and a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent. In 2015, there were a total of 19,268 housing units, of which 12,144 were single-family detached units, 1,015 were single-family attached units, 1,257 were multifamily structures with two to four units, 3,344 were multifamily structures with five or more units, and 1,508 were mobile homes. In 2015, the average household size countywide was approximately 2.82 people and SACOG projections indicate the average household size in West Sacramento is expected to decrease to 2.57 by 2035.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the purpose of GP 2035 is to accommodate future population growth and development by responding to regional growth forecasts, and concluded that although GP 2035 would not directly result in new homes or businesses that would substantially increase population growth in the planning area, it would indirectly result in population growth through individual developments and the extension of roads and other infrastructure improvements as the city becomes more completely developed. The EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable, and no mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

The EIR notes that land use and zoning changes in GP 2035 do not propose specific development that would result in the displacement of existing housing units or residents and necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that any impact on existing housing units would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect population and housing growth due to the overall number of new developable lots (2). None of the details regarding the project as discussed in the project description would result in population growth beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to population and housing and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Public Services
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.14 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Public Services,” describes the planning area in terms of available fire protection and emergency services, police protection services, and schools, parks, and libraries (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The West Sacramento Fire Department (WSFD) provides fire administration, emergency operations, and fire prevention/hazardous materials services within the city. The average response time for the WSFD overall is 4:42 minutes from time of dispatch to arrival on scene. The West Sacramento Police Department (WSPD) is responsible for enforcing the laws of the State of California and local ordinances.

The planning area is served by the Washington Unified School District (WUSD), which provides primary, secondary, and high school education services to residents. As of 2023, WUSD had a total capacity of 10,393 students and enrollment of 8,102. WUSD enrollment has stagnated and is projected to enroll 8,100 students in the 2024/25 school year. West Sacramento Parks and 294
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
Recreation oversees the maintenance of 145+ acres of developed city parks. There are currently 33 parks, plazas, and playfields within the city, totaling 152.6 acres. The 2003 Parks MP sets a standard of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents—2 acres in neighborhood parks and 3 acres in community parks. With a projected population in 2035 of 81,480 residents, 407.4 acres of parks would be required to meet the City’s standard of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents—254.8 acres more than currently exist. The Yolo County Library offers library service to the entire planning area and the Arthur F. Turner Community Library is an 18,000- square-foot facility that provides library services to residents in the planning area.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that GP 2035 integrates population projections adopted by SACOG that extend the planning horizon to 2035. SACOG’s regional growth forecast predicts a population for the city of 81,480 by 2035, an increase of approximately 30,208 residents from the current 2015 population (West Sacramento 2016a:3.13-4). Consequently, the GP 2035 EIR points out that it is a reasonable expectation that population and housing within the planning area would increase the demands on all public services within the planning area, resulting in a reasonably foreseeable need for new or expanded facilities. GP 2035 sets forth goals and polices to ensure adequate levels of service and funding for public services as development occurs. Potential environmental impacts associated with construction or expansion of future public service facilities are typical of other land development impacts, including construction noise and potential temporary disruption of access, as well as potential impacts related to site-specific conditions, such as biological or cultural resources, depending on the site location. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that mitigation measures for impacts of implementation of the General Plan as updated (Mitigation Measure CUL-2 [require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources], CUL-3 [implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains], and WQ-3 [Implement a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Permit) would ensure that impacts of construction or expansion of future police facilities would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect public services upon completion of the project. As described above, the project would facilitate minimal population growth with the addition of 4 developable lots.

However, none of the actions or demand increases that would result from implementation of the project would drive population growth beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to public services and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Recreation
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.15 of the 2016 GP 2035 EIR, “Recreation,” describes the planning area in terms of existing recreational facilities and applicable plans and policies (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The GP 2035 EIR notes that there were 33 parks, plazas, and playfields in the city: 77.1 acres of community parks and 75.6 neighborhood parks and mini parks, totaling 152.7 acres. Based on a population of 51,272, the GP 2035 EIR notes that West Sacramento 295
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
needed an additional 103.7 acres of parks to meet the 2003 Parks Master Plan standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. (West Sacramento 2016a:3.15-7).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in population increases such that a substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur. Because the 2003 Parks Master Plan requires the City to provide 5 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents, sufficient parkland would be provided so that deterioration of existing facilities would not be accelerated. The GP 2035 EIR notes that new recreational facilities would be constructed as part of the implementation of GP 2035. Construction of new facilities could result in environmental effects, but implementation of mitigation measures discussed throughout the GP 2035 EIR would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Applicable mitigation measures include Mitigation Measures BIO-6, CUL-2, CUL-3, and WQ-3.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect existing or future recreational facilities. Further, no recreational facilities would be directly affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. However, GP 2035 policies and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to recreational facilities and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Transportation and Traffic
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.6 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Transportation/Traffic,” describes the planning area in terms of the street and road system, traffic conditions, the bicycle and pedestrian system, and public transit (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. West Sacramento includes a variety of roadway types, including local, collector, and arterial roads as well as freeways. The GP 2035 EIR identifies road segments and intersections that were operating at unacceptable level of service (LOS) at the time of preparation of the GP 2035 EIR (see Table 3.16-5 of the GP 2035 EIR). West Sacramento streets serve as the connection for bicycle traffic between the cities of Sacramento and Davis. West Capitol Avenue provides the direct connection from the bicycle path across the Yolo Causeway to the Tower Bridge. West Sacramento is served by a combination of local and regional bus, rail, and air transportation providers, including YOLOBUS, Sacramento Regional Transit bus and light rail, Amtrak, and the Sacramento International Airport.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to deterioration of LOS on freeway ramps and segments because projects can pay into the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program (SCMP). Caltrans agrees that payment of the SCMP fee would adequately mitigation a project’s impact on the state highway system.

Additionally, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would not have significant effects related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transit, or air traffic.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to deterioration of LOS at intersections and arterial and collector 296
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
roads due to traffic volumes. The analysis noted that construction of additional lanes could provide adequate capacity, but that such expansion would not be appropriate for residential streets. The analysis also noted that while some roadways may exceed maximum desirable volume, it does not necessarily also mean an exceedance of acceptable LOS standards.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect existing or future traffic patterns or volumes. However, certain activities identified within the proposed project could result in construction activities that could temporarily interfere with roadway operations (i.e., temporary road/lane closures). GP 2035 policies and City requirements would reduce impacts associated with these project-related activities/improvements, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to transportation/traffic and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Setting
Consistent with requirements established by the passage of AB 52, which establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes for certain projects subject to CEQA, the GP 2035 EIR included an evaluation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, including consultation with interested tribes, as part of its analysis. That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The GP 2035 EIR notes that project-level review would be required for all future projects, and that future projects would be consistent with GP 2035 and would comply with all state and local laws regarding cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. However, because the impacts of individual future projects cannot guarantee that tribal cultural resources would not be adversely affected, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Impacts CUL2 and CUL-3). Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 dictate procedures to be implemented, including the treatment of resources, in the event of discovery, but would not reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. Thus, all impacts from the 2035 GP EIR that addressed tribal cultural resources were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road. Certain activities identified within the proposed project, especially those that may involve the disturbance of previously undisturbed soils, could result in construction activities that could result in discovery of previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Should any such resources be discovered, Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 would be implemented, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with implementation of the MPs but would not preclude potentially significant site-specific impacts, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to tribal cultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation 297
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Utilities and Service Systems
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.17 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Utilities and Service Systems,” describes the planning area in terms of wastewater, water, stormwater, and solid waste, and levels of service to meet the needs of existing and future development (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

Wastewater Treatment
The City is responsible for collection and conveyance of wastewater in the planning area, and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) is responsible for its treatment and disposal. The connection of the City’s wastewater collection system to the SRSCD system is via the 19-mile Lower Northwest Interceptor (LNWI) at the West Sacramento Transition Structure next to the Parlin Ranch subdivision in Southport. Wastewater is conveyed through a 120-inchdiameter gravity pipe to the South River Pump Station and then pumped under the Sacramento River in a force main to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP), north of Elk Grove. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that the potential for exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was unlikely because: (1) the City’s wastewater collection system is connected to the SCRSD via the LNWI and all wastewater is treated at the SCRSD facility in Elk Grove; (2) GP 2035 includes policies to maintain, upgrade, and expand its wastewater collection system (Policies PFS-3.3, - 3.4, and -

3.5) and would establish an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) under GP 2035 to provide financing for public capital facilities and other projects that provide significant benefits to the City; and (3) the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board would set the specific waste discharge requirements for any new or expanded wastewater treatment facility as part of its permit for that facility because future wastewater treatment facilities would be required by law to operate in compliance with any and all requirements of the Central Valley Water Board permits. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the projected population increase in the planning area would increase wastewater treatment demand on the SRWTP. However, SRSCD would not need to increase the capacity of the SRWTP before 2035 because the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan and 2003 Southport Sanitary Sewer Master Plan projections were based on a population exceeding the current 2035 population projection of 81,480 and with the installation of water meters and adoption of water conservation mandates, SRCSD projects that per capita consumption will fall by approximately 25 percent over the next 20+ years, and that the existing capacity of the SRWTP will be sufficient for the next 40+ years. GP 2035 also contains goals and policies that would reduce the amount of wastewater generated and mitigate impacts on existing service (Goal PFS-1 and Policy PFS-1.1; Goal PFS-3 and Policies PFS-3.1 and -3.2). For these reasons, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

Water
The planning area is served by diversions from the Sacramento River in accordance with the City’s appropriative right with the state as well as water available under contract with the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The combined maximum available water supply from these sources is 23,600 af per year (AFY) in an average year. Most of the planning area is served by North Delta Water Agency (NDWA). The City intends to provide groundwater as a backup supply 298
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
with sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the northern portion West Sacramento outside the NDWA’s boundary.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the existing water treatment plant has adequate treatment capacity and would not require expansion because the plant has an existing treatment capacity of 58 mgd.

The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projected an increase in potable water demands based on buildout condition to 52 mgd, and the 2015 UWMP, which was finalized just prior to certification of the GP 2035 EIR, projected a maximum demand of 54.3 mgd. The GP 2035 EIR also concludes that the Water System MP update, would establish the infrastructure necessary to provide the storage and transmission facilities to serve future development within the City. GP 2035 goals and policies (Goal PFS2 and Policies PFS-2.3, -2.4, -2.6, and -2.8) would ensure an adequate level of service in the City's water system is maintained to meet the needs of existing and future development while improving water system efficiency. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

As noted in the GP 2035 EIR, water demand in the planning area would increase as a result of population growth through implementation of GP 2035. The 2010 UWMP identifies a water demand of 13,107 AFY in 2010 and estimates 2035 demand to increase to 23,920 AFY. However, due to uncertainties about the reliability of the water supply from the NDWA under all conditions, it is possible that water supplies would not be sufficient to meet the increased demand.

Accordingly, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable in the GP 2035 EIR.

For the area outside the NDWA (i.e., that area served by the City’s appropriative right and Reclamation), water demand is estimated to reach 2.9 mgd, or 3,248 AFY. Historic water supply in this area, even during the Single Dry Year, has been more than 5,900 AFY. Accordingly, the increased demand would not exceed the available water supply. In addition, the City’s existing groundwater well and the planned new well in the Southport area would supply additional water in an emergency. Consequently, the water supply outside of the NDWA service area would be sufficient to meet the increased demand and the impact was determined to be less than significant.

Stormwater
Stormwater is managed in West Sacramento primarily by Reclamation District (RD) 900 and the City and to a smaller extent by RD 537. Stormwater facilities have typically been constructed and paid for in association with new development and, with a few exceptions, are generally in good condition. The City’s storm water system discharge is permitted under a state-approved Stormwater Management Plan, which includes measures to control and reduce the potential for pollutants to enter the storm drain system and addresses stormwater from new development and redevelopment projects. For the purpose of addressing planned development in the Southport area, the Southport Drainage Master Plan was adopted in 1995. This document was updated in 2001 to address changes in the Southport Framework Land Use Plan and develop drainage impact fees on new development. Currently, the City does not have a drainage master plan for the rest of the planning area. The GP 2035 EIR notes that new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be necessary for buildout of development under GP 2035. The City would be required to comply with the requirements of its state-approved Stormwater Management Plan and GP 2035 goals and policies (Goal PFS-4 and Policy PFS-4.1 through PFS-4.11) to maintain an adequate level of service and prepare a citywide Stormwater MP. In addition, the City has developed Post-Construction Standards Plans that include volumetric and flow criteria that must be met by site design and hydromodification measures using the California Stormwater Quality Association guidelines and would be applicable to all significant redevelopments and new developments. With these measures in place, new facilities that must be built to accommodate 299
Attachment 9 – Technical Memorandum
redevelopment and new development are not expected to significantly affect existing drainage facilities. Nonetheless due to uncertainties about facility location and sizing, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.

Solid Waste
For solid waste disposal, the planning area is served by Yolo County Central Landfill. The GP 2035 EIR notes that the Yolo County Central Landfill is expected to have adequate capacity until at least 2045. In addition, AB 341 requires the waste stream going to landfills to be reduced by 75 percent statewide and CalRecycle would implement strategies to meet this statutory goal through state-level measures and requirements. The County operates the Yolo County Central Landfill and is required by the conditions of its permit from CalRecycle to operate in accordance with state laws and regulations. In addition, GP 2035 includes goal and policies (Goal PFS-5 and Policy PFS-5.3 through PFS-5.15) to minimize the generation of waste, increase recycling, and provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste. The impact was considered less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of four new residential development lots (Parcels No. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and construction of a new driveway access road, the creation of which would not substantially affect utilities and service systems beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR. None of the actions will result in a capacity increase to utilities or service systems as the 2 new residential developable lots will be serviced by individual well and OWTS/septic systems. None of the actions in the project would result in population growth or development beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to utilities and service systems and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed 3071 Davis Road Tentative Parcel Map is within the scope of the EIR prepared for the West Sacramento 2016 General Plan Update, and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no new environmental document is required Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(2).

References:

West Sacramento, City of. 2016a. General Plan Update – Draft Environmental Impact Report.

August.

West Sacramento, City of. 2016b. General Plan 2035 Policy Document. November.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2015. Yolo Habitat Conservancy, About. Available:
http://www.yolohabitatconservancy.org/#!about/cjg9. Accessed April 3, 2017. 300
RESOLUTION 25-67

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO DENYING THE APPEAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5247
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2025 the West Sacramento Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 5247 after conducting a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed map is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento General Plan and Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, Conditions of Approval were recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and certified that the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and SEIR prepared for the General Plan and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project, pursuant to Sections 15183, 15162, and 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 5247 on May 12, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 5247 on August 20, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Finding that the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR and SEIR prepared for the General Plan and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project, pursuant to Sections 15183, 15162, and 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2) Denying the appeal and confirming the Planning Commission’s approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 5247.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento on this 20th day of August 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
301
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
302

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2025 ITEM # 9
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 25-78

AMENDING THE BOOK OF FEES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

RELATED USER FEES
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Marc Rotteveel, Senior Finance Analyst
Roberta Raper, Finance Director
Andrea Ouse, Community Development Director
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to hold a public hearing and to request City Council approval of Resolution 25-78 to amend the Community Development Department’s user fees based on a comprehensive cost-of-service study.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed revisions to the Book of Fees; and

2. Adopt Resolution 25-78 amending the Book of Fees for the Community Development Department.

BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento last conducted a comprehensive review of its fees over 10 years ago. The last update to the Community Development User Fees was done in October 2017. To ensure financial sustainability, legal compliance, and service equity, the City engaged the Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a comprehensive Development Cost of Services (User Fee) Study, focusing on the Community Development Department’s core service areas.

On July 16, 2025, the Community Development Department held a workshop to solicit feedback from the City Council regarding the proposed updates to the Community Development Department’s proposed user fees.

It is important to note that while Development Impact Fees are included in the Book of Fees, the proposed Book of Fee update does not include updates to Development Impact Fees. The scope of the current fee study is limited to the fees and charges designed to cover the cost of providing services related to planning, building, engineering, fire prevention, code enforcement, and other permitting related functions.

ANALYSIS
The comprehensive cost of service study conducted by Matrix used a bottom-up costing approach, calculating the full (direct and indirect) cost of services in divisions/programs such as Building, Planning, Code Enforcement, Engineering, Fire Prevention, Business Licensing, and Sustainability. Time estimates provided by staff were used to establish the cost per unit of service, multiplied by fully burdened hourly rates, and reviewed through an iterative process with each division.

Key Findings
 Under-Recovery: Most fee categories under-recover the full cost of service, especially in Planning, Engineering, Code Enforcement, and Business License application fees.  Over-Recovery: Some fees—particularly permit renewals—were found to exceed actual service costs and must be adjusted downward to remain compliant with California law.  Building Division: Fees were extensively restructured for clarity and consistency, using square footagebased fees for residential projects and valuation-based fees for others. 303
Resolution 25-78 Book of Fees – Community Development
August 20, 2025

 Planning Fees: Many were restructured or consolidated. Deposit-based fees were proposed for complex entitlements, with recommendations for a formal policy on deposits and billing. Workshop on Development Review Enhancements
 Fire Prevention: A new tiered structure based on square footage replaces valuation-based fees for better alignment with workload.
 Surcharges: A General Plan Maintenance Fee (0.21% of valuation or 13% of building permit fees) and an updated Technology Surcharge (12% of permit fees) are proposed to reflect actual ongoing costs.

Table 1 below highlights the key fee changes for each division.

Table 1:

Division Key Fee Changes
Building Division Moved from valuation-based to square footage-based fees. Simplified Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) permit charges.

Business Licenses Reorganized to clearly distinguish between new application and renewal fees.

Code Enforcement Introduced new fees and consolidated inspection charges. Changed some hourly fees to flat-rate structure.

Development
Engineering and Capital
Projects
Added new valuation tiers and improved consistency between related departments.

Sustainability Division Proposed new fees for environmental review, inspection, and consultations.

Fire Prevention Switched from valuation/device-based to square footage-based fees.

Streamlined review and inspection charges.

Planning Eliminated obsolete fees, introduced new application types (e.g., SB 330), and structured deposit-based billing system.

Additionally, the proposed fee changes include the incorporation of a new General Plan Maintenance Fee and an increase to the Technology Surcharge.

Table 2:

Surcharge Type Proposed Change Notes
General Plan
Maintenance Fee 13% of building permit fee Based on valuation or permit fee, depending on method used.

Technology
Surcharge
Increase from 8% to 12% of
permit fees
Reflects costs for permitting software, cloud
hosting, consulting, and tech support.

If approved tonight, the fee changes will go into effect as of November 1, 2025.

Environmental Considerations
This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), 15378(a).)
Commission Recommendation
This fee study and associated draft update to the City’s Book of Fees – Community Development was not presented to a City Commission.

Strategic Plan Integration
The proposed changes are consistent with the Council’s strategic principle of “Core Services & Infrastructure”, which prioritizes working to sustain a financially sound city with quality services and well-maintained infrastructure.

Alternatives
The Council’s primary alternatives to the recommended actions are summarized below:

1. The Council could request additional information and direct staff to return at a future date. 304
Resolution 25-78 Book of Fees – Community Development
August 20, 2025

2. The Council could approve some or none of the recommendations.

Neither alternative is recommended because it would delay full cost recovery on these fees.

Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated by the Community Development Department in consultation with the Finance Department. In addition, staff presented an overview of the cost-of-service study results and proposed book of fee revisions to the Economic and Government Affairs Committee of the West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce in June and August 2025. Feedback received from those presentations was positive.

Budget Cost Impact
Implementation of the proposed fee adjustments will improve the City’s cost recovery, reduce general purpose tax subsidies and the annual net deficit of the Community Development Fund, ensure legal compliance, improved transparency, and result in a more user-friendly fee schedule. Increased revenue from under-recovering services will support more sustainable operations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 25-78

2. Fee Study Report
305
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 25-78

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

AMENDING THE BOOK OF FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to establish fees or service charges which do not exceed the reasonable cost of enforcing regulatory activities or providing product or service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised this authority by adopting Resolution No. 89-128 establishing the City of West Sacramento Book of Fees; and WHEREAS, this Book of Fees is amended from time to time to reflect changes in the cost of enforcing regulatory activities or providing product or service; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Book of Fees to adopt fees for various City services and permits which more closely relate to actual costs; WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento provides a range of services through its Community Development Department, including building, planning, and engineering services that are partially funded through user fees; and
WHEREAS, the City engaged Matrix Consulting to conduct a comprehensive cost-ofservices study which has been completed and resulted in proposed revsiions to the Community Development Department’s user fees; and;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a presentation on the proposed fees at a workshop held on July 16, 2025 and provided feedback on the proposed fees to staff at that meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ORDERED, AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento that:

1. The amended Community Development User Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted and incorporated into the City of West Sacramento Book of Fees.

2. The City Council finds that as required by various government codes, it has held at least one public hearing at which oral or written presentations could be made, as a part of a regularly scheduled meeting, and that notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data of this matter is available, was noticed by publication over a period of ten days in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

3. The City Council finds that the fees specified by this Resolution do not exceed the cost of providing the product or service or the regulation for which the fee is levied.

4. The fees and charges adopted herein are to become effective on November 1, 2025, unless otherwise indicated on the fee schedule or provided for in California law.
306
Resolution 25-78

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 20th day of August 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
307
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee

BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX / ADU (NEW, ADDITIONS, OR REMODELS) Up to 250 sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $215.90 $215.90
251-500 sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $215.90 $215.90
Each Additional 100 Square Feet Each Addl 100 sq. ft. Valuation-Based $268.93 $268.93 501-1,000 sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $888.21 $888.21
Each Additional 100 Square Feet Each Addl 100 sq. ft. Valuation-Based $225.75 $225.75 1,001 - 2,000 sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $2,016.94 $2,016.94 Each Additional 100 Square Feet Each Addl 100 sq. ft. Valuation-Based $30.43 $30.43 2,001 - 3,000 sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $2,321.22 $2,321.22 Each Additional 100 Square Feet Each Addl 100 sq. ft. Valuation-Based $97.66 $97.66 3,001+ sq. ft. Base Valuation-Based $3,297.81 $3,297.81 Each Additional 100 Square Feet Each Addl 100 sq. ft. Valuation-Based $48.83 $48.83 Production Homes (Tracts or repetitive fees) Each Valuation-Based $1,015.74 $1,015.74 MULTI-FAMILY / COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL (Valuation-Based) (NEW, TENANT IMPROVEMENTS) $1-$2,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$215.90 $215.90
$2,001 - $50,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$215.90 $215.90
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$17.18 $17.18
$50,001 - $100,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$1,040.35 $1,040.35
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$75.58 $75.58
$100,001 - $500,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$4,819.19 $4,819.19
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$8.24 $8.24
$500,001 - $1,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$8,117.00 $8,117.00
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$15.72 $15.72
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$15,978.96 $15,978.96
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$3.58 $3.58
$10,000,001 - $25,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$48,191.91 $48,191.91
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$1.06 $1.06
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
308
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fe
e
$25,000,001 - $50,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$64,043.34 $64,043.34
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$0.63 $0.63
$50,000,001 - $100,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$79,894.78 $79,894.78
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$0.33 $0.33
$100,000,001+ Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$96,383.82 $96,383.82
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$0.16 $0.16
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS (Valuation-Based)
$1 - $2,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$177.86 $177.86
$2,001 - $25,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$177.86 $177.86
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$46.37 $46.37
$25,001 - $50,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$736.08 $736.08
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$18.30 $18.30
$50,001 - $100,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$1,256.25 $1,256.25
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$8.62 $8.62
$100,001 - $500,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$2,080.70 $2,080.70
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$1.14 $1.14
$500,001 - $1,000,000 Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$2,944.30 $2,944.30
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$0.89 $0.89
$1,000,001+ Base
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$4,062.94 $4,062.94
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
309
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation Each Addl $1,000 Val
Varies depending on
level of plan review
needed
$0.45 $0.45
MEP
One Trade % of Building Permit Fee Valuation-Based 10% 10% Two Trades % of Building Permit Fee Valuation-Based 20% 20% Three Trades % of Building Permit Fee Valuation-Based 30% 30% Energy Compliance
Plan Review:

Residential Each Valuation-Based $310 $310
Multi-Family Each Valuation-Based $775 $775
Commercial Each Valuation-Based $465 $465
Inspection:

Single-Family Each Valuation-Based $152 $152
Multi-Family / Commercial Each Valuation-Based $608 $608

OTHER PLAN REVIEW, INSPECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION FEES

PLAN REVIEW FEE
Plan Review Fee % of Building Permit 65% 65% 65%
"Fast Track" Permits Expedited Plan Review % of Building Permit 75% 140% 140% Repeat Tract Master Plan Review % of Plan Review New 25% 25% Additional Plan Review* Per Hour Actual Cost $155 $155
Alternate Means & Methods Request (Min. 2 hrs) Per Hour Modified $339 $339 Pre-application Fee Estimates Per Half Hour Actual Cost $63 $63 *Required beyond three (3) submittals

SPECIAL SERVICE FEES
Inspection outside normal business hours
M-F (Min. 2 hrs.) Per Hour Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Weekend / Holidays (Min. 4 hrs) Per Hour Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Plan Review outside normal business hours Per Hour Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Each $350 $591 $591
Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy Per Certificate $50 $63 $63 Building/Property Research Per Half Hour Actual Cost $63 $63 Permit Application / Issued Permit Extension (Half Hour Staff Time) Per extension Hourly Rate $63 $63 Permit Application / Issued Permit Renewal % of Remaining Inspections Valuation-Based % of Remaining Inspections
% of
Remaining
Inspections
Reinspection/Additional Inspection Fee Per Hour Actual Cost $152 $152 Change of Address / Address Assignment Request
Single Unit Flat Rate Hourly Rate $127 $127
Multiple Units Per Hour Hourly Rate $127 $127
Single Commercial/Industrial Unit or Suite Per Hour Hourly Rate $127 $127 Multiple Commercial/Industrial (per project) Per Hour Hourly Rate $127 $127 Work Without Permit Penalty Modified 2x Permit Fee
Building Board of Appeals Per Hour Modified $183 $183
Utility disconnections Per Inspection Actual Cost $228 $228

MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION FEES - RESIDENTIAL
Pre-Manufactured Homes Each Valuation-Based $1,739 $1,739 Single-Family / Duplex Residential Reroof Each Valuation-Based $368 $368 Complete Demolition Each Valuation-Based $368 $368
Remodel like-for-like
Kitchen Each Valuation-Based $368 $368
Bathroom
One Bathroom Each Valuation-Based $368 $368
Two or More Bathroom Each Valuation-Based $368 $368
Kitchen & Bathroom(s) Each Valuation-Based $520 $520
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
310
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee
Windows: Residential (Retrofit: No Frame Alteration or Stucco Removal) 1-5 windows Each Valuation-Based $215 $215
6+ windows Each Valuation-Based $291 $291
Windows: Residential (Stucco Removal) Per Window Valuation-Based $390 $390 Dry Rot Each Valuation-Based $368 $368
Patio Enclosure / Cover / Sunroom / Gazebo
Patio Enclosure / Cover / Sunroom / Gazebo Each Valuation-Based $368 $368 Custom, Non-listed patio cover, enclosure Each Valuation-Based Valuation-Based Valuation-Based Pre-Engineered, Listed Patio cover, enclosure Each Valuation-Based $293 $293 Fences Over 7-ft Each Valuation-Based $445 $445
Fence CMU Each Valuation-Based $597 $597
Sound Wall Each Valuation-Based $523 $523
Stucco/Siding Replacement Each Valuation-Based $215 $215 Residential Lath, Scrath, Final Each Valuation-Based $368 $368 Swimming Pool & Spa
Private: Inground pool and/or spa: pre-gunite, pre-deck, pre-plaster, final Each Valuation-Based $891 $891 Spa: pre-fabricated, above ground (listed) Each Valuation-Based $445 $445 Existing Inground Pool / Spas - Replasters and Repairs Each Valuation-Based $597 $597 Residential Photovoltaic Systems Plan Check & Inspection 15 kw or less Base Valuation-Based $450 $450
Each add kw above 15kw Each Addl KW Valuation-Based $15 $15 Single-Family / Duplex Residential - EV Charging Station Each Valuation-Based $293 $293 Single-Family / Duplex Residential - Energy Storage Systems Each Valuation-Based $445 $445 Combo: Solar, ESS, Elec Panel Changeout Each Valuation-Based $586 $586 Kitchen Hood Each Valuation-Based $434 $434
Miscellaneous MEP Construction
AC Replacement Each Valuation-Based $215 $215
Furnace Replacement Each Valuation-Based $215 $215
Water Heater Each Valuation-Based $215 $215
Appliance Replacement + plan review Each Valuation-Based $293 $293 Generators Flat fee Valuation-Based $445 $445
Adding plugs, circuits, lighting, receptacles (misc. electrical) Each Valuation-Based $368 $368 Duct replacement (Misc. Mechanical) Each Valuation-Based $215 $215 Re-pipe (misc. plumbing) Each Valuation-Based $368 $368

MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION FEES - COMMERCIAL
Equipment Installation
Each type - Plan review Per Installation Valuation-Based $523 $523 Each 2 pieces or fraction thereof - Inspection Each Valuation-Based $431 $431 Re-Roofing
Multi-Family Residential Each Building Valuation-Based $368 $368 Commercial /Industrial Each Building Valuation-Based $368 $368 Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level I/II)
1-5 Stations Each Valuation-Based $586 $586
6+ Stations Each Valuation-Based $1,400 $1,400
Racks and Shelving Each Valuation-Based $664 $664
Sign Permits
Temporary Signs Each Valuation-Based $215 $215
All Other Signs - Monument, Wall Mounted Each Valuation-Based $586 $586 Commercial Kitchen Hood Each Valuation-Based $434 $434
Commercial Photovoltaic Systems Plan Check & Inspection 50 kw or less Base $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Per kw above 50 kw and below 250kw Each Addl KW $7 $7 $7 Per kw above 250kw Each Addl KW $5 $5 $5
Complete Demolition Flat fee Valuation-Based $445 $445
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
311
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee
Miscellaneous Items Not listed Each Actual CostSee Hourly Rates Hourly Rates

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%
General Plan Maintenance Fee % of Building Permit Fee New 13% 13%

BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
Business license fee (home occupation)*
Application Per License $50 $83 $83
Renewal Per License $50 $38 $38
Commercial Business license fees (non-home based)
Application Per License $76 $193 $193
Renewal Per License $76 $38 $38
Non-Local Business license fees (non-home based)
Application Per License $76 $54 $54
Renewal Per License $76 $38 $38
Penalty for late application/renewal Penalty $10 $10 $10 Appeal of business licensing officer decision Per Appeal $50 $87 $87

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%

CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES
Reinspection Fee Per Hour $80 $121 $121
Hotel / Motel Inspection Fee Each New $408 $408
Public Administrative Hearing Fee Per Hearing $300 $376 $376 Declaration of Public Nuisance Fee Each $80 $165 $165
Removal of Recorded Public Nuisance Declaration Fee Each $80 $121 $121 Abatement Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Receivership Per Hour New $121 $121

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PENALTIES
First Violation Per Day $100 $100
Second Violation of Same Ordinance with 12 Months Per Day $200 $200 Each Additional Violation of Same Ordinance with 12 Months Per Day $500 $500

ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS
Administrative costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Late payment charges % of Fee Per Month 10% 10%
Collection costs Actual Costs Actual Costs Actual Costs

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%

ENGINEERING & CAPITAL PROJECTS

ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK FEE
$1 to $650 Base $65 $166 $166
$651 to $25,000 Base $65 $166 $166
$651 to $25,000 Each Additional $ over $25,000 7.00% 10.22% 10.22% $25,001 to $50,000 Base $2,000 $2,655 $2,655
$25,001 to $50,000 Each Additional $ over $25,000 6.50% 15.93% 15.93% $50,001 to $100,000 Base $4,000 $6,639 $6,639
$50,001 to $100,000 Each Additional $ over $50,000 4.00% 6.64% 6.64% $100,001 to $200,000 Base $6,200 $9,958 $9,958
$100,001 to $200,000 Each Additional $ over $100,000 3.50% 3.32% 3.32% $200,001 to $500,000 Base $11,300 $13,277 $13,277
$200,001 to $500,000 Each Additional $ over $200,000 3.00% 3.87% 3.87% $500,000 to $1,000,000 Base New $24,895 $24,895
$500,000 to $1,000,000 Each Additional $ over $500,000 New 2.49% 2.49% $1,000,000 or greater Base New $37,343 $37,343
$1,000,000 or greater Each Additional $ over $1,000,000 New 1.24% 1.24% Re-Review Fee Per Hour New $166 $166
*Includes up to 3 plan reviews, anything more can be charged a re-review fee based on the hourly rate.

EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
312
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee

ENGINEERING / CAPITAL PROJECT INSPECTION FEES
$1 to $650 Base $1,932 $2,066.95 $2,066.95
$651 to $25,000 Each Additional $ over $650 5.62% 6.01% 6.01% $25,001 to $50,000 Base $3,300 $3,529.62 $3,529.62
$25,001 to $50,000 Each Additional $ over $25,000 18.48% 19.77% 19.77% $50,001 to $100,000 Base $7,920 $8,471.10 $8,471.10
$50,001 to $100,000 Each Additional $ over $50,000 10.56% 11.29% 11.29% $100,001 to $200,000 Base $13,200 $14,118.50 $14,118.50 $100,001 to $200,000 Each Additional $ over $100,000 6.53% 6.99% 6.99% $200,001 to $500,000 Base $19,734 $21,107.15 $21,107.15 $200,001 to $500,000 Each Additional $ over $200,000 1.12% 1.20% 1.20% $500,001 to $1,000,000 Base $23,100 $24,707.37 $24,707.37 $500,000 to $1,000,000 Each Additional $ over $500,000 3.23% 3.46% 3.46% $1,000,001 or greater Base $39,270 $42,002.53 $42,002.53 $1,000,000 or greater Each Additional $ over $1,000,000 1.62% 1.73% 1.73%

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE
Application fee Each $250 $331 $331
Valuation fee
See Eng. Plan Check
Valuation Table
See Eng. Plan
Check Valuation
Table
See Eng. Plan
Check
Valuation
Table

ON-SITE PERMIT FEE
Application fee Each $250 $331 $331
Valuation fee
See Eng. Plan Check
Valuation Table
See Eng. Plan
Check Valuation
Table
See Eng. Plan
Check
Valuation
Table

UTILITY PERMIT FEE
Connection Permit Application Fee Each $250 $331 $331

IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATION ON BEHALF OF OTHER AGENCIES
Impact Fee Administration + Remittance Each New $331 $331

GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
Application fee Each $250 $331 $331
Grading Volume Fee:
1 to 200 cubic yards Base $200 $331 $331
201 to 1,000 cubic yards Base $200 $663 $663
201 to 1,000 cubic yards Each additional 100 c.y $15 $41 $41 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards Base $320 $995 $995
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards Each additional 1000 c.y $20 $36 $36 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards Base $500 $1,327 $1,327
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards Each additional 10000 c.y $100 $36 $36 100,001 cubic yards and greater Base $1,400 $1,659 $1,659 100,001 cubic yards and greater Each additional 10000 c.y $60 $18 $18 *supplemental / additional items charged at the plan check rate

GRADING INSPECTION FEES
1 to 200 cubic yards Base $132 $141 $141
201 to 1,000 cubic yards Base $198 $212 $212
201 to 1,000 cubic yards Each additional 100 c.y $25 $26 $26 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards Base $396 $423 $423
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards Each additional 1000 c.y $29 $31 $31 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards Base $660 $705 $705
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards Each additional 10000 c.y $29 $31 $31 100,001 cubic yards and greater Base $924 $988 $988
100,001 cubic yards and greater Each additional 10000 c.y $15 $16 $16

MAP CHECK FEE
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
313
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee
Application Fee Per Application $150 $331 $331
Parcel Map Deposit $2,000 $1,991 $2,000
Final Map Deposit $5,000 $3,319 $4,000
Reimbursement Agreements Deposit New $995 $1,000
Fee Deferral Agreement Deposit New $995 $1,000

MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES
ROW Abandonments / Easements Deposit $750 $829 $1,000
Encroachment License Agreements Deposit $250 $829 $500
Master License Agreements Per Installation New $1,659 $1,659 Engineering Fee Estimates Each $100 $331 $331
Hourly Fee Per Hour
Pass-through Fee Actual Costs

OTHER FEES
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans Per Hour $80 $165 $165

MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Re-inspection Fee Per Hour Actual Cost $141 $141
Minor Encroachment Permit Each New $140 $140

OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES
Inspections outside of normal business hours Per Hour Hourly rate $177 $177 Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of U.A.C. 88 Per Hour Section 305(G) Hourly Rate $141 $141
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Per Hour Hourly Rate $141 $141

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Environmental Review Per Review New $133 $133
Project Consultation Per Hour/Meeting New $133 $133
Annual Inspections Per Inspection New $266 $266
Construction/Demolition Debris Review Per Permit New $133 $133

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%

FIRE PREVENTION (COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION)

FIRE LIFE SAFETY REVIEW / INSPECTION
Commercial Per Permit Valuation-Based $873 $873
Residential Per Permit Valuation-Based $218 $218

ALARM SYSTEMS
Commercial (New)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $983 $983
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,201 $1,201 20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,529 $1,529 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,747 $1,747 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.06 $0.06 Multi-Unit Residential (New)
1-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,201 $1,201 10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,529 $1,529 20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,747 $1,747 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $2,075 $2,075 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.08 $0.08 Tenant Improvement (TI)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $655 $655
10,001 - 20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $910 $910 20,001 - 50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,092 $1,092 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,274 $1,274 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.05 $0.05

SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
See Work Order Billing Rates
Actual Costs
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
314
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fe
e
Commercial (New)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $983 $983
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,201 $1,201 20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,529 $1,529 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,747 $1,747 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.06 $0.06 Multi-Unit Residential (New)
1-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,201 $1,201 10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,529 $1,529 20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,747 $1,747 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $2,075 $2,075 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.08 $0.08 Tenant Improvement (TI)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $655 $655
10,001 - 20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $910 $910 20,001 - 50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,092 $1,092 50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,274 $1,274 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.05 $0.05 Residential Sprinkler System
New Per Permit Valuation-Based $436 $436
Tenant Improvement (TI) Per Permit Valuation-Based $218 $218

OTHER FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Underground fire line Each Valuation-Based $1,092 $1,092 Specialized Fire System Per Hour Valuation-Based $145 $145 Warehousing/High-pile storage
0-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $509 $509
50,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $946 $946 200,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit Valuation-Based $1,310 $1,310 Each Additional Sq. Ft. Per Each Additional Sq. Ft. Valuation-Based $0.01 $0.01 Fire pump Per Pump Valuation-Based $764 $764
Hood/duct system Per System Valuation-Based $764 $764
Solar System
Commerical Per System Valuation-Based $873 $873
Residential Per System Valuation-Based $327 $327
Battery system
Commerical Per System Valuation-Based $764 $764
Residential Per System Valuation-Based $327 $327
Spray booth Per Booth Valuation-Based $764 $764
Liquid/Compressed gas system Per System Valuation-Based $764 $764 Aboveground/Underground tank installation
First Tank Per Permit Valuation-Based $764 $764
Each Additional Tank Per Tank Valuation-Based $72 $72
Aboveground/Underground Tank Removal Per Permit Valuation-Based $983 $983

MISCELANEOUS SERVICES
Board of Appeals Per Hour Valuation-Based $145 $145
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Each Valuation-Based $582 $582 Electric Fences Per Fence Valuation-Based $765 $765
Expedited Review % of Fee Valuation-Based 150% 150%
After Hours Inspection Per Hour Valuation-Based $179 $179 Any Services Not Outlined Above Per Hour Valuation-Based $145 $145

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%

PLANNING
CEQA
Negative Declaration Actual Cost $1,000 $3,856 Actual Cost EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
315
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fe
e
Mitigated Negative Declaration, plus consultant Actual Cost $2,000 $4,627 Actual Cost Environmental Impact Report Actual Cost New Actual Cost Actual Cost

GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, OR ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Text or map change Deposit $8,000 $10,796 $10,000

LAND DIVISION
Parcel map Deposit $4,000 $3,084 $3,000
Subdivision map Deposit $8,000 $6,169 $6,000
Time extensions Deposit $1,500 $1,542 $1,500

APPEALS
Administrative Appeals - All Other Each $50 $4,627 $500 Appeals heard by Board or Commission - All Other Each $100 $4,627 $500 Applicant / Landowner Initiated Appeal Deposit New $4,627 $1,500

PERMITS
Use Permit Deposit $3,000 $3,856 $3,500
Interim Use Permit Deposit New $4,164 $4,000
Temporary Use Permit Deposit $3,000 $1,542 $1,500
Minor Use Permit Deposit $1,200 $2,313 $2,500
Amendment Deposit $3,500 $2,313 $2,500
Planned Development Permit Deposit $5,000 $3,856 $4,000 Wireless Telecommunications Permit Deposit New $3,084 $3,000 Design Review Deposit $1,000 $2,313 $2,500

HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Historic Preservation Review / Mills Review Act Deposit New $3,084 $3,000 OTHER (Planning Commission review)
Variance Deposit $4,000 $3,856 $4,000
Development Agreement Annual Review Deposit New $1,542 $1,500 Other processing involving Planning Commission Deposit $1,000 $1,542 $1,500 Post Adoption Monitoring (i.e., Mitigation Monitoring, Habitat Compliance, COA Approvals) Deposit New $3,084 $3,000

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management Plan Review Each $500 $1,233 $1,233

BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
Residential
Additions and remodels Each $100 $116 $116
New single-family dwellings Each $160 $174 $174
New multifamily (2-4) Each $320 $154 $154
New multifamily (5+ units) Each $800 $771 $771
Commercial and Industrial
Tenant improvement plans, remodels, equipment Each $100 $116 $116 Additions under 10% of existing floor area Each $100 $154 $154 New buildings and major additions Each $800 $1,233 $1,234 Other Construction
Signs Each $90 $116 $116
Swimming pools Each $40 $116 $116
ZONING LETTERS:

Zoning or Code Status Letters Each $60 $116 $116

PASS THROUGH FEES
Deposit for Services CFD Formation Deposit $5,000 $5,000 Deposit for Facilities CFD Formation Deposit $15,000 $15,000 Deposit for Post-approval Monitoring & Enforcement Deposit $200 $200 Administration Cost for Issuing Debt % of Permit Fee 1% 1%

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/ELIMINATION
Merger (lot line elimination) Deposit $1,500 $2,313 $2,500 Lot line adjustment Deposit $2,000 $2,313 $2,500
Certificate of Compliance Each $648 $1,542 $1,500

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR / DIRECTOR ACTIONS
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
316
Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost
Proposed
Fee
Minor modifications/access Zoning Administrator Revision Deposit $1,200 $2,313 $2,500 Administrative Modification per Municipal Code Chapter 17.40 Deposit New $1,233 $1,500 Interpretation of use Zoning Administrator Interpretation Deposit $1,200 $1,542 $1,500 Zero lot line agreement Each $400 $696 $696
Extensions of time (non-land division) Deposit $1,000 $1,233 $1,500 Pre-Application Fee Deposit New $1,233 $1,500
Cannabis Deposit New $4,627 $4,500
Massage Permits Deposit New $3,084 $3,000
SB330 (HCA of 2019) Preliminary Application Deposit New $3,084 $3,000 Request for Waiver Each $320 $385 $386
Other Processing Involving Zoning Administrator / Director Deposit New $1,542 $1,500

PLANNER HOURLY RATE
Planner Services Per Hour Modified $154 $154

SURCHARGES
Technology Fee % of Permit Fee 8% 12% 12%
EXHIBIT A RESO 25-78
317

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA

DRAFT REPORT ON

DEVELOPMENT COST OF

SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
JUNE 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
318

MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4
USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
RESULTS OVERVIEW 9
BUILDING 10
BUSINESS LICENSES 16
CODE ENFORCEMENT 17
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS 19
SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION 23
FIRE (COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION) 24
PLANNING 27
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES 32
COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 36
APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ATTACHMENT 2
319

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The draft report, which follows, presents the results of the Development Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the Community Development Department of the City of West Sacramento, California.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of West Sacramento last conducted a comprehensive review of its fees over 10 years ago. The scope of this analysis is fees under the Community Development Department. This study aims to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of City services based upon the existing organizational structure and processes. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas: Building, Code Enforcement, Engineering and Capital Projects, Fire Prevention, and Planning. The results of this Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Division. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:

TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COST COMPONENTS
Cost Component Description
Direct Fiscal Year 2024 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures.

Indirect Division, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.

Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged.

The work accomplished by Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps:
• Department / Division Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / division staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for addition of new fee items.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 2
320

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established. • Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Due to the modifications in the fee structures, the project team did not calculate an annual revenue impact for the Community Development Department.

The detailed documentation of this study will show an over-collection for some fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will provide the Department and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of providing that service. The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES
Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, including a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.

ADOPT A FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY
The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and fees state that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees, which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover the full cost or partial costs of providing services, sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge or fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision.

Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the City adopt a formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then ATTACHMENT 2
321

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3
potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.

CONTINUE ANNUAL FEE UPDATE / INCREASE MECHANISM
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis.

GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases. Therefore, it is recommended the City establish a practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every five to seven years as this practice captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, code amendments, as well as any new service areas.

In between comprehensive updates, the City should utilize published industry economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost calculations established in the Study annually. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism ensures that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect growth in costs. This annual increase factor should be consistent across all services and be agreed upon by City Council.

ATTACHMENT 2
322

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview regarding legal rules and regulations, as well as general policy considerations, for fees for service. A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In California, constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218; State Government Codes 66014 and 66016; and, more recently, Prop 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the local government user fees are established and administered. Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.”

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received:

TABLE 2: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 2, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter-approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fees, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / group benefit” section of the table lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.
"Global" Community Benefit
•Police
•Park Maintenance
•Fire Suppression
"Global" Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit
•Recreation / Community
Services
•Fire Prevention
Individual or Group Benefit
•Building Permits
•Planning and Zoning
Approval
•Development Engineering
Review

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
ATTACHMENT 2
323

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large. • A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received.

Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit on the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee. Examples includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents and / or transportation permits. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual also equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law.

ATTACHMENT 2
324

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6

SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than, the full cost amount. The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area.” However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. The City will need to review all fees for service in this analysis. Where subsidies are identified, the City should increase the fees to reduce the deficit; where over-recoveries are identified, the fee must be reduced to comply with the law.

ATTACHMENT 2
325

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:

The following subsections discuss the two components of the basis of the full cost.

TIME ESTIMATION
Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates.

The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service. • Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department / division and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized.
• Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies.
• Estimates are not based on time and motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.

The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service while meeting the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and complex projects, the DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Productive Hours)

INDIRECT
(Departmental Admin,
Services & Supplies,
Citywide Overhead etc.)
Total Cost

USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY
ATTACHMENT 2
326

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.

Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule.

FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATES
The City of West Sacramento’s Finance department calculated fully burdened hourly rates to be utilized for the purposes of this study. These fully burdened hourly rates were based on City staff approved methodology of utilizing pay rates, billable hours (excluding vacation, sick, holidays, trainings, etc.), and departmental and Citywide overhead. These rates were provided to the project team and were multiplied against the time assumptions to calculate the full cost of services noted in this report.

ATTACHMENT 2
327

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community and also to maintain control over the policy and management of these services.

It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time,” where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates, allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.

Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).

The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report.

RESULTS OVERVIEW
ATTACHMENT 2
328

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The Building Division is responsible for reviewing building permit applications to ensure compliance with state and local building codes and ordinances, as well as providing inspection services for all building related construction projects. The fees examined within this study relate to structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing plan check and inspection, as well as other various construction services. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Building.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with staff, it was proposed to make several major structural changes and reevaluate how certain fees were being charged for the Building Division. These changes were proposed to help streamline the fee structure and allow for greater clarity. The following points discuss the fee structure modifications:
• Single-Family Residential / Duplex (New, Additions, Remodels): Currently, these fees are charged based on valuation, which varies based on whether it requires full plan review, minimal plan review, or no plan review. Through this study, it was proposed to alter these to be based on square footage. As in the case of single-family / duplex projects, the dollar value associated with the project does not impact the level of effort spent by staff in reviewing or conducting inspections. • Multi-Family / Commercial / Industrial (New Construction, Tenant Improvements): Currently is already valuation-based but is based on the level of plan review needed. This is complicated from the applicant’s standpoint as they may not know which projects require or don’t require what level of plan review. Therefore, it was discussed to streamline into a singular valuation table, in which the dollar value of the project already captures the complexity associated with the project. • Miscellaneous Permits: Currently, all permits are charged based on the valuation, and this catch all category was created for items that don’t fall under either single-family residential, multi-family / commercial, or under the standalone fees. These are again currently charged based on the level of plan review (full review, minimal, or not applicable). The proposed structure streamlines that to be based on the project value the level of effort is pre-determined. • Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Reviews as part of major projects: Rather than having standalone fees that are added to each project on an itemized basis, it was decided that there would be a percentage based fee that would be created to capture the level of effort depending on the number of trades. If there is only one trade (mechanical, electrical, OR plumbing), then it’s a singular percentage that is tacked on, if there are two trades (combination of any two) then a different percentage of the building permit is tacked on, and if all three trades, then a higher percentage of the

BUILDING
ATTACHMENT 2
329

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
building permit. This captures the additional level of staff review and effort that is needed, depending on the trades involved.
• Energy Compliance: Currently, these fees are calculated on an hourly basis, and it has been determined that they could be set as flat fees depending on the project's scope. • Stand-alone Building Fees: Currently, all standalone fees are charged based on valuation and the level of plan review required. Through this process, several permit types were identified to be broken out such as residential re-roofing, hood systems, solar, etc., to more transparently identify to the public the level of fees being assessed.

This proposed fee structure allows for a more streamlined and simplified approach to processing and issuing building permits.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Building Division collects fees for construction permits and MEP permits, as well as services for smaller construction projects such as remodels and pool installations. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following subsections show the detailed results for the Building Division broken out by major category.

DETAILED RESULTS – CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES
As discussed in the modifications section, the construction permit fees were modified from being multiple valuation tables to be square footage based and singular valuation table. The following table details the full cost calculated through this study for these services:

TABLE 3: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES Fee Name Total Cost

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / DUPLEX / ADU (NEW, ADDITIONS, OR REMODELS) Up to 250 sq. ft. $215.90
251-500 sq. ft. $215.90
Each Additional 100 Square Feet $268.93
501-1,000 sq. ft. $888.21
Each Additional 100 Square Feet $225.75
1,001 - 2,000 sq. ft. $2,016.94
Each Additional 100 Square Feet $30.43
2,001 - 3,000 sq. ft. $2,321.22
Each Additional 100 Square Feet $97.66
3,001+ sq. ft. $3,297.81
Each Additional 100 Square Feet $48.83
Production Homes (Tracts or repetitive fees) $1,015.74

MULTI-FAMILY / COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL (NEW, TENANT IMPROVEMENTS) $1-$2,000 $215.90
$2,001 - $50,000 $215.90
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $17.18
$50,001 - $100,000 $1,040.35
ATTACHMENT 2
330

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Fee Name Total Cost
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $75.58
$100,001 - $500,000 $4,819.19
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $8.24
$500,001 - $1,000,000 $8,117.00
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $15.72
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000 $15,978.96
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $3.58
$10,000,001 - $25,000,000 $48,191.91
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $1.06
$25,000,001 - $50,000,000 $64,043.34
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $0.63
$50,000,001 - $100,000,000 $79,894.78
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $0.33
$100,000,001+ $96,383.82
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $0.16
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS (Valuation-Based)
$1 - $2,000 $177.86
$2,001 - $25,000 $177.86
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $46.37
$25,001 - $50,000 $736.08
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $18.30
$50,001 - $100,000 $1,256.25
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $8.62
$100,001 - $500,000 $2,080.70
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $1.14
$500,001 - $1,000,000 $2,944.30
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $0.89
$1,000,001+ $4,062.94
Each Additional $1,000 Valuation $0.45
MEP
One Trade - % of Building Permit Fee 10%
Two Trades - % of Building Permit Fee 20%
Three Trades - % of Building Permit Fee 30%
Energy Compliance
Plan Review:

Residential $310
Multi-Family $775
Commercial $465
Inspection:

Single-Family $152
Multi-Family / Commercial $608
Due to the changes in the fee structure, there is no way to accurately compare the current fee to the full cost. However, under this proposed structure, it is easy for applicants to identify the potential cost of their permits based on just the type / scope of their project.

ATTACHMENT 2
331

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
DETAILED RESULTS – PLAN REVIEW FEES
Under the Plan review section, the current fees were comparable to the full cost calculated. As such, the following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 4: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLAN REVIEW FEES Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference

PLAN REVIEW FEE
Plan Review Fee 65% 65% 0%
Expedited Plan Review 75% 140% (65%)
Repeat Tract Master Plan Review New 25% N/A
Additional Plan Review1 Actual Cost $155 N/A
Alternate Means & Methods Request (Min. 2 hrs.) Modified2 $339 N/A Pre-application Fee Estimates Actual Cost $63 N/A
Based on the full cost, the expedited plan review is under-recovering and all other services are not comparable or in alignment with full cost.

DETAILED RESULTS – SPECIAL SERVICES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES As discussed in the modifications section, the special services and miscellaneous fees were modified from being based on the actual cost of hourly rates or valuation, depending on the level of plan review (full, minimal, or none), to flat-rate fees or per-hour fees with hourly rates identified. The following table details the full cost calculated through this study for these services:

TABLE 5: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – SPECIAL SERVICES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Fee Name Total Cost

SPECIAL SERVICE FEES
Inspection outside normal business hours
M-F – per hour (min. 2 hrs.) Actual Cost
Weekend / Holidays – per hour (min 4 hrs.) Actual Cost
Plan Review outside normal business hours – per hour Actual Cost Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $591
Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy $63
Building/Property Research $63
Permit Application / Issued Permit Extension (Half Hour Staff Time) $63 Permit Application / Issued Permit Renewal % of Remaining Project Reinspection/Additional Inspection Fee $152
Change of Address / Address Assignment Request
Residential $127
Multi-Family – per unit – per hour $127
Single Commercial/Industrial Unit or Suite $127
Multiple Commercial/Industrial (per project) $127
1 This is only required if plan review goes beyond the third (3rd) submittal. 2 Originally a flat fee but is being proposed to be a per hour with minimum 2 hours.

ATTACHMENT 2
332

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
Fee Name Total Cost
Building Board of Appeals $183
Utility disconnections $228

MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION FEES - RESIDENTIAL
Pre-Manufactured Homes $1,739
Single-Family / Duplex Residential - Reroof $368
Complete Demolition $368
Remodel like-for-like
Kitchen $368
Bathroom
One Bathroom $368
Two or More – per bathroom $368
Kitchen & Bathroom(s) $520
Windows: Residential (Retrofit: No Frame Alteration or Stucco Removal) 1-5 windows $215
6+ windows $291
Windows: Residential (Stucco Removal) $390
Dry Rot $368
Patio Enclosure / Cover / Sunroom / Gazebo
Patio Enclosure / Cover / Sunroom / Gazebo $368
Custom, Non-listed patio cover, enclosure Valuation-Based Pre-Engineered, Listed Patio cover, enclosure $293
Fences Over 7-ft $445
Fence CMU $597
Sound Wall $523
Stucco/Siding Replacement $215
Residential Lath, Scrath, Final $368
Swimming Pool & Spa
Private: Inground pool and/or spa: pre-gunite, pre-deck, pre-plaster, final $891 Spa: pre-fabricated, above ground (listed) $445
Existing Inground Pool / Spas - Replasters and Repairs $597 Rooftop Solar Energy System (Per Dwelling)
15 Kw or less $450
Each add Kw above 15Kw $15
Single-Family / Duplex Residential – EV Charging Station $293 Energy Storage Systems (ESS) Single-Family / Duplex Residential $445 Combo: Solar, ESS, Elec Panel Changeout $586
Kitchen Hood $434
Miscellaneous MEP Construction
AC Replacement $215
Furnace Replacement $215
Water Heater $215
Appliance Replacement + plan review $293
Generators $445
Misc. Electrical - Adding plugs, circuits, lighting, receptacles $368 Misc. Mechanical - Duct replacement $215
Misc. Plumbing - Re-pipe $368
MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION FEES – MULTI-FAMILY / COMMERCIAL Equipment Installation
Each type - Plan review $523
ATTACHMENT 2
333

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
Fee Name Total Cost
Each 2 pieces or fraction thereof - Inspection $431
Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations
Multi-Family / Commercial (Level I/II)
1-5 Stations $586
6+ Stations $1,400
Re-Roofing
Multi-Family Residential – per building $368
Commercial /Industrial – per building $368
Racks and Shelving $664
Sign Permits
Temporary Signs $215
All Other Signs - Monument, Wall Mounted $586
Commercial Kitchen Hood $434
Commercial Photovoltaic Systems Plan Check & Inspection 50 kw or less $1,000
Per kw above 50 kw and below 250kw $7
Per kw above 250kw $5
Complete Demolition $445
Miscellaneous Items – Not Listed See Hourly Rates
Due to the significant structural changes to the fee schedule, it is difficult to compare the City’s current fees to the full cost calculated through this study. However, the proposed modifications will simplify the administration of many of the over-the-counter permits by providing an itemized list for applicants and staff to refer to as they are doing their projects. Additionally, for the photovoltaic systems have been set up to mimic the state structure.

ATTACHMENT 2
334

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
The Planning Division is responsible for the oversight of the City's business licensing process, ensuring compliance with local regulations and collecting necessary fees. The fees examined within this study relate to home occupation, commercial and non-local business licenses. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Business Licenses.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with staff, to streamline the fee schedule, staff proposed expanding all business license fees into an ‘Application’ and ‘Renewal’ fee.
- ‘Business license fee (home occupation)’
- ‘Commercial Business license fees (non-home based)’
- ‘Non-Local Business license fees (non-home based)’
These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects business license services.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Planning Division collects fees for new and renewal of business license applications. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 6: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – BUSINESS LICENSE Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Business license fee (home occupation)
Application $50 $83 ($33)
Renewal $50 $38 $12
Commercial Business license fees (non-home based)
Application $76 $193 ($117)
Renewal $76 $38 $38
Non-Local Business license fees (non-home based)
Application $76 $54 $22
Renewal $76 $38 $38
Penalty for late application/renewal $10 $10 $0
Appeal of business licensing officer decision $50 $87 ($37) The Department is under-recovering for the application fees for Business licenses and appeals, but it is over-recovering for the renewal fees for Business licenses. The parsing out of the fees into new and renewal allows the Department to ensure that it is more appropriately capturing that support.

BUSINESS LICENSES
ATTACHMENT 2
335

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing all adopted City codes. The fees and penalties examined within this study relate to inspection, abatement, extensions, and citations. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Code Enforcement.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fee as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- ‘Hotel / Motel Inspection’
- ‘Receivership’
• Modified Fees: The following are miscellaneous modifications proposed by staff:
- Staff proposed combining the ‘Pre-Hearing Inspection Fee’, ‘Compliance re-inspections’ and ‘Extension’ with the ‘Reinspection Fee’, as they all represent inspection services that are charged hourly.
- Staff proposed changing the fees for ‘Post-Hearing Decision’, ‘Declaration of Public Nuisance’, and ‘Removal of Recorded Public Nuisance Declaration’ from being charged hourly to flat fees. - Staff proposed renaming the ‘Public Hearing Fee’ to be ‘Administrative Hearing Fee’ and combining it with the ‘Post Hearing Decision Fee’, as these services would not be provided independently of each other.
• Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed the elimination of the ‘Title Search Fee’, as this process is rarely provided in-house, and title can be procured from County sources, at which point actual costs would be passed onto applicants.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services currently being provided by the Code Enforcement Division.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Code Enforcement Division collects fees and penalties for various inspections, hearings, and other services. The total cost calculated for each service (excluding penalties) includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

CODE ENFORCEMENT
ATTACHMENT 2
336

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
TABLE 7: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – CODE ENFORCEMENT Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Reinspection Fee $80 $121 ($41)
Hotel / Motel Inspection Fee New $408 N/A
Administrative Hearing Fee $300 $376 ($76)
Declaration of Public Nuisance Fee $80 $165 ($86)
Removal of Recorded Public Nuisance Declaration Fee $80 $121 ($41) Abatement Fee Actual Costs $0 N/A
Receivership New $121 N/A
Of the flat service-based fees, Code Enforcement primarily under-recovers for their services. The largest deficit at $86 is in relation to the ‘Declaration of Public Nuisance Fee’. No penalties and fines were included in this analysis as those are set by municipal code and therefore not included in the table above.

ATTACHMENT 2
337

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
The Development Engineering Division is responsible for the review and oversight of residential, commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. The division collects fees and issues permits for projects related to grading, encroachment, etc. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Engineering.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees as they highlight either services already offered but not codified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- Engineering:
- ‘Re-Review Fee’
- ‘Minor Encroachment Permit’
- ‘Impact Fee Administration and Remittance’
- ‘Reimbursement Agreements’
- ‘Fee Deferral Agreement’
- ‘ROW Abandonments / Easements’
- ‘Encroachment License Agreements’
- ‘Master License Agreements’
- ‘Engineering Fee Estimates’
• Expanded Fees: Engineering staff proposed expanding the Engineering Plan Check section to include greater project valuation tiers up to $1 million, and Capital Projects Staff expanded the tiers for their Construction services up to $1 million as well.
• Plan Check and Inspection Fee Consistency: As Engineering and Capital Projects are in two separate departments, they have two separate fee schedules. However, they are participating in the same types of applications, with Development Engineering doing plan check and Capital Projects is doing inspections. Therefore, it was decided that there needed to be greater consistency between the fee schedules.

These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services provided by Development Engineering and Capital Projects.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Engineering Division and Capital Projects collect fees for plan check and inspections, as well as issuing encroachment permits, utility permits, grading permits, etc. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS
ATTACHMENT 2
338

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
TABLE 8: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference

ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK FEE
$1 to $650 $65 $166 ($101)
$651 to $25,000 $65 $166 ($101)
$651 to $25,000 7.00% 10.22% -3.22%
$25,001 to $50,000 $2,000 $2,655 ($655)
$25,001 to $50,000 6.50% 15.93% -9.43%
$50,001 to $100,000 $4,000 $6,639 ($2,639)
$50,001 to $100,000 4.00% 6.64% -2.64%
$100,001 to $200,000 $6,200 $9,958 ($3,758)
$100,001 to $200,000 3.50% 3.32% 0.18%
$200,001 to $500,000 $11,300 $13,277 ($1,977)
$200,001 to $500,000 3.00% 3.87% ($0)
$500,000 to $1,000,000 New $24,895 N/A
$500,000 to $1,000,000 New 2.49% N/A
$1,000,000 or greater New $37,343 N/A
$1,000,000 or greater New 1.24% N/A
Re-Review Fee New $166 N/A

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEE
Application fee $250 $331 ($81)
Valuation fee See Eng. Plan Check Valuation Table

ON-SITE PERMIT FEE
Application fee $250 $331 ($81)
Valuation fee See Eng. Plan Check Valuation Table

UTILITY PERMIT FEE
Connection Permit Application Fee $250 $331 ($81)

IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATION ON BEHALF OF OTHER AGENCIES
Impact Fee Administration + Remittance New $331 N/A

GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
Application fee $250 $331 ($81)
Grading Volume Fee:
1 to 200 cubic yards $200 $331 ($131)
201 to 1,000 cubic yards $200 $663 ($463)
201 to 1,000 cubic yards $15 $41 ($26)
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $320 $995 ($675)
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $20 $36 ($16)
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $500 $1,327 ($827)
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $100 $36 $64
100,001 cubic yards and greater $1,400 $1,659 ($259)
100,001 cubic yards and greater $60 $18 $42
ATTACHMENT 2
339

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference

ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES

MAP CHECK FEE
Application Fee $150 $331 ($181)
Parcel Map $2,000 $1,991 $9
Final Map $5,000 $3,319 $1,681
Reimbursement Agreements New $995 N/A
Fee Deferral Agreement New $995 N/A

MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES
ROW Abandonments / Easements $750 $829 ($79)
Encroachment License Agreements $250 $829 ($579)
Master License Agreements New $1,659 N/A
Engineering Fee Estimates $100 $331 ($231)
Hourly Fee See Work Order Billing Rates
Pass-through Fee Actual
Costs
Actual
Costs
N/A
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans
$80 $165 ($85)

ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
$1 to $650 $1,932 $2,066.95 ($134)
$651 to $25,000 5.62% 6.01% -0.39%
$25,001 to $50,000 $3,300 $3,529.62 ($230)
$25,001 to $50,000 18.48% 19.77% -1.29%
$50,001 to $100,000 $7,920 $8,471.10 ($551)
$50,001 to $100,000 10.56% 11.29% -0.73%
$100,001 to $200,000 $13,200 $14,118.50 ($918)
$100,001 to $200,000 6.53% 6.99% -0.45%
$200,001 to $500,000 $19,734 $21,107.15 ($1,373)
$200,001 to $500,000 1.12% 1.20% -0.08%
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $23,100 $24,707.37 ($1,607)
$500,000 to $1,000,000 3.23% 3.46% -0.23%
$1,000,001 or greater $39,270 $42,002.53 ($2,733)
$1,000,000 or greater 1.62% 1.73% -0.11%

GRADING PROJECTS
1 to 200 cubic yards $132 $141 ($9)
201 to 1,000 cubic yards $198 $211 ($13)
201 to 1,000 cubic yards $25 $26 ($1)
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $396 $423 ($27)
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $29 $31 ($2)
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $660 $705 ($45)
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $29 $31 ($2)
100,001 cubic yards and greater $924 $988 ($64)
100,001 cubic yards and greater $15 $15 $0

MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Re-inspection Fee $132 $141 ($9)
Minor Encroachment Permit New $140 N/A

OTHER INSPECTIONS AND FEES
ATTACHMENT 2
340

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly Rate $178 N/A Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of U.A.C. 88 Hourly Rate $141 N/A Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly Rate $141 N/A Overall, the Development Engineering and Capital Projects Division is under-recovering for its services.

Expanding the tables and creating greater consistency will allow the Divisions to more accurately capture their level of effort. Additionally, while Capital projects is billing everything hourly, under this proposed structure there is the ability for them to collect flat fees for their services rather than need to bill everything on an hourly basis.

ATTACHMENT 2
341

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
The Sustainability Division within the department oversees the conservation and stormwater protection aspects on behalf of the City. It also conducts reviews and consultations as needed during the development process. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Environmental Services.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
Currently, there are no fees charged by the Sustainability Division. Through this study, the project team worked with staff to identify potential services that could be charged for, which included items such as an hour review fee, consultant / meeting fee, annual inspections, and construction / demolition debris review fees. Implementing these proposed fees will help the City recover the costs associated with these services.

DETAILED RESULTS
The Sustainability Division does not currently charge any fees; however, it was proposed to review potential fees for service. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details by fee name and unit the total cost calculated.

TABLE 9: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION Fee Name Unit Total Cost
Environmental Review Per Review $133
Project Consultation Per Hour/Meeting $133
Annual Inspections Per Inspection $266
Construction/Demolition Debris Review Per Permit $133
As the table indicates, if the City were to implement these fees, they would only be assessed if the situation arose for the need for involvement of Sustainability Division staff.

SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION
ATTACHMENT 2
342

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
The Community Risk Reduction Division offers inspection and review services for alarm systems, sprinkler systems, and other fire protection systems. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications detailed per unit results, and annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Department.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
Currently, the Community Risk Reduction Division charges all its fees based on valuation or sprinkler system heads. Through this study, the project team worked with Division staff to modify the fee structure to more robustly represent the different types of development-related services provided.

DETAILED RESULTS
Community Risk Reduction collects fees for alarm systems, fire life/safety review, fire sprinklers, and other suppression systems. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. Due to the modifications to the structure, the following table shows the full cost calculated for the proposed fee structure.

TABLE 10: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION Fee Name Unit Total Cost

FIRE LIFE SAFETY REVIEW / INSPECTION
Commercial Per Permit $873
Residential Per Permit $218

ALARM SYSTEMS
Commercial (New)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $983
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,202
20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,529
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $1,747
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.07
Multi-Unit Residential (New)
1-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,201
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,529
20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,747
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $2,075
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.08
Tenant Improvement (TI)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $655
10,001 - 20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $910
20,001 - 50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,092
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $1,274
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.05

FIRE (COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION)
ATTACHMENT 2
343

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
Fee Name Unit Total Cost

SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Commercial (New)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $983
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,201
20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,529
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $1,747
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.06
Multi-Unit Residential (New)
1-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,201
10,0001-20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,529
20,001-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,747
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $2,075
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.08
Tenant Improvement (TI)
0-10,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $655
10,001 - 20,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $910
20,001 - 50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $1,092
50,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $1,274
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.05
Residential Sprinkler System
New Per Permit $436
Tenant Improvement (TI) Per Permit $218

OTHER FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Underground fire line Each $1,092
Specialized Fire System Per Hour $145
Warehousing/High-pile storage
0-50,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $509
50,001 - 200,000 sq. ft. Per Permit $946
200,000+ sq. ft. Per Permit $1,310
Each Additional Sq. Ft. Each. Addl. S.F. $0.01
Fire pump Per Pump $764
Hood/duct system Per System $764
Solar System
Commercial Per System $873
Residential Per System $327
Battery system
Commercial Per System $764
Residential Per System $327
Spray booth Per Booth $764
Liquid/Compressed gas system Per System $764
Aboveground/Underground tank installation
First Tank Per Permit $764
Each Additional Tank Per Tank $72
Aboveground/Underground Tank Removal Per Permit $983

OTHER FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Board of Appeals Per Hour $145
ATTACHMENT 2
344

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Fee Name Unit Total Cost
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Each $582
Electric Fences Per Fence $764
Expedited Review % of Fee 150%
After Hours Inspection Per Hour $179
Any Services Not Outlined Above Per Hour $145
The modified fee structure will be simpler for community risk reduction staff to implement and is based on the size of the building / structure being reviewed, rather than the valuation or number of devices / alarms. There are also flat rates for the other types of fire protection systems and reviews / inspections, which are much more in alignment with how community risk reduction fees are typically assessed.

ATTACHMENT 2
345

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
The Planning Division is responsible for the oversight of the City's current and future development. The fees examined within this study relate to appeals, land division, design review, use permits, lot line adjustments, more. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by Planning.

FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS
In discussions with staff, the following modifications were proposed to the current fee schedule:
• New Fees: Staff proposed the addition of the following fees as they highlight either services already offered but not specifically identified on the fee schedule or new services the City is looking to provide:
- ‘Environmental Impact Report’
- ‘Applicant / Landowner Initiated Appeal’
- ‘Interim Use Permit’
- ‘Historic Preservation Review / Mills Review Act’
- ‘Development Agreement Annual Review’
- ‘Post Adoption Monitoring (i.e., Mitigation Monitoring, Habitat Compliance, COA Approvals)’ - ‘Administrative Modification per Municipal Code Chapter 17.40’ - ‘Pre-Application Fee’
- ‘Cannabis License’
- ‘Massage Business Permits’
- ‘SB9’
- ‘SB330’
- ‘Planner Hourly Support’
- ‘Other Processing Involving Zoning Administrator / Director’ • Eliminated Fees: Staff proposed the removal of the following fees as they highlight either services covered through other fees or no longer offered:
- ‘Categorical Exemption’
- ‘Focused Environmental Impact Report, plus consultant’ - ‘Full Environmental Impact Report, plus consultant’
- ‘Access Interpretation’
- ‘Use Interpretation’
- ‘T.S.M. TDM Compliance Record’
- ‘General Plan, Zoning Maps, Aerial Photo 1” = 3200’, Assessor’s Base Maps, 200’ Aerial Photos’ - ‘Junior Planner’ (position was eliminated)
- ‘Commercial coach – temporary use’
- ‘Variance’ – only at the Zoning Administrator level
- ‘Application Services – hourly rates’
• Condensed Fees: To streamline the fee schedule staff proposed condensing all use permit types into one single “Use Permit’ fee.

PLANNING
ATTACHMENT 2
346

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
• Modified Fees: Several fee names were changed to better reflect the services. The following points detail those changes:
- ‘General Plan or Zoning Code Amendment’ was changed to ‘General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Amendment’
- ‘Major Modification to CUP or PD’ to ‘Amendment’
- ‘Transportation Management Plan Review’ was changed to ‘Transportation Demand Management Plan Review’
- ‘Site Plan Review’ was changed to ‘Building Permit Review’ - ‘Minor Modifications / Access’ to ‘Zoning Administrator Revision’ - ‘Interpretation of Use’ to ‘Zoning Administrator Interpretation’ - ‘Noticed Hearings’ to ‘Legal Ads’
These modifications ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately reflects the services that Planning provides.

DETAILED RESULTS – FLAT FEES
Planning collects flat fees for appeals, building permit reviews, hourly reviews, and some zoning administrator / director actions. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.

TABLE 11: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PLANNING (FLAT FEES) Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference

PLANNING COMMISSION FEES

APPEALS
Administrative Appeals - All Other $50 $4,627 ($4,577)
Appeals heard by Board or Commission - All Other $100 $4,627 ($4,527)

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management Plan Review $500 $1,233 ($733)

BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
Residential
Additions and remodels $100 $116 ($16)
New single-family dwellings $160 $174 ($14)
New multifamily (2-4) $320 $154 $166
New multifamily (5+ units) $800 $771 $29
Commercial and Industrial
Tenant improvement plans, remodels, equipment $100 $116 ($16) Additions under 10% of existing floor area $100 $154 ($54) New buildings and major additions $800 $1,233 ($433)
Other Construction
Signs $90 $116 ($26)
Swimming pools $40 $116 ($76)
ZONING LETTERS:

Zoning or Code Status Letters $60 $116 ($56)

LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT/ELIMINATION
ATTACHMENT 2
347

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
Fee Name
Current
Fee
Total
Cost Difference
Certificate of Compliance $648 $1,542 ($894)

ACTIONS
Zero lot line agreement $400 $696 ($296)
Request for Waver $320 $385 ($65)

PLANNER HOURLY SUPPORT
Planner Blended Rate Modified3 $154 N/A
For flat fees, Planning is generally under-recovering its costs. The largest under-recoveries are associated with Appeals, however, fees associated with those services are typically subsidized. The next largest deficit is in relation to the Transportation Demand Management Plan Review.

DETAILED RESULTS – DEPOSIT-BASED FEES
The Planning Division also assesses deposit-based fees for entitlement and land use applications.

Deposit-based fees are specifically for those types of projects that can span several months and are often complex in nature. Since these types of applications vary widely in the time that staff are required to spend on them, a deposit is generally recommended to ensure that each project pays its appropriate share and cost recovery is achieved.

To evaluate the City’s current and proposed deposit-based fees, the project team worked with Planning staff to estimate the minimum amount of time needed to process the applications. This would ensure that the recommended deposit would at least account for the base level of effort and allow staff to collect additional funds as needed. The following table shows the deposit-based fees (current and calculated) for Planning and the recommended deposit amount.

TABLE 12: PLANNING DEPOSIT-BASED FEES – CURRENT AND PROPOSED DEPOSITS Fee Name
Current
Deposit
Calculated
Deposit
Recommended
Deposit
CEQA
Negative Declaration $1,000 Actual Cost Actual Cost
Mitigated Negative Declaration $2,000 Actual Cost Actual Cost Environmental Impact Report New Actual Cost Actual Cost General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code Amendment
Text Change $8,000 $10,796 $11,000
Land Division
Parcel map $4,000 $3,084 $3,000
Subdivision map $8,000 $6,169 $6,000
Time extensions $1,500 $1,542 $1,500
Appeals
Applicant / Landowner Initiated Appeal New $4,627 $1,500 Permits
Use Permit $3,000 $3,856 $4,000
3 Current rate varies based on classification, but since any classification can work on the project it was deemed that a blended rate would more appropriately capture the potential cost.

ATTACHMENT 2
348

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
Fee Name
Current
Deposit
Calculated
Deposit
Recommended
Deposit
Interim Use Permit New $4,164 $4,000
Temporary Use Permit $3,000 $1,542 $1,500
Minor Use Permit $1,200 $2,313 $2,500
Planned Development Permit $5,000 $3,856 $4,000
Amendment (to any permit in this category) $3,500 $2,313 $2,500 Wireless Telecommunications Permit $1,000 $3,084 $3,000 Design Review $1,000 $2,313 $2,500
Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation Review / Mills Act Review New $3,084 $3,000 Other (Planning Commission Review)
Variance $4,000 $3,856 $4,000
Development Agreement Annual Review New $1,542 $1,500
Other processing involving Planning Commission $1,000 $1,542 $1,500 Post Adoption Monitoring New $3,084 $3,000
Lot Line Adjustment/ Elimination
Merger (lot line elimination) $1,500 $2,313 $2,500
Lot line adjustment $2,000 $2,313 $2,500
Zoning Administrator / Director Actions
Zoning Administrator Revision $1,200 $2,313 $2,500
Administrative Modification per Municipal Code Chapter 17.40 New $1,233 $1,200 Zoning Administrator Interpretation $1,200 $1,542 $1,500 Legal Ads $300 Actual Cost Actual Cost
Extensions of time (non-land division) $1,000 $1,233 $1,500 Pre-Application Fee New $1,233 $1,500
Cannabis New $4,627 $4,500
Massage Permits New $3,084 $3,000
SB330 (HCA of 2019) Preliminary Application New $3,084 $3,000 Other Processing Involving Zoning Administrator / Director New $1,542 $1,500 Most the Planning Division’s deposit-based fees show an under-recovery, as such, the Division could increase the initial deposit that can be collected.

While deposit-based fees do ensure full cost recovery for the City and the Division, they also require significant administrative support both from the Department and Finance staff. Along with increasing its initial deposits, the Department should consider formalizing a deposit-based policy. The policy should identify the following components:
• Positions(s): The policy should identify the position(s) within the Finance Department that will be responsible for conducting the billing and / or invoicing for the deposit-based fees. • Timekeeping: The policy should identify the procedure for timekeeping as it is done by staff, including if timekeeping will be done outside of the current timekeeping system, or if it will be part of the ATTACHMENT 2
349

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
timekeeping system with project numbers assigned to each deposit- based fee project, as it is currently.
• Hourly Rates: It is recommended that the fully burdened hourly rate (salaries + benefits + productive hours + departmental overhead + citywide overhead) be used for billing purposes. The hourly rate should also be specific to the position. The policy should identify the hourly rate(s) that will be used – a singular blended rate, or a separate rate for the position reviewing the application and the type of hourly rate used.
• Billing / Refunding: The policy should clearly outline when the department and / or division should request for additional funding. The standard recommendation is if 10% of the initial deposit is left, the applicant should be billed for additional funds. Policies regarding refund amounts and to whom the refund will be issued should be identified. Refunds should not be issued until all invoices have been paid.
• Stop Work Order / Permit Issuance: The policy should also include language regarding if no payment has been received on an invoice for 90 days, the application will be considered dormant and City staff will stop all work on the project. Additionally, it should also clearly clarify when the permit will be issued. The standard recommendation is that until final payment has been received no permit should be issued.

As the points above highlight, the implementation of deposit-based fees does require an in-depth policy.

Developing such a detailed document will not only provide internal clarity regarding deposit-based fees but also ensure that there is consistency in implementation of deposit-based fees.

There will be additional procedures that will have to be developed within Finance regarding depositbased fees. The procedures will build upon the policy by focusing on key components such as when to bill applicants and how to account for time spent on applications.

All deposit-based fee policies, and procedures should be reevaluated every three to five years to ensure that the current process is still relevant based upon projected organizational or application shifts.

ATTACHMENT 2
350

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
There are two standard surcharges assessed as part of the development review process – General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology fee. Currently, the City of West Sacramento only charges a Technology Fee, but not a General Plan Maintenance Fee. The following subsections discuss the calculation of the General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology Fee.

GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE
A General Plan Maintenance fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the larger General Plan.

The General Plan Maintenance fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b) which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees can be charged against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, and building inspections.

More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any development project, which gets to that phase, makes enough of an impact to require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements) rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.

The project team took the estimated cost associated with updating the General Plan Update, divided by the years between updates, to come up with a total annual cost. Additionally, 75%, or roughly 1,215 hours, of the Sr. Planner’s time annually is spent on General Plan related tasks. The 1,215 hours was multiplied by the fully burdened hourly rate (FBHR), resulting in an annual staff cost associated with general plan maintenance. The following table shows broken out by category the components which make up the total annual cost calculation.

TABLE 13: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COST COMPONENTS Task Estimated Cost Years Annualized Cost
General Plan Update $2,000,000 15 $133,333
Staff Costs $184,832 1 $184,832
Total Annual Cost $318,165
The annual cost to the City for updating their general plan is roughly $318,000. The two most common methodologies for assessing a General Plan Maintenance fee are:

1. Percentage of Building Permit Fee: This means that the general plan maintenance fee is assessed as a percentage of the total building permit fee assessed to a project.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SURCHARGES
ATTACHMENT 2
351

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33

2. Percentage of Valuation: This means that the fee is assessed based upon the total project valuation. Even if the City doesn’t utilize valuation for calculating fees, it still must collect that information for SMIP and state surcharges and can utilize it to determine the proportionate General Plan impact.

The project team calculated the full cost of the General Plan Fee based on both methodologies. The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 14: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
Category Building Permit Fee Valuation
Total Annual Cost $318,165 $123,901
General Plan Fee Basis $2,540,439 $153,319,017
General Plan Maintenance Fee 13% 0.21%
The calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is 13% of the Building Permit Fee or 0.21% of Building Valuation. The City can choose either option above to charge as its General Plan Maintenance Fee.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 15: GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE FEE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Elk Grove 0.23% of Valuation
Roseville 0.05% of Valuation
Sacramento 0.26% of Valuation
Vacaville 9.90% of Building Permit Fee
As the table shows, this is a standard fee that is assessed by many jurisdictions. The City’s full cost of

0.21% of valuation would be lower than Elk Grove and Sacramento’s fee; however, its full cost of 13% of the building permit fee would be higher than the fee assessed by Vacaville.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE FEE
A Technology Fee allows the City to support the costs associated with the City’s permitting system, staff time for managing the systems, acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc. The City currently assesses this fee as 8% of the permit and application fees and has a maximum fee amount.

The project team collected information regarding the current technology-related costs for the permitting system. The following table shows by cost category the annual cost:

ATTACHMENT 2
352

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
TABLE 16: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE COST COMPONENTS
Item Initial Cost # of Years Annualized Cost
Permitting Annual Maintenance $100,000 5 $20,000
Cloud Migration $117,306 1 $117,306
Modules & Online Permitting $218,500 5 $43,700
IK Consulting $60,000 1 $60,000
Electronic Plan Check $70,000 1 $70,000
Integration with Accela $15,000 1 $15,000
Website for Research on Permit Info $75,700 5 $15,140
OpenCounter (DP-465) $55,700 1 $55,700
Esri $66,550 1 $66,550
Scanning $300,000 5 $60,000
Total Annual Cost $523,396
Based on the items needed to provided development-related services, the annual technology-related costs are approximately $523,000 for the City of West Sacramento.

The City currently assesses this fee as 8% of the permit fee and has a maximum fee. Therefore, the project team took the total Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the annual fee-related revenue associated with Permitting and Licensing. The following table shows this calculation:

TABLE 17: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARRGE CALCULATION
Category Technology Fee Calculation
Total Technology Annual Cost $523,396
Total Development Revenue (3 yr average) $4,260,209
Technology Fee as % of Permit Fee 12%
Based on this calculation, the City’s full cost Technology fee would be 12% of the permit fee. Therefore, if a permit fee was $100, the Technology fee collected would be $12; whereas if a permit fee was $1,000; the Technology fee collected would be $120. This type of structure enables the Technology fee to be more proportionately distributed based on the projects and their impact on the system.

As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:

TABLE 18: TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Elk Grove 0.40% of valuation
Rocklin 3% of Permit Fees
Roseville 3% of Permit Fees
Sacramento 8% of Permit Fees
ATTACHMENT 2
353

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, all charge their technology fee as a percentage of the permit fee, except for Elk Grove. The City’s current fee matches the City of Sacramento. The City’s full cost fee of 12% is higher than all the surveyed jurisdictions.

SURCHARGE FUND BEST PRACTICES
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology surcharges in separate accounts. The City of West Sacramento should ensure that they are collected in a separate subaccount as well as remove the maximum fee amount on the Technology surcharge.

ATTACHMENT 2
354

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures.

FEE ADJUSTMENTS
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under- and overcollecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees:
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low-cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period.

The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straightforward, the following subsections provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.

FULL COST RECOVERY
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery.

Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees that cannot be increased.

The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services.

COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS
ATTACHMENT 2
355

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37

PHASED INCREASES
Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals.

As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply with proposed recovery levels. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved.

Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example above, the City could increase the fee by $150 per year for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window after which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is that a comprehensive fee analysis should be conducted every three to five years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, and process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms:
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors.

Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI / ECI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index or Employment Cost Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions.

ATTACHMENT 2
356

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
The City and department should adopt an annual increase factor through this study and utilize it in between comprehensive updates.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources.

Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost recovery.

TYPICAL COST RECOVERY
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. For development-related services, the typical cost recovery is between 80-100%.

DEVELOPMENT OF COST RECOVERY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The Department should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy regarding cost recovery. This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the Department as a whole, or to each division specifically.

ATTACHMENT 2
357

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of West Sacramento, Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of user fees. The City identified six jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey: Davis, Elk Grove, Rocklin, Roseville, Vacaville, and Woodland. The project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets, fee schedules, and ordinances), and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative information.

While this full report provides the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to benchmark themselves against other comparable jurisdictions to consider the local “market rates” for services. This type of analysis allows for the City to assess what types of changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, this analysis does not provide adequate information regarding the relationship of other jurisdiction’s costs to their fees (i.e., policy decisions to subsidize, cost recovery goals, etc.).

The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City.

ECONOMIC FACTORS
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population, budget, and workforce size. These factors can impact how and when fees are administered, as a jurisdiction with a smaller population may choose to not charge a fee, or a smaller workforce size may inhibit their ability to administer a fee.

The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to largest for each of these economic factors:

TABLE 19: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY POPULATION
Jurisdiction Population4
West Sacramento 54,278
Woodland 60,672
Davis 65,054
Rocklin 71,609
Vacaville 102,173
Roseville 154,329
Elk Grove 178,679
Sacramento 520,407
4 January 1, 2024, California Department of Finance data was used to determine each jurisdictions population.

APPENDIX – COMPARATIVE SURVEY
ATTACHMENT 2
358

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
TABLE 20: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY CITYWIDE TOTAL BUDGET Jurisdiction FY24-25 Budget5
Davis $84,278,176
Elk Grove $92,462,515
Rocklin $115,300,000
Woodland $223,910,980
West Sacramento $268,000,000
Vacaville $289,572,815
Roseville $992,220,000
Sacramento $1,567,100,000
TABLE 21: RANKING OF JURISDICTIONS BY FTE
Jurisdiction FY24-25 Authorized FTE
Rocklin 272.5
Woodland 324
Davis 378.5
West Sacramento 430.55
Elk Grove 486
Vacaville 633
Roseville 1,388
Sacramento 5,075.3
When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, the City of West Sacramento ranks the highest in terms of population and in the middle for budget and staffing.

RECENCY FACTOR
While the above comparative information can provide some perspective when paralleling West Sacramento’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last comprehensive analysis was undertaken. It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted recent fee studies their fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results only show the adopted fee for the surveyed jurisdiction, not necessarily the full cost associated with the comparable service.

The following tables detail when each surveyed jurisdiction last conducted a fee analysis and when they last updated their fee schedule.
5 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budgets (all funds) have been used for all jurisdictions.

ATTACHMENT 2
359

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
TABLE 22: LAST FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Jurisdiction Response
Davis 2024
Elk Grove 2024
Rocklin 2024
Roseville 2024
Sacramento 2024
Vacaville 2024
Woodland 2024
TABLE 23: LAST FEE STUDY CONDUCTED
Jurisdiction Response
Davis 2009
Elk Grove Undergoing
Rocklin N/A
Sacramento Undergoing
Vacaville 2015
Woodland 2023
Roseville N/A
All the surveyed jurisdictions have published a new fee schedule within the past year. Other than Woodland, none of the cities have recently conducted a fee study.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for service:
• Cost Recovery Factors: Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual cost of providing services as various policy decisions may subsidize services. • Fee Variance Factors: A fee with the same name may encompass different types of services or activities across jurisdictions. Variability may stem from differences in service delivery models (e.g., in-house vs. contracted), the scope of work included under the fee, and staffing configurations, all of which can influence how indirect and overhead costs are allocated.

In addition to the issues noted, market surveys can also run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than the primary method for determining an acceptable price point for services.

ATTACHMENT 2
360

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42

COMPARATIVE SURVEY RESULTS
As part of this study, the project team surveyed how the Department’s current user fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the City versus the surveyed jurisdictions.

BUILDING - NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ($651,145; 5,764 SQ. FT.) West Sacramento currently charges $7,246 for Building Plan check and inspection for a New Single Family Dwelling ($651,145; 5,764 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost for building plan check and inspection to be $7,668. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee and full cost are below the jurisdictional average of $8,128, but generally in line with surveyed jurisdictions.

BUILDING - ADU ($150,487; 1,185 SQ. FT.)
West Sacramento currently charges $2,070 for building plan check and inspection for a ADU ($150,487; 1,185 sq. ft.). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of building plan check and inspection to be $3,421. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - New Single Family Dwelling ($651,145; 5,764 sq. ft.) ATTACHMENT 2
361

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
West Sacramento’s current fee is the second lowest fee, right above Vacaville ($1,827). West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is above the jurisdictional average of $2,511.

BUILDING - MULTI-FAMILY ($45,987,000; 300,000 SQ. FT.)
West Sacramento currently charges $381,958 for building plan check and inspection of a Multi-Family building that is 300,000 sq. ft. and valued at $45.987 million. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of building plan check and inspection to be $127,628. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is the second highest fee above Woodland at $336,226. West Sacramento’s full cost calculated would be the second lowest fee and below the jurisdictional average of $310,664.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - ADU ($150,487; 1,185 sq. ft.)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - Multi-Family ($45,987,000; 300,000 sq. ft.)
ATTACHMENT 2
362

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
BUILDING - NEW COMMERCIAL ($2.0 MILLION; 10,000 SQ.FT.) West Sacramento currently charges a $20,465 for building plan check and inspection for a New Commercial building that is 2,000 sq. ft. and valued at $2 million. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $32,271. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is above the jurisdictional average of $18,245, but its full cost fee would be the highest charged among the surveyed jurisdictions.

BUILDING - COMMERCIAL TI ($339,004; 1,500 SQ. FT.)
West Sacramento currently charges $4,144 for a Building - Commercial TI ($339,004; 1,500 sq. ft.).

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $11,203. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - New Commercial ($2.0 million; 10,000 sq.ft.) $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - Commercial TI ($339,004; 1,500 sq. ft.)
ATTACHMENT 2
363

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
West Sacramento’s current fee is most comparable with Woodland ($4,618), and in line with the jurisdictional average of $4,333. West Sacramento’s full cost calculated would be the highest fee. Elk Grove charges the lowest fee at $1,743.

BUILDING - WATER HEATER
West Sacramento currently charges $116 for a Water Heater. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $215. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is the highest fee, above Rocklin at $142. West Sacramento’s current fee is the third highest fee and is above the jurisdictional average of $92. Woodland charges the lowest for this fee at $67.

BUILDING - RESIDENTIAL REROOF
West Sacramento currently charges $251 for building plan check and inspection for a Residential Reroof.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost for building plan check and inspection to be $368. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - Water Heater
ATTACHMENT 2
364

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
West Sacramento’s current fee is most comparable with Rocklin at $250. West Sacramento’s current cost calculated is the fourth highest fee right above Elk Grove at $303. Roseville charges the highest for this fee at $1,249 which is above the jurisdictional average of $568.

BUSINESS LICENSE - NEW (NON-HOME BASED / LOCAL)
West Sacramento currently charges $76 for a Business License - New (Non-Home Based / Local).

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $193. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee and full cost calculated are the second and third highest fees. Davis ($10) and Elk Grove ($12) both charge the lowest for this and are below the jurisdictional average of $136. Woodland charges the highest for this fee at $500. $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Building - Residential Reroof
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Woodland
Fee Amount
Business License - New (Commercial)
ATTACHMENT 2
365

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47

BUSINESS LICENSE - RENEWAL (NON-HOME BASED / LOCAL)
West Sacramento currently charges $76 for a Business License - Renewal (Non-Home Based / Local).

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $38. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is the second-highest fee and is right below Woodland at $77. West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is the third lowest fee, right below Rocklin ($21) and in alignment with the jurisdictional average of $30.

ENGINEERING - MINOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
West Sacramento does not currently have a standalone fee for a Minor Encroachment Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $140. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is only higher than Roseville ($80), and below all other comparative jurisdictions.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Woodland
Fee Amount
Business License - Renewal
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Eng. - Minor Encroachment Permit
ATTACHMENT 2
366

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
ENGINEERING - GRADING PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION (200 C.Y.) West Sacramento currently charges $332 for Grading Plan Review & Inspection of 200 c.y. project.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of plan review and inspection to be $472.

The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

When compared to surveyed jurisdictions, West Sacramento’s current and full cost are below the jurisdictional average of $728. Rocklin’s fee of $2,713 is skewing the average, if that fee is removed, the average would be $331, just below the City’s current fee.

ENGINEERING - PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION ($30,000)
West Sacramento currently charges $6,549 for Plan Review & Inspection of a development project valued at $30,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of plan review and inspection to be $7,970. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland
Fee Amount
Eng. - Grading Plan Review & Inspection (200 c.y.)
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Eng - Plan Review & Inspection ($30,000)
ATTACHMENT 2
367

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
West Sacramento’s current and full cost are above the jurisdictional average of $5,241. The lowest fees are charged by Roseville ($1,500) and Vacaville ($2,883).

ENGINEERING - FINAL MAP
West Sacramento currently charges $5,000 for a Final Map Deposit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $3,319, or a proposed deposit of $4,000. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee and full cost calculated are below the average of $6,080. As these are deposits, the City does recover its actual cost for these services.

FIRE SPRINKLER - WAREHOUSE 100,000 SQ. FT.

West Sacramento currently charges $4,595 for plan review and inspection of a Fire Sprinkler system within a 100,000 sq ft. Warehouse. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of fire plan review and inspection to be $5,244. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee and full cost calculated are the second and third highest fees, right below Woodland at $5,564. Vacaville charges the lowest for this fee at $1,344 and is below the jurisdictional average of $2,867.
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Eng. - Final Map
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Vacaville Woodland
Fee Amount
Fire Sprinkler - Warehouse 100,000 sq. ft.

ATTACHMENT 2
368

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50
FIRE SPRINKLER - RESIDENTIAL 1,672 SQ. FT.

West Sacramento currently charges $386 for fire plan check and inspection for a fire sprinkler system in 1,672 sq. ft. Single-Family Residential property. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of fire plan check and inspection to be $436. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee and full cost calculated are the lowest among the jurisdictions and significantly below the average fee of $872.

FIRE ALARM - TI (25,000 SQ. FT.)
West Sacramento currently charges $845 for fire plan check and inspection of a Fire Alarm system within a 25,000 sq. ft. tenant improvement (TI). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of fire plan check and inspection to be $1,092. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is closely aligned with the jurisdictional average of $803. West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is the second highest fee and is most comparable with Woodland ($1,064). The highest fee is charged by Elk Grove at $1,502. $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Vacaville Woodland
Fee Amount
Fire Sprinkler - Residential
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Vacaville Woodland
Fee Amount
Fire Alarm - TI - 25,000 sq. ft.

ATTACHMENT 2
369

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51

FIRE - HOOD / DUCT
West Sacramento currently charges $386 for fire plan check and inspection of a Hood / Duct system.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of fire plan check and inspection to be $764.

The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is the lowest fee charged and is the same as Sacramento’s fee of $386.

West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is perfectly aligned with the jurisdictional average of $765 and is most comparable with Vacaville at $804.

FIRE - UNDERGROUND FIRE LINE
West Sacramento currently charges $500 for fire plan check and inspection of an Underground Fire Line.

Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of fire plan check and inspection to be $1,092. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is the lowest fee and is below the jurisdictional average of $948. Its full cost is most comparable with Rocklin ($1,001) and Vacaville ($1,161). $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville
Fee Amount
Fire - Hood / Duct
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
West Sac. - Current
Fee
West Sac. - Full
Cost Fee
Davis Rocklin Vacaville
Fee Amount
Fire - Underground Fire Line
ATTACHMENT 2
370

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52

PLANNING - DESIGN REVIEW
West Sacramento currently charges a $1,000 deposit for Design Review. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $2,313. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento charges the lowest for this service. West Sacramento’s full cost estimated deposit is still significantly lower than the average of $6,324 assessed by other jurisdictions.

PLANNING - TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
West Sacramento currently charges a $3,240 deposit for a Temporary Use Permit. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $1,542. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Planning - Design Review
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville
Fee Amount
Planning - Temporary Use Permit
ATTACHMENT 2
371

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
West Sacramento’s current deposit is the highest and is well above the jurisdictional average of $1,209.

West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is most comparable with Elk Grove ($1,500). Roseville ($627) charges the lowest for this fee.

PLANNING - ZONING OR CODE STATUS LETTER
West Sacramento currently charges $60 for a Zoning or Code Status Letter. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $116. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current fee is the lowest and is significantly below the jurisdictional average of ($416). West Sacramento’s full cost calculated is most comparable with Elk Grove ($115). Woodland charges the highest for this fee at $892.

PLANNING - APPEAL (BOARD OR COMMISSION)
West Sacramento currently charges $100 for an Appeal (Board or Commission). Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $4,627. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions. $0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Vacaville Woodland
Fee Amount
Planning - Zoning or Code Status Letter
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Planning - Appeal (Board or Commission)
ATTACHMENT 2
372

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
West Sacramento’s current fee is the lowest and most comparable with Davis ($256). Both are below the jurisdictional average of ($1,767). It is important to note that Appeals are traditionally subsidized in many jurisdictions, hence the low fees.

PLANNING - LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
West Sacramento currently charges a $2,000 deposit for a Lot Line Adjustment. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost to be $2,313. The following graph compares West Sacramento's current fee and calculated full cost to those of surveyed jurisdictions.

West Sacramento’s current and full cost calculated are in alignment with other fees and just above the average of $1,735.

SUMMARY
Overall, West Sacramento generally has current fees that are lower than those of the surveyed jurisdictions, other than for Building services. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, West Sacramento’s current fees are most comparable with Woodland, while the City’s full cost calculated is most comparable to fees charged by Elk Grove. It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the fees adopted by the council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-making tool. $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
West Sac. -
Current Fee
West Sac. -
Full Cost
Fee
Davis Elk Grove Rocklin Roseville Sacramento Vacaville Woodland Fee Amount
Planning - Lot Line Adjustment
ATTACHMENT 2
373

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2025 ITEM # 10
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF WEST SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL

AGENCY AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND

FUTURE COMPOSITION OF THE WSAFCA BOARD
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [ X ] Staff
[ ] Other
Paul Dirksen Jr., Flood Protection Manager
Capital Projects Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with adequate information to approve amendments to the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) Joint Powers Agreement (Joint Powers Agreement) and determine the future composition of the WSAFCA Board.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the WSAFCA JPA and select alternative two for the future WSAFCA board composition.

BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento and Reclamation Districts 900 and 537 established the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency in 1994 by entering into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), in response to a reconnaissance report that was completed by the USACE following the 1986 storm event that resulted in flooding in various locations throughout the Sacramento Valley. The purpose of the JPA was to coordinate planning and debt financing for developing, designing, acquiring and constructing flood control facilities, works, and project improvements. Each member of the JPA also contributed funds for conducting studies and staffing WSAFCA to evaluate the levees that protect the city and identify mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of flooding. The financial contributions to the Agency were returned to the member agencies in 2018.

The JPA articulates Reclamation District (RD) 900, RD 537 and the City as the members of the Agency, the boundaries, purpose and powers of the Agency and framework for conducting Agency business. The Agreement recognizes the upfront contributions made by each of the entities to the Agency to fund planning and construction activities and repayment of those funds. The Agreement discusses the need to seek funding through grants, property tax assessments and the authorization to use debt financing and articulates the governing body as the one member of the City Council and one trustee from RD 537 and one trustee from RD 900, each serving on behalf of their respective political bodies.

In 2018, following a Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (YLAFCO) Municipal Service Review, the City submitted an application to the YLAFCO to bring the RD 900 under the City as a subsidiary district. In the following year the proposal to reorganize RD 900 as a subsidiary district to the City of West Sacramento and to detach the RD 537 area within the City and annex that area into the RD 900 territory was approved by the YLAFCO. This past February the RD 537 Trustee approached the City to withdrawal from the WSAFCA JPA because RD 537 no longer had jurisdiction or property in West Sacramento. In June, the City Council acted and approved the withdrawal of RD 537 from the JPA. The RD 900 Board also affirmed the withdrawal of RD 537 from WSAFCA.

As of June 30, 2025, RD 537 is no longer a member of WSAFCA.

ANALYSIS
The withdrawal of RD 537 from the WSAFCA JPA requires that the agreement be amended to identify the current member agencies of the WSAFCA JPA and update the Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) to conform to current state law. The proposed amendments to the Agreement:
 recognize the withdrawal of RD 537 from the JPA and affirm the City and RD 900 as the member agencies;
 restate that the Agency is governed by the Agreement and articulate that the boundaries of WSAFCA are co-existent with the City to provide flood protection in cooperation with the State and federal partners;  add the power and authority for the Agency to accumulate operating and reserve funds, and to invest funds to achieve the Agency’s mission;
 state that the JPA’s powers are restricted by the City’s authority and powers;  describes the Agency governance and membership, as three members, one from each the City Council 374

WSAFCA JPA AND BOARD REVISIONS
August 20, 2025

and RD 900 and an additional member who would be a resident of West Sacramento who could, but would not have to be, either a City Council Member or a RD 900 Trustee.;  change the reference from chairman to chairperson;
 remove language about the formation and initial contributions to the Agency and affirm the Agency’s commitment to achieve at least 200-year flood protection;  recognize that the WSAFCA Board has financial resources, such as the flood assessment, state and federal funding, to pay for Agency expenses;
 update the citation in the California Government Code for debt financing authority of the Agency;  add in the commitment to perform Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRRR) and indemnity for the State, which was included in the 2011 amendment to the Agreement, as required by the CVFPB and as a requirement of the design and construction funding agreements with the State;
 affirm that the JPA may not dissolve and neither member agency can withdrawal from the JPA if there are outstanding commitments to the State, including for OMRRR, except as may be allowed after notice and consent from the State.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable.

Commission Recommendation
Not applicable.

Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable.

Alternatives
Staff has consulted with the WSAFCA attorney and city attorney about the WSAFCA Board composition and Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below:
1) Do nothing and maintain a two-Director board. This alternative is not recommended because every item requiring board approval would require unanimity from both Directors and full attendance to carry out the Agency’s business.
2) Authorize a three-Director board. One Director would be a Member of the City Council, one would be a a RD 900 Trustee, and the third would be a resident of West Sacramento who could, but would not have to be, either a City Council Member or a RD 900 Trustee. This is the staff recommendation. The City Council could select a sitting Council Member to serve as the third WSAFCA member and request concurrence from the RD 900 Board, or visa-versa. Or the third member could be selected using a similar application and selection method used to place commissioner on the City’s Planning and other commissions, with appointment by the Mayor subject to confirmation by by the full City Council. 3) Have two Directors from both the City Council and the RD 900 Board and one other member. This alternative would result in a Board that would require a three-person quorum, and would consist of two Council Members, and two RD 900 Trustees, and a third member who would be a West Sacramento resident. This alternative is not recommended because it may be difficult to have two members from both the city council and RD 900 and alternative directors.

Staff recommends the Council approve Alternative 2, which is consistent with the proposed amendments to the Agreement outlined above and in Attachment 1.

Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney and WSAFCA attorney.

Budget/Cost Impact N/A

ATTACHMENT

1. Revised and Re-stated Joint Powers Agreement
375
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 1 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

WEST SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

AMENDED AND RESTATED

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the __th day, of ______, 2025, by and between the City of West Sacramento and Reclamation District No. 900.

RECITALS
This Agreement amends and restates that certain joint exercise of powers agreement made and entered into as of July 20, 1994, as amended October 13, 2011, by and between the City of West Sacramento, Reclamation District No. 900, and Reclamation District No. 537.

The Agency was formed and has existed as of the date set forth in the July 20, 1994, joint exercise of powers agreement. In fiscal year 2024, RD 537 sought to withdraw from the Agency, and notified the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (“CVFPB”) of its intent to withdraw. The CVFPB did not object to, or place conditions on, RD 537’s withdrawal from the Agency. By unanimous action of the City and the District, Reclamation District No. 537 withdrew from the Agency effective June 30, 2025. The City and the District remain as members of the Agency.

The Parties to this Agreement have and possess the power and authorization to acquire and construct Works for the purpose of controlling and conserving waters for the protection of life and property that would or could be damaged by being inundated by still or flowing water.
376
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 2 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
However, there is a need for coordinated planning for the control of waters within or flowing into or adjacent to the boundaries of the Agency governed by this Agreement and for the protection of private and public property within said boundary.

There is a need for a coordinated and regional effort to finance and provide Facilities and Works necessary to ensure not less than the minimum level of flood protection, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in developed and urbanizing areas which are designated for residential, commercial, or industrial uses within the boundaries of the Agency.

There is a need to provide local assurances and participate in cost sharing for such projects as the levee work as required by the West Sacramento Project (the “West Sacramento Project” shall have the same meaning as set forth in the West Sacramento Project General Reevaluation Report, dated December 2015), which was determined by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to fall within the purview of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, and for other Projects, Facilities or Works necessary for the achievement of at least 200-year ultimate flood protection, as well as for the resolution of Flood Control problems.

Such a regional Flood Control plan can best be achieved through the cooperative action of the Parties operating through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency.

Each of the Parties is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I of the Government Code.

COVENANTS
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
377
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 3 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Agreement, the meaning of the terms hereinafter set forth shall be the following:
a. “Agreement” means this Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
b. “Agency” means the “West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency” formed in 1994 and continued in existence pursuant to this Agreement. c. “Board” or “Board of Directors” means the governing body of the Agency as described in Section 7 of this Agreement.
d. “City” means the City of West Sacramento.
e. “District” means Reclamation District No. 900.
f. “Director” or “Directors” means the director representing a Party to the Agency [address any director that may not represent a Party]. g. “Party” or “Parties” means each of the parties to this Agreement, accepting the rights and obligations of the Agency hereunder.
h. “Project” means any Facilities or Works constructed by the Agency. i. “Fiscal Year” means July l to and including the following June 30. j. “Facility” or “Facilities” means any Works financed, acquired or constructed by the Agency.
k. “Budget” means the approval budget applicable to the expenses of the Agency.
l. “Work” or “Works” means dams, watercourses, drainage channels, conduits, ditches, canals, pumping plants, levees, buildings, and other structures utilized for the control and disposal of water within the boundaries of the Agency or for the control and disposal of waters outside and running into the 378
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 4 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
boundaries of the Agency and for which said Facilities and improvements are required for the protection of the property therein.
m. “Flood Control” means regulating still or moving surface and/or stream water that, if left unchecked, would inundate private or public property.

2. Agency. The public entity governed by this Agreement is known as the “West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency”. The Agency was formed and continues to exist by this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. The Agency is and shall be a public entity separate from the Parties hereto.

3. Boundaries of the Agency. The boundaries of the Agency are and shall be coextensive with those of the City.

4. Purpose of the Agreement. Common Power To Be Exercised. Each Party has in common the power to study, plan for, develop, finance, acquire, construct, maintain, repair, manage, operate and control Flood Control Works and Facilities for the protection of the public either alone or in cooperation with the United States, the State of California, or other entities. The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exercise the foregoing common powers in the manner hereinafter set forth.

5. Powers. The Agency has and shall have the power in its own name to do any of the following:
a. To exercise jointly the common powers of its Parties in studying, planning and implementing ways and means to provide a reasonable program and plan of operation for the control of water within or flowing into or adjacent to the boundaries of the Agency.
379
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 5 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
b. To make and enter contracts necessary to the full exercise of its powers. c. To contract for the services of engineers, attorneys, planners, financial consultants, and separate and apart therefrom, to employ such other persons as it deems necessary.
d. To acquire, construct, and replace any Facilities or Works. e. To enter into agreements with the United States of America or the State of California to provide a portion of the local contributions which may be required for any Facilities or Works constructed by the state or federal governments.
f. To acquire, by eminent domain or otherwise, and to hold and dispose of property necessary to the full exercise of its powers.
g. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations subject to limitations herein set forth.
h. To levy special benefits assessments and to issue revenue bonds as hereinafter provided or as otherwise authorized by law. i. To sue and be sued in its own name.
j. To apply for, accept and receive state, federal or local licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aid from any agency of the United States of America or of the State of California necessary for the Agency’s full exercise of its powers.
k. To accumulate operating and reserve funds and invest the same as allowed by law for the purposes of the Agency and to invest funds pursuant to California Government Code section 6509.5 or other applicable State Law. 380
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 6 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
l. To perform all acts necessary or proper to carry out fully the purpose of this Agreement.
m. To the extent not herein specifically provided for, to exercise any powers in the manner and according to the methods provided under the laws applicable to the City.
n. In accordance with California Government Code section 6509, and except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, the foregoing powers shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers pertaining to the City.

6. Membership. The Parties of the Agency shall be each public entity which has executed this Agreement, or any addenda, amendment or supplement thereto, and which has not, pursuant to the provisions hereof withdrawn therefrom.

7. Governing Body of the Agency.
a) The business of the Agency shall be conducted by a Board of Directors consisting of three persons. The Board shall be comprised of one council member appointed by the City Council of City, one Trustee from the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 900 appointed by that Board, and one “other” member who may be a member of City Council of the City, a Trustee from the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 900, or some other resident of the City of West Sacramento. Members of the Board of Directors shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party. The Parties shall appoint initial directors within thirty days after this Agreement becomes effective. b) An alternate for each Director shall be appointed by the governing body of the respective Party. [Address appointment of alternate for third Director.] The 381
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 7 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
alternate shall also be a member of that governing body. [Address membership, or not, of alternate for third Director.] The names of the alternates shall be on file with the Board. The alternates shall assume all rights of the Directors representing the appointing Party [Address membership, or not, of alternate for third Director.] and shall have the authority to act in the absence of a Director or in the event that a Director has a conflict of interest which precludes participation by the Director in any decision-making process of the Agency. c) Each Director and alternate shall hold office from the first meeting of the Board after his or her appointment by the governing body he or she represents until his or her successor is selected.
d) A Director may receive such compensation from the Agency for his or her services as may from time to time be established by the Board. A Director may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by such Director in the conduct of the Agency’s business.

8. Principal Office. The principal office of the Agency shall be established by the Board. It shall be the principal office of one of the Parties. The Board may change the principal office from one location to another within the boundaries of the Agency. Any change shall be noted by the secretary by reference to this section, but shall not be considered an amendment to this Agreement.

9. Meetings. The Board shall meet at the Agency’s principal office or at such other place as may be designated by the Board. The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by resolution adopted by the Board; a copy of such resolution shall be furnished to each Party hereto. Regular, adjourned and special meetings shall be called and held in the manner as provided in Chapter 9, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 54950, the “Ralph M. Brown Act”). 382
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 8 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

10. Quorum. Two Directors shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of transacting the Agency’s general business. Except as otherwise provided, the vote of a majority of all Directors shall be required for the Agency to take any action. [Address quorum issues if necessary, depending on Board composition.]

11. Powers and Limitations Thereon. All the power and authority of the Agency will be exercised by the Board, subject however, to the rights reserved by the Parties as herein set forth.

12. Minutes. The secretary of the Agency shall cause to be kept minutes of regular, adjourned and special meetings of the Board, and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each Director and to each of the Parties.

13. Rules. The Board may adopt from time to time such rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs as may be required.

14. Vote or Assent of Parties. The vote, assent, or approval of the Parties in any matter requiring such vote, assent or approval hereunder, shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the resolution of the governing board of such Party filed with the Agency.

15. Officers. There shall be selected from the membership of the Board, a chairperson and a vice chairperson. The Board shall appoint a General Manager who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Agency. The Board shall appoint a Secretary who may also be a director; the Secretary shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Agency. A single individual may, to the extent allowed by law, hold more than one office. The office charged with the functions of the Treasurer for the City shall be the treasurer of the Agency, and shall be the depository and shall have custody of all money of the Agency, from whatever source. The Treasurer shall perform the duties specified in Government Code Section 6505.5. The office 383
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 9 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
charged with the functions of the Auditor for the City shall be the auditor of the Agency and shall draw all warrants and pay demands against the Agency approved by the Board. In addition, the Board shall have the power to appoint such additional officers as it deems necessary. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary shall hold office for a period of one year commencing July 1 of each and every fiscal year; provided however, that the first chairperson, vice chairperson and secretary appointed shall hold office from the date of their appointment to June 30 of the ensuing fiscal year, The public officer or officers or persons who have charge of any funds or securities of the Agency shall be bonded and the amount of their bond shall be designated in the applicable budget and thus fixed.

All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, Workers’ Compensation and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any of the Parties when performing their respective functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged. in the performance of any of the functions and other duties under this Agreement. None of the officers, agents, or employees appointed by the Board shall be deemed by reason of their employment by the Board to be employed by any of the Parties or by reason of their employment by the Board to be subject to any of the requirements of such Parties.

16. Veto Power. A Party may exercise a veto with respect to either: (a) the construction and/or acquisition of Work/or Facilities or (b) the imposition of any assessment, fee, or charge to be levied for any Projects, Facilities or Works authorized pursuant to this Agreement.

17. Veto Exercise. In order for a Party to exercise its veto, the majority of the Party’s governing board must authorize or ratify, by resolution, the exercise of that veto by the Party’s representative on the Board. The vote of the Party’s governing board to veto any 384
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 10 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
of the actions specified in Section 16 of this Agreement shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the resolution of the governing board of such Party filed with the Agency no later than 30 days after the date of the Agency’s action which is the subject of the veto. A Party may exercise its veto power within the 30 days by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Party’s governing board, whether or not the Director(s) and/or alternates representing the Party were present and/or regardless of the vote of the Director(s) and/or alternate(‘s). The veto may not be exercised within 10 days prior to the close of any debt financing.

18. Planning. In keeping with the purpose of this Agreement, the Parties hereby authorize and direct the Board to undertake and/or participate in such studies and planning as necessary to provide for the control of waters of or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Parties. The specific objective thereof shall be to obtain a regional solution to the Flood Control problems. To achieve this objective, the studies and planning may include, but are not limited to, proposals for the rehabilitation or construction of Flood Control works. The studies and planning shall also concentrate on the financing methods for such proposals, as well as the allocation of costs among the Parties.

19. Projects. The Agency’s Projects are intended to consist of developing, designing, acquiring, and constructing Works and Facilities as well as funding (including local cost shares of federal projects) of the same, required to attain at least 200-year flood protection. The Agency may undertake the construction, rehabilitation or funding of all or any portion of the Project on its own or in conjunction and cooperation with the United States, the State of California, or other public entity. Construction, rehabilitation or funding of Project Facilities may be all at one time or in sequence.

20. Budget. Prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Board shall adopt a Budget for the Agency for the ensuing fiscal year. 385
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 11 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

21. Operating Expenses.
a) Members may, in their discretion and according to terms acceptable to the Members and the Agency, contribute funds to the Agency to be used for the purposes of the Agency and subject to reimbursement.
b) It is understood that the Board may arrange for the payment of the expenses of the Agency through such sources as may be available to the Agency, including but not limited to assessments and state or federal grants or loans. c) The Board may raise additional funds for the operating expenses of the Agency from time to time by levying and collecting special benefit assessments in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of this Agreement. d) The Agency shall hold title to all funds, property and Works acquired by it during the term of this Agreement.

22. Assessments. In addition to other authorization provided by law, the Agency is hereby empowered, subject to implementing legislation, to raise funds for the construction of Works and Facilities, for the payment of administrative expenses, and for the satisfaction of any liabilities imposed against the Agency by the levy and collection of operation and maintenance assessments in the same manner as provided for reclamation districts under Article 3, Chapter 2, Part 7, Division 15, of the Water Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 51320), except that wherever reference is made in said Article 3 to the “board of supervisors,” the Board of Directors of the Agency shall be substituted therefor and shall perform all functions otherwise performed by the board of supervisors. The Board may order the creation of a separate assessment roll to support a specified Prqject and levy assessments against such roll for the costs of Works and Facilities and for the satisfaction of liabilities imposed against the Agency arising from said Project. In the event that a roll for a 386
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 12 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
specified Project is created, an assessment for satisfaction of any liabilities imposed against the Agency arising from said Project shall be levied against such roll.

23. State and Federal Grants and Loans. It is understood and acknowledged that some Projects may qualify for grant or loan funding from the State of California or the federal government. The Board shall have the power, in its discretion, to contract for such funding of eligible Projects. Funds received by the Agency from such sources may be used to pay for, reimburse or otherwise finance such eligible Projects.

24. Reimbursement of Funds. Funds received by Agency from any federal, state or local agency to pay for budgeted expenditures for which the Agency has received all or a portion of said funds from its Parties shall be proportionately paid to said Parties to reimburse the Parties for the funds advanced to the Agency for the acquisition and construction of the Facilities or Works for which such funds have been received.

25. Debt Financing. At such time as may be authorized by implementing legislation, and in addition to other debt financing authority provided by law, the Board shall have the power and authority to issue: (a) revenue bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedure and requirements set forth in Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California; (b) improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Chapter I, Division 12, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 10000); improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Improvement Act of 1911, Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 5000) and improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the 387
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 13 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 8500).

26. Accounting Procedures. Full books and accounts shall be maintained for the Agency in accordance with practices established by, or consistent with, those utilized by the Controller of the State of California for like public entities. In particular, the Agency’s treasurer shall comply strictly with requirements of the statute governing joint powers agencies, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I of the Government Code commencing at Section 6500.

27. Audit. The records and the accounts of the Agency shall be audited annually by the Auditor retained by City and copies of such audit reports shall be filed with the State Controller and each Party within six months of the end of the fiscal year under examination.

28. Agency Facilities. All Facilities constructed or acquired by the Agency shall be held in the name of the Agency for the benefit of the membership of the Agency in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

29. Liabilities. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Agency shall be the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Agency alone and not of the Parties to this Agreement.

30. Liability of Board. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and to the extent provided by law, the funds of the Agency shall be used to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Agency and any Director or employee for their actions taken within the scope of the authority of the Agency. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Agency to purchase insurance to provide such coverage as is hereinabove set forth.

31. Term. The Agency shall continue until this Agreement is rescinded or terminated as herein provided.
388
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 14 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

32. Rescission or Termination. This Agreement may be rescinded and the Agency terminated by unanimous written consent of the Parties.

33. Disposition of Property Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, any surplus funds on hand shall be returned to the then Parties in equal shares, except that to the extent any Party has made a contribution of funds to the Agency that remains unreimbursed, then such contribution shall be paid to that Party prior to return of surplus funds to the Parties in equal shares. The Board shall first offer any Works, Facilities, rights and interests of the Agency for sale to the Parties for good and adequate consideration.

If no such sale is consummated, the Board shall offer such Works, Facilities, rights and interests of the Agency for sale to any governmental agency, or other entity for good and adequate consideration. The net proceeds from any sale shall be distributed among the Parties in equal shares, except that to the extent any Party has made a contribution of funds to the Agency that remains unreimbursed, then such contribution shall be paid to that Party prior to the distribution of the net proceeds to the Parties in equal shares. If no such sale is consummated, then the Works, facilities, rights and interests of the Agency shall be allocated to the Parties in the same manner as the allocation of the net proceeds from a sale, unless otherwise unanimously agreed to by all of the Parties.

34. Withdrawal.
a) No Party may withdraw from the Agency without the unanimous consent of the Parties. Any withdrawal with unanimous consent shall be effective on the last day of a specified fiscal year in which the withdrawal is consented to. b) In the event the withdrawing Party has any rights in any Facilities or obligations to the Agency, said Party cannot sell, lease or transfer said rights or be relieved of its obligations, except its obligation to pay its share of operation and maintenance costs 389
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 15 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
directly related to the use of the Facilities, without the execution of a written agreement executed by it and all Parties affected by such withdrawal. The Agency may not sell, lease, transfer or use any rights of a Party who has withdrawn without first obtaining the written consent of the withdrawing Member.

35. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by the unanimous written consent of all Parties. This consent may be evidenced by (a) a certified copy of a resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Board, (b) certified copies of identical resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of all Parties to this Agreement, or (c) a written amendment to this Agreement signed by authorized representatives of each Party to this Agreement

36. Assignment. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the written consent of all other Parties. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void. Any approved assignment or delegation shall be consistent with the terms of any contracts, resolutions, indemnities and other obligations of the Agency then in effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties hereto.

37. Project Commitments Made to State of California.
a) Since its formation, the Agency has been working diligently to enhance the level of flood protection provided within its boundaries, which boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of the City of West Sacramento. The Agency, as funding recipient, has entered into Funding Agreements with the State of California Department of Water Resources for flood improvement projects funded under the State-Federal Flood Control System Modification 390
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 16 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
Program (Early Implementation Program) (each a “Construction Funding Agreement”). A Construction Funding Agreement requires that the Agency be ultimately responsible for and indemnify the State for operation, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (“OMRR&R”) of any portion of a flood control project not currently required to be operated, repaired, replaced, or rehabilitated by the State. The CVFPB has adopted a policy resolution, Resolution 09-17, under which the CVFPB will accept indemnification for OMRR&R from a Joint Powers Agency (“JPA”) which is a local sponsor for a flood control improvement project requiring a permit from the CVFPB, without requiring indemnification for OMRR&R from each and all of its member agencies, if, (i) the JPA provides that it will not be dissolved so long as the JPA has made outstanding commitments to the CVFPB for OMRR&R and OMRR&R indemnification, or (ii) the member agencies of the JPA will provide the foregoing maintenance assurances and indemnification prior to the JPA dissolving, or (iii) the Joint Powers Agency provides to CVFPB such other agreements or assurances as may be acceptable to the CVFPB. b) For purposes of this Agreement, “Project Commitments” shall mean agreements between the Agency and the CVFPB or any successor entity to: (i) operate and maintain flood control works within the boundaries of the Agency; (ii) indemnify the State of California for liabilities arising out of such operation and maintenance or the failure to conduct same; and/or (iii) indemnify the State of California for design or construction of flood control improvements designed or constructed by the Agency. c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 32, this Agreement may not be rescinded or terminated or the Agency formed hereby dissolved so long as the Agency has outstanding Project Commitments unless the relevant Member or Members of the Agency first provide such reasonable written assurances regarding the Project Commitments as the CVFPB may request.
391
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 17 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34, no Party to this Agreement may withdraw from the Agreement so long as the Agency has outstanding Project Commitments, unless such withdrawing party first provides such reasonable written assurances regarding the Project Commitments as the CVFPB may request.

38. Notice. All notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when personally delivered, or in lieu of such personal delivery, three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, certified with return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or the next business day if sent by reputable overnight courier, provided a receipt is obtained and charges prepaid by the delivering party.

Any notice shall be addressed as follows:

City:

City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Attn: City Manager
With copy to City Attorney:

Jeffrey Mitchell
Kronick, Moskovitz et al
1331 Garden Hwy, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95833
District:

With copy to District General Counsel:

RD 900 General Counsel
Day Carter & Murphy LLP
3620 American River Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95864
Any Party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement by giving written notice of such change to the other Party(ies) in the manner provided in this Section.

39. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile, “pdf” or other electronic transmission) in any number of 392
4909-5630-2423.5 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 18 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 900
By:__________________________________ By:__________________________________

ATTEST ATTEST
_____________________________________
City Clerk
_____________________________________
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
[NAME]
_____________________________________
[NAME]
393

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

ERRATA MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Guerrero and City Council Members
FROM: Jaipal Chahal, Director of Capital Projects
CC: Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager – Administrative Services Ariana Adame, Assistant City Manager– Community Services Doug Drozd, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Mitchell, City Attorney
DATE: August 20, 2025
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda – Item #10, CONSIDERATION OF WEST

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY AMENDMENTS TO THE

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND FUTURE COMPOSITION OF THE

WSAFCA BOARD
The purpose of this memorandum is to formally provide clarification regarding revisions to the Staff Report and Attachment associated with the above-referenced item on the August 20th agenda.

An error was identified in Alternative 2 within the “Alternatives” section of the Staff Report. In addition, Attachment 1 has been revised to incorporate the appropriate redline edits. Accordingly, staff have updated both the Staff Report and Attachment 1 to correct these errors and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the record.
394
4937-2111-8305.1 007203.160

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2025 ITEM # 10
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF WEST SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL

AGENCY AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND

FUTURE COMPOSITION OF THE WSAFCA BOARD
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [ X ] Staff
[ ] Other
Paul Dirksen Jr., Flood Protection Manager
Capital Projects Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with adequate information to approve amendments to the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) Joint Powers Agreement (Joint Powers Agreement) and determine the future composition of the WSAFCA Board.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the WSAFCA JPA and select alternative two for the future WSAFCA board composition.

BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento and Reclamation Districts 900 and 537 established the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency in 1994 by entering into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), in response to a reconnaissance report that was completed by the USACE following the 1986 storm event that resulted in flooding in various locations throughout the Sacramento Valley. The purpose of the JPA was to coordinate planning and debt financing for developing, designing, acquiring and constructing flood control facilities, works, and project improvements. Each member of the JPA also contributed funds for conducting studies and staffing WSAFCA to evaluate the levees that protect the city and identify mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of flooding. The financial contributions to the Agency were returned to the member agencies in 2018.

The JPA articulates Reclamation District (RD) 900, RD 537 and the City as the members of the Agency, the boundaries, purpose and powers of the Agency and framework for conducting Agency business. The Agreement recognizes the upfront contributions made by each of the entities to the Agency to fund planning and construction activities and repayment of those funds. The Agreement discusses the need to seek funding through grants, property tax assessments and the authorization to use debt financing and articulates the governing body as the one member of the City Council and one trustee from RD 537 and one trustee from RD 900, each serving on behalf of their respective political bodies.

In 2018, following a Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (YLAFCO) Municipal Service Review, the City submitted an application to the YLAFCO to bring the RD 900 under the City as a subsidiary district. In the following year the proposal to reorganize RD 900 as a subsidiary district to the City of West Sacramento and to detach the RD 537 area within the City and annex that area into the RD 900 territory was approved by the YLAFCO. This past February the RD 537 Trustee approached the City to withdrawal from the WSAFCA JPA because RD 537 no longer had jurisdiction or property in West Sacramento. In June, the City Council acted and approved the withdrawal of RD 537 from the JPA. The RD 900 Board also affirmed the withdrawal of RD 537 from WSAFCA.

As of June 30, 2025, RD 537 is no longer a member of WSAFCA.

ANALYSIS
The withdrawal of RD 537 from the WSAFCA JPA requires that the agreement be amended to identify the current member agencies of the WSAFCA JPA and update the Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) to conform to current state law. The proposed amendments to the Agreement:
• recognize the withdrawal of RD 537 from the JPA and affirm the City and RD 900 as the member agencies;
• restate that the Agency is governed by the Agreement and articulate that the boundaries of WSAFCA are co-existent with the City to provide flood protection in cooperation with the State and federal partners; • add the power and authority for the Agency to accumulate operating and reserve funds, and to invest funds to achieve the Agency’s mission;
• state that the JPA’s powers are restricted by the City’s authority and powers; • describes the Agency governance and membership, as three members, one from each the City Council 395

WSAFCA JPA AND BOARD REVISIONS
August 20, 2025

4937-2111-8305.1 007203.160
and RD 900 and an additional member who would be a resident of West Sacramento who could, but would not have to be, either a City Council Member or a RD 900 Trustee.; • change the reference from chairman to chairperson;
• remove language about the formation and initial contributions to the Agency and affirm the Agency’s commitment to achieve at least 200-year flood protection; • recognize that the WSAFCA Board has financial resources, such as the flood assessment, state and federal funding, to pay for Agency expenses;
• update the citation in the California Government Code for debt financing authority of the Agency; • add in the commitment to perform Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRRR) and indemnity for the State, which was included in the 2011 amendment to the Agreement, as required by the CVFPB and as a requirement of the design and construction funding agreements with the State;
• affirm that the JPA may not dissolve and neither member agency can withdrawal from the JPA if there are outstanding commitments to the State, including for OMRRR, except as may be allowed after notice and consent from the State.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable.

Commission Recommendation
Not applicable.

Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable.

Alternatives
Staff has consulted with the WSAFCA attorney and city attorney about the WSAFCA Board composition and Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below:
1) Do nothing and maintain a two-Director board. This alternative is not recommended because every item requiring board approval would require unanimity from both Directors and full attendance to carry out the Agency’s business.
2) Authorize a three-Director board. One Director would be a Member of the City Council, one would be a RD 900 Trustee, and the third would be a resident of West Sacramento who could, but would not have to be, either a City Council Member or a RD 900 Trustee. If each Member makes a nomination and the two Members are unable to agree on the third Member, lots will be drawn to decide which nominee is selected, This is the staff recommendation.
3) Have two Directors from both the City Council and the RD 900 Board and one other member. This alternative would result in a Board that would require a three-person quorum, and would consist of two Council Members, and two RD 900 Trustees, and a third member who would be a West Sacramento resident. This alternative is not recommended because it may be difficult to have two members from both the city council and RD 900 and alternative directors.

Staff recommends the Council approve Alternative 2, which is consistent with the proposed amendments to the Agreement outlined above and in Attachment 1.

Coordination and Review This report was coordinated with the City Attorney and WSAFCA attorney.

Budget/Cost Impact N/A

ATTACHMENT

1. Revised and Re-stated Joint Powers Agreement
396
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 1 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

WEST SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY

AMENDED AND RESTATED

JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the __th day, of ______, 2025, by and between the City of West Sacramento and Reclamation District No. 900.

RECITALS
This Agreement amends and restates that certain joint exercise of powers agreement made and entered into as of July 20, 1994, as amended October 13, 2011, by and between the City of West Sacramento, Reclamation District No. 900, and Reclamation District No. 537.

The Agency was formed and has existed as of the date set forth in the July 20, 1994, joint exercise of powers agreement. In fiscal year 2024, RD 537 sought to withdraw from the Agency, and notified the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (“CVFPB”) of its intent to withdraw. The CVFPB did not object to, or place conditions on, RD 537’s withdrawal from the Agency. By unanimous action of the City and the District, Reclamation District No. 537 withdrew from the Agency effective June 30, 2025. The City and the District remain as members of the Agency.

The Parties to this Agreement have and possess the power and authorization to acquire and construct Works for the purpose of controlling and conserving waters for the protection of life and property that would or could be damaged by being inundated by still or flowing water.
397
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 2 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
However, there is a need for coordinated planning for the control of waters within or flowing into or adjacent to the boundaries of the Agency governed by this Agreement and for the protection of private and public property within said boundary.

There is a need for a coordinated and regional effort to finance and provide Facilities and Works necessary to ensure not less than the minimum level of flood protection, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in developed and urbanizing areas which are designated for residential, commercial, or industrial uses within the boundaries of the Agency.

There is a need to provide local assurances and participate in cost sharing for such projects as the levee work as required by the West Sacramento Project (the “West Sacramento Project” shall have the same meaning as set forth in the West Sacramento Project General Reevaluation Report, dated December 2015), which was determined by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to fall within the purview of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, and for other Projects, Facilities or Works necessary for the achievement of at least 200-year ultimate flood protection, as well as for the resolution of Flood Control problems.

Such a regional Flood Control plan can best be achieved through the cooperative action of the Parties operating through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency.

Each of the Parties is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I of the Government Code.

COVENANTS
In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
398
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 3 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Agreement, the meaning of the terms hereinafter set forth shall be the following:
a. “Agreement” means this Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
b. “Agency” means the “West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency” formed in 1994 and continued in existence pursuant to this Agreement. c. “Board” or “Board of Directors” means the governing body of the Agency as described in Section 7 of this Agreement.
d. “City” means the City of West Sacramento.
e. “District” means Reclamation District No. 900.
f. “Director” or “Directors” means the director representing a Party to the Agency [address any director that may not represent a Party]. g. “Party” or “Parties” means each of the parties to this Agreement, accepting the rights and obligations of the Agency hereunder.
h. “Project” means any Facilities or Works constructed by the Agency. i. “Fiscal Year” means July l to and including the following June 30. j. “Facility” or “Facilities” means any Works financed, acquired or constructed by the Agency.
k. “Budget” means the approval budget applicable to the expenses of the Agency.
l. “Work” or “Works” means dams, watercourses, drainage channels, conduits, ditches, canals, pumping plants, levees, buildings, and other structures utilized for the control and disposal of water within the boundaries of the Agency or for the control and disposal of waters outside and running into the 399
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 4 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
boundaries of the Agency and for which said Facilities and improvements are required for the protection of the property therein.
m. “Flood Control” means regulating still or moving surface and/or stream water that, if left unchecked, would inundate private or public property.

2. Agency. The public entity governed by this Agreement is known as the “West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency”. The Agency was formed and continues to exist by this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. The Agency is and shall be a public entity separate from the Parties hereto.

3. Boundaries of the Agency. The boundaries of the Agency are and shall be coextensive with those of the City.

4. Purpose of the Agreement. Common Power To Be Exercised. Each Party has in common the power to study, plan for, develop, finance, acquire, construct, maintain, repair, manage, operate and control Flood Control Works and Facilities for the protection of the public either alone or in cooperation with the United States, the State of California, or other entities. The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exercise the foregoing common powers in the manner hereinafter set forth.

5. Powers. The Agency has and shall have the power in its own name to do any of the following:
a. To exercise jointly the common powers of its Parties in studying, planning and implementing ways and means to provide a reasonable program and plan of operation for the control of water within or flowing into or adjacent to the boundaries of the Agency.
400
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 5 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
b. To make and enter contracts necessary to the full exercise of its powers. c. To contract for the services of engineers, attorneys, planners, financial consultants, and separate and apart therefrom, to employ such other persons as it deems necessary.
d. To acquire, construct, and replace any Facilities or Works. e. To enter into agreements with the United States of America or the State of California to provide a portion of the local contributions which may be required for any Facilities or Works constructed by the state or federal governments.
f. To acquire, by eminent domain or otherwise, and to hold and dispose of property necessary to the full exercise of its powers.
g. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations subject to limitations herein set forth.
h. To levy special benefits assessments and to issue revenue bonds as hereinafter provided or as otherwise authorized by law. i. To sue and be sued in its own name.
j. To apply for, accept and receive state, federal or local licenses, permits, grants, loans or other aid from any agency of the United States of America or of the State of California necessary for the Agency’s full exercise of its powers.
k. To accumulate operating and reserve funds and invest the same as allowed by law for the purposes of the Agency and to invest funds pursuant to California Government Code section 6509.5 or other applicable State Law. 401
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 6 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
l. To perform all acts necessary or proper to carry out fully the purpose of this Agreement.
m. To the extent not herein specifically provided for, to exercise any powers in the manner and according to the methods provided under the laws applicable to the City.
n. In accordance with California Government Code section 6509, and except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, the foregoing powers shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers pertaining to the City.

6. Membership. The Parties of the Agency shall be each public entity which has executed this Agreement, or any addenda, amendment or supplement thereto, and which has not, pursuant to the provisions hereof withdrawn therefrom.

7. Governing Body of the Agency.
a) The business of the Agency shall be conducted by a Board of Directors consisting of three persons. The Board shall be comprised of one council member appointed by the City Council of City (City Appointee), one Trustee from the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 900 appointed by that Board (RD Appointee), and one “other” member appointed by the City Appointee and the RD Appointee. The third Member may be a member of City Council of the City, a Trustee from the Board of Trustees of Reclamation District No. 900, or some other resident of the City of West Sacramento. If the Council Appointee and RD Appointee have each nominated an individual to be the third Member and are unable to agree on which nominee to appoint, lots shall be drawn to determine which nominee is appointed. The City Appointee and the RD Appointee shall 402
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 7 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party; the third Appointee shall serve at the pleasure of the City Appointee and the RD Appointee and may be removed only by a joint decision of the City Appointee and the RD Appointee. The Parties shall appoint initial directors within thirty days after this Agreement becomes effective.
b) An alternate for each Director shall be appointed by the governing body of the respective Party. The alternate shall also be a member of that governing body.

The names of the alternates shall be on file with the Board. The alternates shall assume all rights of the Directors representing the appointing Party and shall have the authority to act in the absence of a Director or in the event that a Director has a conflict of interest which precludes participation by the Director in any decision-making process of the Agency. c) Each Director and alternate shall hold office from the first meeting of the Board after his or her appointment by the governing body he or she represents until his or her successor is selected.
d) A Director may receive such compensation from the Agency for his or her services as may from time to time be established by the Board. A Director may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by such Director in the conduct of the Agency’s business.

8. Principal Office. The principal office of the Agency shall be established by the Board. It shall be the principal office of one of the Parties. The Board may change the principal office from one location to another within the boundaries of the Agency. Any change shall be noted by the secretary by reference to this section, but shall not be considered an amendment to this Agreement.

9. Meetings. The Board shall meet at the Agency’s principal office or at such other place as may be designated by the Board. The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by resolution adopted by the Board; a copy of such resolution shall 403
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 8 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
be furnished to each Party hereto. Regular, adjourned and special meetings shall be called and held in the manner as provided in Chapter 9, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 54950, the “Ralph M. Brown Act”).

10. Quorum. Two Directors shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of transacting the Agency’s general business. Except as otherwise provided, the vote of a majority of all Directors shall be required for the Agency to take any action.

11. Powers and Limitations Thereon. All the power and authority of the Agency will be exercised by the Board, subject however, to the rights reserved by the Parties as herein set forth.

12. Minutes. The secretary of the Agency shall cause to be kept minutes of regular, adjourned and special meetings of the Board, and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each Director and to each of the Parties.

13. Rules. The Board may adopt from time to time such rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs as may be required.

14. Vote or Assent of Parties. The vote, assent, or approval of the Parties in any matter requiring such vote, assent or approval hereunder, shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the resolution of the governing board of such Party filed with the Agency.

15. Officers. There shall be selected from the membership of the Board, a chairperson and a vice chairperson. The Board shall appoint a General Manager who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Agency. The Board shall appoint a Secretary who may also be a director; the Secretary shall be responsible for keeping the minutes of all meetings of the Board and all other official records of the Agency. A single individual may, to the extent allowed by law, hold more than one office. The office charged with the functions of the Treasurer for the City shall be the treasurer of the Agency, and shall be the depository and 404
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 9 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
shall have custody of all money of the Agency, from whatever source. The Treasurer shall perform the duties specified in Government Code Section 6505.5. The office charged with the functions of the Auditor for the City shall be the auditor of the Agency and shall draw all warrants and pay demands against the Agency approved by the Board. In addition, the Board shall have the power to appoint such additional officers as it deems necessary. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary shall hold office for a period of one year commencing July 1 of each and every fiscal year; provided however, that the first chairperson, vice chairperson and secretary appointed shall hold office from the date of their appointment to June 30 of the ensuing fiscal year, The public officer or officers or persons who have charge of any funds or securities of the Agency shall be bonded and the amount of their bond shall be designated in the applicable budget and thus fixed.

All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, Workers’ Compensation and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any of the Parties when performing their respective functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged. in the performance of any of the functions and other duties under this Agreement. None of the officers, agents, or employees appointed by the Board shall be deemed by reason of their employment by the Board to be employed by any of the Parties or by reason of their employment by the Board to be subject to any of the requirements of such Parties.

16. Veto Power. A Party may exercise a veto with respect to either: (a) the construction and/or acquisition of Work/or Facilities or (b) the imposition of any assessment, fee, or charge to be levied for any Projects, Facilities or Works authorized pursuant to this Agreement.
405
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 10 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento

17. Veto Exercise. In order for a Party to exercise its veto, the majority of the Party’s governing board must authorize or ratify, by resolution, the exercise of that veto by the Party’s representative on the Board. The vote of the Party’s governing board to veto any of the actions specified in Section 16 of this Agreement shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the resolution of the governing board of such Party filed with the Agency no later than 30 days after the date of the Agency’s action which is the subject of the veto. A Party may exercise its veto power within the 30 days by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Party’s governing board, whether or not the Director(s) and/or alternates representing the Party were present and/or regardless of the vote of the Director(s) and/or alternate(‘s). The veto may not be exercised within 10 days prior to the close of any debt financing.

18. Planning. In keeping with the purpose of this Agreement, the Parties hereby authorize and direct the Board to undertake and/or participate in such studies and planning as necessary to provide for the control of waters of or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Parties. The specific objective thereof shall be to obtain a regional solution to the Flood Control problems. To achieve this objective, the studies and planning may include, but are not limited to, proposals for the rehabilitation or construction of Flood Control works. The studies and planning shall also concentrate on the financing methods for such proposals, as well as the allocation of costs among the Parties.

19. Projects. The Agency’s Projects are intended to consist of developing, designing, acquiring, and constructing Works and Facilities as well as funding (including local cost shares of federal projects) of the same, required to attain at least 200-year flood protection. The Agency may undertake the construction, rehabilitation or funding of all or any portion of the Project on its own or in conjunction and cooperation with the United States, the 406
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 11 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
State of California, or other public entity. Construction, rehabilitation or funding of Project Facilities may be all at one time or in sequence.

20. Budget. Prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Board shall adopt a Budget for the Agency for the ensuing fiscal year.

21. Operating Expenses.
a) Members may, in their discretion and according to terms acceptable to the Members and the Agency, contribute funds to the Agency to be used for the purposes of the Agency and subject to reimbursement.
b) It is understood that the Board may arrange for the payment of the expenses of the Agency through such sources as may be available to the Agency, including but not limited to assessments and state or federal grants or loans. c) The Board may raise additional funds for the operating expenses of the Agency from time to time by levying and collecting special benefit assessments in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of this Agreement. d) The Agency shall hold title to all funds, property and Works acquired by it during the term of this Agreement.

22. Assessments. In addition to other authorization provided by law, the Agency is hereby empowered, subject to implementing legislation, to raise funds for the construction of Works and Facilities, for the payment of administrative expenses, and for the satisfaction of any liabilities imposed against the Agency by the levy and collection of operation and maintenance assessments in the same manner as provided for reclamation districts under Article 3, Chapter 2, Part 7, Division 15, of the Water Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 51320), except that wherever reference is made in said Article 3 to the “board of supervisors,” the Board of Directors of the Agency shall be substituted therefor 407
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 12 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
and shall perform all functions otherwise performed by the board of supervisors. The Board may order the creation of a separate assessment roll to support a specified Prqject and levy assessments against such roll for the costs of Works and Facilities and for the satisfaction of liabilities imposed against the Agency arising from said Project. In the event that a roll for a specified Project is created, an assessment for satisfaction of any liabilities imposed against the Agency arising from said Project shall be levied against such roll.

23. State and Federal Grants and Loans. It is understood and acknowledged that some Projects may qualify for grant or loan funding from the State of California or the federal government. The Board shall have the power, in its discretion, to contract for such funding of eligible Projects. Funds received by the Agency from such sources may be used to pay for, reimburse or otherwise finance such eligible Projects.

24. Reimbursement of Funds. Funds received by Agency from any federal, state or local agency to pay for budgeted expenditures for which the Agency has received all or a portion of said funds from its Parties shall be proportionately paid to said Parties to reimburse the Parties for the funds advanced to the Agency for the acquisition and construction of the Facilities or Works for which such funds have been received.

25. Debt Financing. At such time as may be authorized by implementing legislation, and in addition to other debt financing authority provided by law, the Board shall have the power and authority to issue: (a) revenue bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedure and requirements set forth in Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California; (b) improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Chapter I, Division 12, of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 10000); 408
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 13 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Improvement Act of 1911, Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 5000) and improvement bonds for the purposes and in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (commencing at Section 8500).

26. Accounting Procedures. Full books and accounts shall be maintained for the Agency in accordance with practices established by, or consistent with, those utilized by the Controller of the State of California for like public entities. In particular, the Agency’s treasurer shall comply strictly with requirements of the statute governing joint powers agencies, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I of the Government Code commencing at Section 6500.

27. Audit. The records and the accounts of the Agency shall be audited annually by the Auditor retained by City and copies of such audit reports shall be filed with the State Controller and each Party within six months of the end of the fiscal year under examination.

28. Agency Facilities. All Facilities constructed or acquired by the Agency shall be held in the name of the Agency for the benefit of the membership of the Agency in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

29. Liabilities. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Agency shall be the debts, liabilities or obligations of the Agency alone and not of the Parties to this Agreement.

30. Liability of Board. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and to the extent provided by law, the funds of the Agency shall be used to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Agency and any Director or employee for their actions taken within the 409
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 14 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
scope of the authority of the Agency. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Agency to purchase insurance to provide such coverage as is hereinabove set forth.

31. Term. The Agency shall continue until this Agreement is rescinded or terminated as herein provided.

32. Rescission or Termination. This Agreement may be rescinded and the Agency terminated by unanimous written consent of the Parties.

33. Disposition of Property Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, any surplus funds on hand shall be returned to the then Parties in equal shares, except that to the extent any Party has made a contribution of funds to the Agency that remains unreimbursed, then such contribution shall be paid to that Party prior to return of surplus funds to the Parties in equal shares. The Board shall first offer any Works, Facilities, rights and interests of the Agency for sale to the Parties for good and adequate consideration.

If no such sale is consummated, the Board shall offer such Works, Facilities, rights and interests of the Agency for sale to any governmental agency, or other entity for good and adequate consideration. The net proceeds from any sale shall be distributed among the Parties in equal shares, except that to the extent any Party has made a contribution of funds to the Agency that remains unreimbursed, then such contribution shall be paid to that Party prior to the distribution of the net proceeds to the Parties in equal shares. If no such sale is consummated, then the Works, facilities, rights and interests of the Agency shall be allocated to the Parties in the same manner as the allocation of the net proceeds from a sale, unless otherwise unanimously agreed to by all of the Parties.

34. Withdrawal.
410
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 15 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
a) No Party may withdraw from the Agency without the unanimous consent of the Parties. Any withdrawal with unanimous consent shall be effective on the last day of a specified fiscal year in which the withdrawal is consented to. b) In the event the withdrawing Party has any rights in any Facilities or obligations to the Agency, said Party cannot sell, lease or transfer said rights or be relieved of its obligations, except its obligation to pay its share of operation and maintenance costs directly related to the use of the Facilities, without the execution of a written agreement executed by it and all Parties affected by such withdrawal. The Agency may not sell, lease, transfer or use any rights of a Party who has withdrawn without first obtaining the written consent of the withdrawing Member.

35. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by the unanimous written consent of all Parties. This consent may be evidenced by (a) a certified copy of a resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Board, (b) certified copies of identical resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of all Parties to this Agreement, or (c) a written amendment to this Agreement signed by authorized representatives of each Party to this Agreement

36. Assignment. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the rights and duties of the Parties may not be assigned or delegated without the written consent of all other Parties. Any attempt to assign or delegate such rights or duties in contravention of this Agreement shall be null and void. Any approved assignment or delegation shall be consistent with the terms of any contracts, resolutions, indemnities and other obligations of the Agency then in effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the successors and assigns of the Parties hereto.

37. Project Commitments Made to State of California.
411
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 16 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
a) Since its formation, the Agency has been working diligently to enhance the level of flood protection provided within its boundaries, which boundaries are coextensive with the boundaries of the City of West Sacramento. The Agency, as funding recipient, has entered into Funding Agreements with the State of California Department of Water Resources for flood improvement projects funded under the State-Federal Flood Control System Modification Program (Early Implementation Program) (each a “Construction Funding Agreement”). A Construction Funding Agreement requires that the Agency be ultimately responsible for and indemnify the State for operation, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (“OMRR&R”) of any portion of a flood control project not currently required to be operated, repaired, replaced, or rehabilitated by the State. The CVFPB has adopted a policy resolution, Resolution 09-17, under which the CVFPB will accept indemnification for OMRR&R from a Joint Powers Agency (“JPA”) which is a local sponsor for a flood control improvement project requiring a permit from the CVFPB, without requiring indemnification for OMRR&R from each and all of its member agencies, if, (i) the JPA provides that it will not be dissolved so long as the JPA has made outstanding commitments to the CVFPB for OMRR&R and OMRR&R indemnification, or (ii) the member agencies of the JPA will provide the foregoing maintenance assurances and indemnification prior to the JPA dissolving, or (iii) the Joint Powers Agency provides to CVFPB such other agreements or assurances as may be acceptable to the CVFPB. b) For purposes of this Agreement, “Project Commitments” shall mean agreements between the Agency and the CVFPB or any successor entity to: (i) operate and maintain flood control works within the boundaries of the Agency; (ii) indemnify the State of California for liabilities arising out of such operation and maintenance or the failure to conduct same; and/or (iii) indemnify the State of California for design or construction of flood control improvements designed or constructed by the Agency. 412
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 17 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 32, this Agreement may not be rescinded or terminated or the Agency formed hereby dissolved so long as the Agency has outstanding Project Commitments unless the relevant Member or Members of the Agency first provide such reasonable written assurances regarding the Project Commitments as the CVFPB may request.
d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34, no Party to this Agreement may withdraw from the Agreement so long as the Agency has outstanding Project Commitments, unless such withdrawing party first provides such reasonable written assurances regarding the Project Commitments as the CVFPB may request.

38. Notice. All notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when personally delivered, or in lieu of such personal delivery, three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, certified with return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or the next business day if sent by reputable overnight courier, provided a receipt is obtained and charges prepaid by the delivering party.

Any notice shall be addressed as follows:

City:

City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Attn: City Manager
With copy to City Attorney:

Jeffrey Mitchell
Kronick, Moskovitz et al
1331 Garden Hwy, 2nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95833
District:

With copy to District General Counsel:

RD 900 General Counsel
Day Carter & Murphy LLP
413
4916-2665-3281.2 007203.160
Agreement for the Joint Exercise of Powers Page 18 of 16 Reclamation District No. 900 & City of West Sacramento
3620 American River Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95864
Any Party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement by giving written notice of such change to the other Party(ies) in the manner provided in this Section.

39. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile, “pdf” or other electronic transmission) in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 900
By:__________________________________ By:__________________________________

ATTEST ATTEST
_____________________________________
City Clerk
_____________________________________
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
[NAME]
_____________________________________
[NAME]
414

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2025 ITEM # 11
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 25-90 AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FY 2025/26 BUDGET RELATED TO

THE ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [ X ] Staff
[ ] Other
Ariana Adame, Assistant City Manager, Community
Services
City Manager’s Office
Jaipal Chahal, Director of Capital Projects
Capital Projects Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to present and seek City Council approval of Resolution 25-90, which authorizes an amendment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and appropriates funds received through the Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District bond issuance for Fiscal Year 2025/26.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 25-90 (Attachment 1) approving amendments to the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2025/26 and appropriate funds eligible for reimbursement.

BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2016, the West Sacramento City Council (“City Council”) adopted Resolution 16-58, proposing the establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund the construction of public improvements and other eligible activities. The resolution also directed the preparation of an Infrastructure Financing Plan (“Plan”). As part of the formation process, the City of West Sacramento Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District No. 1 Public Financing Authority (“Authority”) was created to serve as the legislative body governing the EIFD.

Subsequently, on June 14, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-17, approving the Infrastructure Financing Plan (“Plan”). On June 28, 2017, the Authority took further action to formally establish the EIFD by adopting: (i) Resolution 17-2, approving the Plan and formation of the EIFD, and (ii) Ordinance 17-1, officially adopting the Plan and establishing the EIFD.

Since its formation, the West Sacramento EIFD has operated successfully as the first enhanced infrastructure financing district in the State of California. Consistent with EIFD law, the tax increment allocated to the EIFD has grown steadily since the base year of June 28, 2017. For Fiscal Year 2025/26, tax increment revenues within the EIFD are projected to reach approximately $4.3 million.

On August 21, 2024, the Public Financing Authority adopted Resolution 24-4 authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds by the EIFD; and on August 21, 2025, the Public Financing Authority authorized the issuance and sale of Series 2025 EIFD Bonds. The Series 2025 EIFD Bonds generated a principal amount of $57,225,000, with $54,793,222 available in construction proceeds to support eligible projects identified in the EIFD Plan.

ANALYSIS
Staff recommends appropriating the bond proceeds to eligible expense categories, including several capital improvement projects per the approved EIFD Budget Policy (Attachment 2). The City aims to expend at least 80 percent of the bond proceeds within three years to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and sound financial management, as well as to comply with IRS arbitrage rules.

The proposed appropriations are outlined in Table 1 (Attachment 3). These recommendations were developed based on the following criteria: project eligibility, project readiness and timing, and alignment with the goals and intent of the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) formation. 415
FY 2025/26 CIP Amendment
August 20, 2025