DATE OF MEETING: Monday, February 26, 2001

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, City Council Chambers

201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931

Chairwoman Moore called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Dutra, McClelland, Mulligan, Pagnusat, Moore

Staff Present: Dennis Dorch, Director of Planning

Veronica Nebb, Assistant City Attorney

Nadin Sponamore, EIR Consultant

There were no changes to the agenda.

A. For the Regular Meeting on February 5, 2001

It was moved by Commissioner McClelland to approve the minutes of February 5, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commissioner Mulligan.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

There were no oral or written communications.

Director of Planning Dorch introduced the attorney for the project, Mr. Michael Zischke, who had requested to make a brief presentation that might answer questions from the community.

Chairwoman Moore invited Mr. Zischke to make a presentation.

Michael Zischke, Morrison & Foerster, identified himself as an attorney specializing in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and as a representative of the applicant, Monahan Pacific. Mr. Zischke stated that he has reviewed the South Sonoma Business Park Draft EIR and found the document to be conservative, thorough, and that it evaluates all of the impacts. It recommends effective mitigation measures.

Mr. Zischke referenced two letters to the City that he prepared in response to the EIR. [1. Letter dated February 26, 2001, re: Policy and Substantive Comments; and, 2. Letter dated February 26, 2001, re: Technical Comments and Corrections]. Mr. Zischke proceed to summarize some of the primary comments. He provided copies of the letters to the Planning Commission.

In concluding his presentation, Mr. Zischke said that the applicants look forward to continuing and finalizing the EIR process and have confidence that the city and its consultants will prepare a thorough response and answer all of the questions that have been raised.

Director of Planning Dorch said that this is the second of two meetings to solicit comments on the Draft EIR. He briefly discussed the CEQA process and clarified that the purpose of the meeting is to solicit comments on the Draft EIR and not to approve or disapprove the project. He outlined a procedure for receiving the public comment to accommodate the number potential speakers.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

51 Gilbert Way, Cotati, suggested that there might be a compromise between those who are opposed to any development and those that will justify any new development regardless of it impacts to the City. He stated his belief that the wetlands can be mitigated by moving them to another area as was done for the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control facility. He advocated the use of native plants; stated his opinion that the traffic can be mitigated; that development can occur while retaining Cotati's charm and small-town character downtown; and, discussed the potential financial benefit to the City.

8163 Arthur Street, Cotati, referred to a statement within the Draft EIR that development of this site would not constitute an impact to the agricultural integrity of any unique or otherwise greatly valuable resource area. Following a review of written comments submitted by Dr. Phil Northen, Professor of Biology at Sonoma State University, she said that she shared many of his concerns. Specifically, she agreed with Dr. Nothen's comments related to the valley oak savana, the tiger salamander, wetland mitigation, and the endangered Sebastopol Meadowfoam. Another of her concerns was related to the Draft EIR's characterization of animals on the site as comprised entirely of species adapted to human disturbance.

7883 Old Redwood Highway, asked if Philip Northen is representing himself as he stated at the last meeting, or Sonoma State University since his correspondence is on Sonoma State University letterhead.

Eric Storm, Sonoma County, referred to his previously submitted written comments on the EIR and highlighted the following points: The Executive Summary does not list all of the significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts. The estimates for high-end water demand are obscured but the low-end is clearly stated. The estimated high-end demand on the City's wastewater system is also obscured. He asked why the EIR estimates that only 59% of the new employees at the site will not need new homes. He stated his belief that most of the workers will come from outside the county and need a house. He asked what assurance there is that the developer will not abandon the project after building the corporate buildings.

618 West Cotati Avenue, submitted a letter dated February 26, 2001, and a petition with forty-seven signatures stating concerns regarding traffic, noise and impacts to neighborhood housing values. The petition request that these concerns be studied further. Ms. Simon discussed the specific concerns related to each of these potential impacts.

616 West School Street, continued to discuss the neighborhood's concerns related to traffic. She cited a statement within the 1996 Citywide Traffic Analysis that said cut-through traffic was occurring and that the traffic threshold was near.

612 West Cotati Avenue, discussed his concerns related to increased traffic on West Cotati Avenue. He suggested that alternative entrances and exits from the South Sonoma Business Park be evaluated other than directly across from West Cotati Avenue, with some form of traffic controls in the West Cotati neighborhood. Another concern was related to increased traffic on Highway 116, particularly during the lunchtime and commute hours.

7375 Alder Avenue, discussed the studies that have been done by experts to approve this site for construction. He talked about his children having to be dependent on Rohnert Park's facilities for swimming, baseball, schools, etc. He talked about the potential benefits to the City as a whole from this project even though there will be impacts to the neighborhood.

7427 Alder Avenue, discussed the changes to their area over the past 40 years from development within the Cotati city limits. He encouraged that consideration be given to the neighbors directly impacted that are not in the city limits so that they may benefit as well. He suggested cooperation between the City and the County of Sonoma, possibly through annexation, to allow housing or smaller commercial establishments that would surround the business park.

62 Creek Court, stated that he represented the Sonoma Group of the Sierra Club and its Chairman, Keith Kaulum. He submitted a letter dated February 26, 2001, and continued to review the contents. Among the concerns were impacts to housing, traffic, water capacity, views, wetland mitigation, valley oak savanna, and tiger salamanders. The letter cites several conflicts between the South Sonoma Business Park and specific General Plan goals.

John Roberts Drive, spoke of the potential monetary benefits to the community generated from this project that would allow additional resources for desired improvements. The speaker stated their belief that the project would be a good addition to the City.

52 Creek Court, urged the Planning Commission to look favorably on the proposed project. He reasoned that the property is zoned for commercial development, a decision that was made a long time ago, and that there are facts to support the development of the property for commercial purposes.

326 East Cotati Avenue, Spoke in support of the project and said that she has been listening to all of the concerns about vernal pools, animals, trees, etc. for several months. Also, she said that she has been reading all of the letters in the Community Voice. She stated her opinion that the same people who have been voicing concerns for the past 30 years are doing so now in addition to several carpetbaggers. She recommended that the citizens of Cotati should manage their own city and that the others should go home and manage theirs.

7659 Isabel Drive, voiced concerns about increased traffic, congestion, and air pollution. He stated his belief that the project compromises the rural character of the community. He voiced a specific concern about increased traffic generated from this project on Gravenstein Highway and its impact to school children crossing Gravenstein Highway to get to Thomas Page School. He said that concerning this project, the minuses far outweigh the pluses.

176 West Cotati Oaks Ct., encouraged the Planning Commission to require Monahan Pacific to address questions from the community. He reiterated a previous recommendation for a parking tower that would comprise approximately two acres and allow for additional open space to allow recharge of the aquifer. He discussed potential impacts to police services, utilities, traffic, and housing. He recommended that the use of solar energy be explored for the project.

380 Maple Avenue, shared the concerns of her neighbors on the west side related to traffic impacts. She recommended relocation of the project's driveway directly across from West Cotati Avenue; the addition of speed bumps along Clifford and Maple; increased policing of the area for speeders; and strictly enforced truck traffic rules. She stated her opinion that the EIR is flawed in that it does not provide a comparison between this project and other similar project's impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods.

46 Gilbert Way, spoke of her experiences as a resident of Cotati and stated her support for the South Sonoma Business Park. She said that there is development all around us and that the City needs the revenue.

62 Creek Court, submitted a letter dated February 26, 2001, and proceeded to review its contents. The concerns were related to traffic congestion, air pollution from vehicles, impacts to housing, the oak savanna, energy consumption, and impacts to wildlife habitat and biology caused from paving of a floodplain. She stated her opinion that the City Council's issuance of a bond for mitigation measures on this project is inappropriate.

Old Redwood Highway, submitted a letter dated February 26, 2001, discussed his opinion that the EIR downgrades the biological resources. The eucalyptus trees provide nesting habitat for vultures and owls. The grassland, although non-native, is valuable foraging habitat for those bird species as well as hundreds of other animals. He suggested a possible conflict of interest when the biologist who prepared the report for the EIR is also hired to mitigate the lost wetlands.

718 West School Street, said that it appears many people have not considered that only two and a half acres out of thirty-five impacted by wetlands. He encouraged that consideration be given to the development of each of the parcels separately with no requirement for an environmental impact report. Traffic impacts will occur either way. With a planned development, there are concessions on the part of the developer to mitigate traffic impacts that would not happen with piecemeal development.

635 Goodwin Ave., Penngrove, submitted written comments from Adrienne Lauby, 1 Kingston Lane, Cotati. In addition, Ms. Freedman submitted her own written comments and proceeded to review them. The concerns were related to preservation of the wetlands, water demands, and wastewater capacity.

Cotati resident, spoke in support of the project and stated her opinion that most of the people at the meeting were not born in Cotati and came from somewhere else. She saw it as selfish that they seem to think they have theirs and now don't want anybody else to have anything. She noted that no one has asked about the community's children and where are they going to get jobs.

Sonoma County Transportation Land Use Coalition, 404 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa, said that like the others in attendance he is concerned about Cotati and the other cities and development in the County. He stated that the EIR fails to address impacts to housing created by the immigration of new high-paid workers who will occupy the project site. He also said the EIR fails to address the impacts of increased commuter traffic and deteriorated air quality. He shared previously stated concerns about the tiger salamander. He stated his belief that if an environmental study had been done on this property before it was zoned for commercial use, that it would have been designated for protection of the habitat.

8483 Loretto Avenue, asked what the criteria is for validation of one's opinion when it comes to a project such as this. He stated his opinion that everyone has a right to express their opinion in this forum and that everyone has a duty to help shape this project into one that everyone can live with. He said that Cotati needs this project but that the current plan leaves much room for improvement.

8163 Arthur Street, said that he has lived in Cotati for 35 years and at that time Santa Clara County was orchards, farmlands, and fields. The changes that have occurred there were largely due to the influence of the electronics industry. Mr. Adler suggested that Monahan Pacific's history should be looked into (i.e. past lawsuits). He stated his opinion that the EIR is inadequate because it does not discuss the valley oaks or the salamander. He stated his concerns related to increased traffic and pollution. He urged the Planning Commission to wait and see what other developments could be built on the property that preserves what's on it.

718 West School Street, stated her opinion that the traffic mitigation measures required of this project for the West Cotati Avenue/Gravenstein Highway intersection would be a vast improvement over the current unsafe conditions. She directed attention to the EIR, page 3.40-25 that addresses vehicles driving through the West Cotati Avenue neighborhood to access the project site. The report concludes that travel times would typically be longer and that no benefits are evident.

She requested that the EIR evaluate a scenario where in the case of the Gravenstein Highway 101 off-ramp being congested, what is the probability that people would continue on Highway 101 to the Rohnert Park Expressway interchange and use Redwood Drive to Helman Lane to access the site? Also, Ms. Draper suggested that the midday shuttle service between the project site and downtown Cotati suggested in the EIR could operate in the mornings and evenings as well to help local residents to and from work on the site without driving. Well developed pedestrian paths, bike lanes, and the utilization of the east/west School Street tunnel would help local people to the site without cars. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the project.

35 Page Street, stated support for the proposed South Sonoma Business Park project. Regarding Section 3.34, no. 3, item c, within the EIR concerning Air Quality, he suggested that all alternatives to signalization as discussed in the Walkable Cotati Workshops be considered to lessen air quality impacts. He specifically recommended round-abouts at the following intersections: Madrone/Gravenstein Hwy.; West Cotati Avenue/Gravenstein Hwy.; Redwood Drive/Helman Lane; Redwood Drive/Gravenstein Hwy.; Old Redwood Highway/Gravenstein Hwy.; Old Redwood Highway/U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp; Stony Point Road/Gravenstein Hwy.; Alder Avenue/Gravenstein Hwy.

4730 Daywalt Rd., Sebastopol, stated that he was once the Cotati City Attorney in the 70's. He discussed the reasons for incorporation in 1963 as being to resist the growth and encroachment of Rohnert Park. He also stated his belief that the voters voted for Proposition 13 in 1978 not to encourage more development but to restrain it. He spoke in support of the EIR process as established by the California Environmental Quality Act. He agreed with a previous speaker's concerns about water, sewer and traffic.

Unincorporated Sonoma County, stated her opinion that the EIR does not adequately address biological impacts, specifically related to the valley oaks which are in decline statewide. The valley oaks on the project site, in her opinion, show signs of reproduction that does not occur everywhere. She stated her concern for the survival of the valley oaks that remain once they are in a parking lot, and said that they certainly won't continue to reproduce.

She discussed concerns related to vernal pool mitigation, particularly without any attempt to quantify the success of such projects.

Ms. Johnson said that the Draft EIR does not mention the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the Laguna de Santa Rosa.

35 Page Street, stated her concerns that the sidewalks, walkways, bike paths and mass transit links conform to the stated goals addressed in the Walkable Cotati Vision Plan. Links should connect the project site with future projects and already developed parts of the City. Traffic impacts could be mitigated with a strong mass transit link to the future Rail Village on Santero Way, as well as to Sonoma State University. Also to help mitigate traffic impacts, this developer as well as future developers could be required to contribute to a city bus system. This would provide a connection to the downtown and help to tie the community together.

Regarding Impact 3.40, No. 13, increased development within the California and North Bay Region and this project's contribution to traffic volume increases, there are no mitigations. This developer, at the very least, should make a commitment to participate in serious regional transportation discussions with all affected parties. Perhaps a contribution towards future solutions to regional traffic issues should be required.

Cotati Resident, stated her support for the project. She disagreed with a previous speaker's prediction that construction of this project would result in a situation similar to the Silicon Valley. This project, she said, would present the opportunity for people to work where they live.

Sebastopol, identified himself as an environmental specialist with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He stated that the Draft EIR is inadequate in that it does not address the potential water quality impacts or provide adequate water quality mitigation measures. The Draft EIR does not provide an appropriate site drainage plan; presents an inadequate assessment of groundwater recharge issues; and, fails to consider cumulative impacts of the development on the groundwater resources. The analysis on increased runoff impacts due to vast amounts of impervious surfaces was inadequate in his opinion, and did not evaluate cumulative impacts. He found the flood hazard mitigation measures to be vague and unclear.

8841 Lund Hill Lane, said that she moved to Cotati 12 years ago and discussed her reasons for doing so, among them the commute distance to Marin County or San Francisco. She stated her support for the proposed project because of the potential for people living in Cotati to work in Cotati. Regarding housing costs, she compared housing costs in Bakersfield to Sonoma County. She stated her belief that the costs are higher here because Sonoma County is beautiful and Bakersfield is not.

471 West School Street, said that because Cotati is the Hub of Sonoma Cotati, we will have traffic regardless of where building occurs. She pointed out that the project proposes several access points and that the estimated 2,000 cars won't leave the site from the same location or at the same time. Also, the development will occur over five years, not all at once. The project, in her opinion, proposes what Cotati has asked for including housing. She stated her concerns about sprawl but did not thing development of this one 36-acre site will cause sprawl.

Rohnert Park, talked about witnessing Rohnert Park grow and expand over the years. He encouraged people to drive by the project site at night and listen to the many frogs. He cautioned that if this project were built, it would be the last time anyone would hear that song.

8166 Arthur Street, identified herself as a representative of Citizens for a Sustainable Cotati. She stated that they have found many inadequacies and inconsistencies throughout the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR fails to recognize the biological significance of the site. She said that only ten percent of California's vernal pools are left; the Sebastopol Meadowfoam is endangered in the State; the tiger salamander breeds on the project site; the valley oak savanna is rapidly disappearing. The Draft EIR fails to mention Cotati's place in the Laguna de Santa Rosa and it place in the Pacific flyway, one of the world's major migratory bird routes. The Citizens for a Sustainable Cotati propose an alternative proposal in accordance with CEQA that the site become an ecological preserve. They further recommend that efforts towards revitalizing the economic situation in Cotati be focused on downtown and local independent businesses in the hub area.

8682 Old Redwood Highway, referred to his written comments and expressed his opinion that the area is peaked in terms of development and that construction on the subject site, with so much asphalt, would be a crime. He stated his opinion that there are several people commuting from Cloverdale, Ukiah, and Lake County to high-tech jobs in Petaluma and Marin County. He said that these types of developments should be spread out to other areas needing jobs further away and that by doing so, traffic impacts could be avoided.

7747 Isabel Drive, stated support for the project. He recognized that the property will be developed and said that a cohesive project is better than piecemeal development. He stated his belief that the economic benefits to the community are good and that the plan is pretty much in alignment with the General Plan. Traffic impacts, he agreed, need to be looked at cumulatively.

He stated his opinion that there is a strong workforce locally that would fill some of the new jobs.

Sebastopol, submitted written comments and said that she has identified numerous inadequacies in the Draft EIR. She said she wanted to go on record as having submitted written comments for review and analysis.

Bodega, said that the Draft EIR is poorly written and omits many environmental details. The review of cumulative effects is inadequate with regard to water, housing, and traffic. The document does not adequately evaluate degradation of the quality of life for the entire region as a core, and the cumulative effects of all of these projects.

Rohnert Park, spoke in support of the project because it will provide jobs and potentially generate more money from the State for the School District because of an increased student population.

8168 Arthur Street, submitted written comments. She stated a concern that there is an assumption that the project will generate revenue for the City. However, there could be substantial costs associated with defending against lawsuits due to an inadequate EIR. She stated support to an earlier speaker's suggestion that the property be purchased and maintained as an ecological preserve.

She said that it should be acknowledged that there was an error made in the zoning.

Lund Hill Lane, stated support for the project. He stated his belief that there will be increased traffic and increased housing costs whether or not there is growth in Cotati. He suggested zero-scape landscaping for the project with the use of native plants. He also suggested that if this project is approved, that Monahan Pacific give something back to the community. He suggested a baseball field for the children.

Sonoma County Wetland Watch, submitted and reviewed written comments. She disputed several statements in the Draft EIR related to Land Use Impacts, Hydrology Impacts, and Biological Resources Impacts.

Sonoma County, stated her opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately address the negative impact of a divided community. She clarified that she was not speaking about a physically divided community, but rather she was referring to the opinions for and against the project She said that Cotati is in a critical juncture and the proposed project will have a forever impact on the community. She urged careful consideration because there is no end to the development opportunities on this site.

600 West School Street, talked about a similar mixed-use project proposed twenty years ago in Petaluma that was denied because of community opposition. The site was then developed with a large apartment complex that generates very little income. He compared that situation to this current situation. He suggested that if there are enough people that want this site to be a park, then they should get together and purchase the property. Otherwise, the property is zoned commercial and should be developed accordingly. Mr. King reported that there are plenty of salamanders under his house and that the oak trees in his yard (very close to the project site) grow like weeds.

Sebastopol, expressed his opinion that the project will impact a large area well beyond Cotati. The EIR, he said, should evaluate the cumulative impacts of projects being proposed simultaneously in Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol and Petaluma. He also suggested that a cumulative impact analysis should be done for all of the project alternatives.

7440 Gravenstein Highway, talked about his experience mowing hay in this area from 1948 to 1951 from Myrtle Avenue to Stony Point Road. The Myrtle Avenue area, in his opinion, was the worst area for vernal pools. Based on his experience farming and irrigating in the area, he suggested that the water in vernal pools is evaporated by the sun and does not go into the aquifers like people think. In the Cotati area, he said, is blue clay. When the water hits it, it stays.

There were no further public comments.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Planning Commission comments:

Commissioner Dutra had specific questions about the following impacts:

Impact 3.40 #9 discusses increased ridership on Golden Gate Transit and new transit shelters. Who will pay for the transit shelters, the City or the developer?

Impact 3.40 #11 discusses the widening of Alder Avenue. Again, who will pay for that. How would the increased traffic impact the neighbors?

Impact 3.4 #13 discusses increased traffic in the North Bay Region. Commissioner Dutra said that it appears to him that there will be an increase in traffic whether or not this project is built. Historically, Cotati is impacted by traffic associated with development in other communities but gets none of the financial benefit. However, traffic is an issue that requires mitigation. That mitigation is more likely to be provided developing the site as a whole rather than piecemeal. Specifically concerning the intersection of Gravenstein Highway at Madrone Avenue, Commissioner Dutra suggested that additional traffic calming alternatives (perhaps a traffic signal) be considered because of school children crossing there to get to Thomas Page School.

Impact 3.4 #4 discusses dust generation and mitigation measures. Who will serve as a disturbance coordinator? Who will designate that person and who will pay for that person if the project goes forward?

Regarding trees, Commissioner Dutra suggested that the tree issue be reevaluated with the goal of saving as many of the existing oaks as possible. Concerning the retention of an accredited arborist, who appoints them, what are the qualifications required, and who pays for them?

Impact 3.60, Fire Protection. Will there be a fire management plan due to the increase on demand for services. Commissioner Dutra suggested fire drills or plans for that area in the case of an emergency or disaster. This would be important because there will be a lot of people in a single spot for a period of time.

Impact 3.60, Police Protection. Commissioner Dutra suggested that impacts to police services needs to be closely evaluated with the participation of the Police Chief.

Tiger Salamanders. Commissioner Dutra shared the concern for any species that is threatened or endangered. Because of conflicting information about whether or not the tiger salamander exists on the project site, he was unsure what to do about that issue.

Commissioner Mulligan expressed concern about the size of the project, particularly including housing. He suggested that the consideration be given to the question of "how big do we really want to be"? Traffic was among his concerns. He stated that he did not want to impact the west side neighborhood with added traffic and suggested further mitigation. He suggested that the project include energy-saving features and staggered work hours. Another expressed concern was related to water availability, particularly when Rohnert Park continues to drill wells.

Commissioner McClelland thanked everyone for their participation. She shared the concerns expressed about traffic and potential impacts to the West Cotati neighborhood. She agreed with exploring someone's suggestion of adding speed bumps to Clifford Street as a means to slow traffic. Another suggestion she agreed with was one for zeroscape landscaping for water conservation. Concerning energy usage, she shared the concern that the energy situation has changed since PG&E responded to this project. She suggested adding alternative energy sources to this project. She recommended that consideration be given to adding some residential units above the retail.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat asked for further information on whether or not the project site is located within the Laguna.

Concerning Figure 3.40-2: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes, he requested further analysis on the intersection of West Cotati Avenue. The figures shown indicate zero cars entering and exiting the site from and to West Cotati Avenue. He questioned the validity of that figure.

Chairwoman Moore, stating a concern related to the Housing Element, asked what the intentions were for the residential units and how will that be monitored. Will they be rented or sold? Will they be retained for rental to employees at the site? Will they be retained for use as executive suites for temporary workers?, etc.

Chairwoman Moore shared the concerns about transportation and agreed that there should be more than just a shuttle in the afternoon. A citywide bus system should be considered that provides a link throughout the community, including a link between this project to downtown and to Sonoma State University. The citywide bus system could be funded through this project and any future projects.

Chairwoman Moore referred to her comments at the last meeting rather than re-stating them. She thanked everyone for their participation and respectful behavior.

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Commission.

Chairwoman Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary