(Based on Transcript prepared by Spherion Deposition Services)

DATE OF MEETING: Monday, February 5, 2001

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, City Council Chambers

201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931

A. For the Regular Meeting on January 16, 2001

Public is asked to please step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to items not already agendized for discussion.

A. 6:00 p.m. - Wetland Education Program.

City Manager, Dale Shaddox, introduced the panel of guest speakers and the Wetland Education Program ensued:

• Jane Hicks, Chief, North Sections, Regulatory Branch, San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

• Carl Wilcox, Habitat Conservation Manager, Central Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Game.

• Geoff Monk, Wildlife/Environmental Biologist.

• Philip Northen, Professor of Biology, Sonoma State University.

B. 7:00 p.m. (or shortly thereafter) - Public Hearing

Chairwoman Moore called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 8:25 p.m.

Commissioners Present: McClelland, Dutra, Mulligan, Moore

Commissioners Absent: Pagnusat

Staff Present: Dennis Dorch, Director of Planning

There were no changes to the agenda.

A. For the Regular Meeting on January 16, 2001

It was moved by Commissioner Dutra to approve the minutes of January 16, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commissioner Mulligan.

Yes: 4 Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Pagnusat) Abstain: 0

There were no oral or written communications.

Chairwoman Moore provided a brief overview of the meeting structure and explained the process for commenting on the Draft EIR.

Chairwoman Moore opened the public hearing.

Cunningham Marsh Preservation Committee, Sebastopol, stated that he resides on Cunningham Road that is a couple of miles up Gravenstein Highway from the proposed project. He reviewed the history of the Cunningham Marsh Preservation Committee and discussed their intent to defend the wetlands contained on the project site.

Mr. Bliss cited Section 3.55 of the Draft EIR, Biological Resources, that states that the project is not located near any habitat conservation planned areas. He stated that their habitat conservation plan area is 2-3 miles from the project site and that he considers the wetlands on the project site to be "sister wetlands".

In reference to the panel of experts that conducted the Wetlands Education Program, Mr. Bliss questioned their credibility if they were paid by the developers to come here. He believed that theirs was a one-sided presentation and cited the panel's inability to reference peer-reviewed documentation.

He disagreed with the EIR's comments indicating that terrestrial animals can easily relocate.

He concluded his comments by stating that it is up to the citizens to be the guardians and protectors of the small wetland contained on the project site and to protect Cotati as a small town in rural Sonoma County.

618 West School Street, Cotati, said that what she would like to know is what kinds of businesses will locate within the proposed business park, and will the potential revenues from this project be worth the costs to the City. Also, she expressed concern about the potential for "chain" stores and whether or not the potential businesses will serve the needs of the community or some outside corporation. She mentioned that other cities have adopted "no chain" ordinances, and suggested that the Planning Commission may want to give that some consideration.

Ms. Simon questioned the type of housing that would be provided, would it be owner-occupied or rentals. Also, what income level would be served by the housing? She expressed concerns about impacts to Police services if there are absentee landlords. Also, noise impacts were cited as a concern both from construction and from the finished project.

471 West School Street, Cotati, referred to her written comments and her hopes that they will be included in the final EIR. Ms. Thomas stated her opinion that the project would be the best thing for Cotati. The project would generate revenue for both the City and the School District.

Ms. Thomas also questioned the quality of the wetlands, particularly with the Army Corp of Engineer's indicating that concern over damage to the Laguna and the wetlands associated with this project is infinitesimal.

Other benefits to the community associated with this project would be improvements to Highway 116, the addition of affordable housing, and new jobs for local citizens.

Ms. Thomas referred to her work on the Walkable Cotati Committee and stated her belief that the focus should be on the center of town. In her opinion, revenues generated from this project could help to make the vision of Walkable Cotati come true.

Lund Hill Lane, Cotati, discussed the benefits of developing a 25+ acre site vs. developing each of the parcels separately. It was his opinion that the larger development is easier to manage with increased public amenities (road improvements, etc.).

Mr. Brennan reviewed the anticipated revenues to be generated from this development that are estimated within the Draft General Plan. Those revenues, he projected, would reverse the City's current deficit annual spending, add to Redevelopment Agency funds, provide low-income set-aside funds, sales tax, and school impact fees.

Mr. Brennan discussed other intrinsic things such as quality of job diversity for professionals, a demand for our local businesses and professional services, and expands the economic base of the county. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the EIR.

Phil Northen, Professor of Biology, said that he was invited to be on the panel of experts for the Wetlands Education Program and was drawn into this issue little by little and not necessarily by intention. He clarified that he is not opposed to the project and is not affiliated with anyone who is an opponent to the project. He stated that he was speaking strictly as an independent individual and not as a representative of Sonoma State University.

Dr. Northen stated his belief that the Draft EIR seriously undervalued the site as a biological habitat. He produced a small bottle containing a California tiger salamander that he said was collected on the site in 1995. The record of this survey was on file with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Northen stated that his written comments include the aforementioned written report. The data indicates that the tiger salamander occupies this site in sufficient numbers to generate breeding.

Secondly, Dr. Northen said that the biologists for this project looked essentially at the site and did not actually take a big view of all the surrounding area. What they missed was that from this project site west to Stony Point Road is a rare Valley Oaks Savanna as classified by the California Department of Fish & Game. He said that this is not marginal habitat, but critical for a number of really important species.

German Road, Sonoma County, said that he has not had a lot of time to review the documents but has some initial concerns about the financial information contained within the appendices. One such concern was a question about long-term costs and revenues. How much of this information is based on assumptions? Do we know what types of retail space will occupy the development? He was concerned about costs to the City for infrastructure and maintenance and whether there will be sufficient revenues to offset these costs. He cited problems experienced by the City of Petaluma where projects cost them more than they were anticipating.

1027 Leddy Avenue, Santa Rosa, expressed concern about reduction of the extent or range of the (plant name inaudible), a plant that occurs in somewhere between 10 and 15 miles only. The project site was numbered as Site No. 19 in the Task Force Vernal Pool Plan. Any loss of this endangered species is significant due to the reduced number of populations left.

Regarding the reference to the control or monitoring of pesticide or toxic fertilizers because of the site's proximity to the Laguna, she stated her belief that this would almost be impossible to regulate. She suggested that consideration be given to not use horticulture or think about the impacts to water quality.

She was concerned about the loss of a five-inch diameter tree without mitigation.

She encouraged the Planning Commission to give consideration to the industrial general plan designation west of US 101 because of impacts related to increased demand for residential development and traffic. She also acknowledged that without the financial means to purchase and protect this site, the wetlands on that site would undoubtedly be lost because of piecemeal development over time.

Cotati resident, said that she is also concerned about an endangered species - families. She stated her opinion that many families do not stay together because of pressures associated with having to spend long hours commuting in order to earn a living and not being able to spend time together. If there were jobs within the community, parents could spend more time with their children and be more readily available for school activities, illnesses, etc. She stated that in her opinion this project might be a golden opportunity to provide good paying jobs close to home.

West Cotati Avenue, Cotati, acknowledged that due to his home's location directly across the street from the project site, he will be impacted by the project. He stated his opinion, however, that this project represents a good opportunity for the City with its revenue generating potential.

Chairwoman Moore asked that comments be limited to issues that need to be addressed in the final EIR. Comments concerning the merits of the project would be more appropriate when the actual project is reviewed.

176 West Cotati Oaks Court, Cotati, expressed concerns about the project as a resident of the west side of Cotati. He voiced concerns about the intersection of Highway 116 and West Cotati Avenue and potential impacts to his neighborhood from increased traffic. He requested that the final EIR evaluate traffic impacts to his neighborhood caused by people using it as a shortcut.

Mr. Barich requested that further consideration be given to energy consumption. He referred to a letter from PG&E dated in June, but a lot has happened since then. He requested information on what, if any, plans there are for energy conservation within this project; and, the potential affect on the power grid for the area.

Concerning police impacts, Mr. Barich suggested that a police sub-station be provided on the site for service to the west side of the City. This would particularly be important given increases in traffic and decreased response time.

He encouraged that the amount of retail space be maximized for future sales tax revenue.

The Orchard Plan, in his opinion, looked promising. He suggested, however, that consideration be given to the survivability of the trees in the parking lot given the amount of heat generated by so much asphalt.

8483 Loretto Avenue, Cotati, said that he agreed with many of the concerns addressed by the previous speaker. He stated concern for parking and aesthetics of the grounds; traffic; wetlands; impact on the power grid; the amount of retail space versus office space; and the viability of the orchard. He also stated concerns related to traffic and police impacts. Regarding revenue projections, he questioned the amount of retail space vs. office space, the latter of which only produces a one-time revenue for the City. Retail space would continue to generate sales tax.

718 West School Street, Cotati, stated that he has been a resident of Cotati since 1948. He stated his belief that the opponents to this project have not considered the fact that the subject property has been designated for commercial development and it will develop. The development will occur whether there is an orderly development of the entire property, or piecemeal development of individual sites. He stated concern that if the site is developed piecemeal, there won't be an environmental report required on certain occasions. He encouraged the City to move forward with this proposal.

350 Helman Lane, Cotati, said that she has been a resident for three months. She stated the following concerns: There needs to be a clearly established administrative recourse for neighboring property owners for personal effects on their property related to this development. Also, she requested specific information on sidewalk improvements around the corner of Helman Lane and Alder Avenue as it would affect her property and her route.

Old Redwood Highway, just outside City limits, stated concern about comments in the EIR related to a Tree Replacement Program. The report indicates that the Eucalyptus trees on the property have limited value because they are imported. He said that red-tailed hawks' nests are in the Eucalyptus trees adjacent to his residence and he believes that the subject site has quality as foraging grounds for wildlife and birds regardless of the quality of the wetlands.

He disagreed with a previous speaker who said that there is nothing more important than human beings. Functioning ecosystems are important and if we continue to pave over viable habitat, viable ecosystems, we will be paying the price in the long run.

He stated concern that this area could become Silicon Valley north with the same types of traffic problems. Unemployment being only 2% in this area, the worker's in this project would be coming from somewhere else.

Air and water quality were stated as concerns. Also, he stated concern about the potential for increased housing costs and existing residents no longer being able to afford to live here.

7883 Old Redwood Highway, Cotati, suggested that Redevelopment Agency funds generated from this project be utilized to build an innovative steel parking structure to mitigate parking impacts and impacts from excess asphalt. He suggested that solar hot water systems be a part of the construction as well as other energy saving features; and, staggered work hours that he believes would help mitigate traffic impacts.

1 Kingston Way, Cotati, stated her protest to the makeup of the group conducting the Wetlands Education Program and stated her belief that they were biased. It was her opinion that the group, for the most part, was interested in mitigation and that they believed this county is too developed to be saved environmentally. She said that since we don't know the financial future for this project or the ecological future for the county, she recommended that Planning Commission take a stand and say that we don't need it (the project) here.

Cohen Court, Cotati, expressed frustration with the proceedings so far. She stated her opinion that with increased traffic has caused the roads to be a mess. Something needs to be done with the roads. If the Cotati Orchard project is going to make the roads better, and something needs to be done with the roads anyway, then the project will help.

Rohnert Park, said that he has not read the EIR, but stated his understanding of the future Gravenstein Highway widening and realignment of West Cotati Avenue that, he supposed, would be a part of the traffic mitigation.

After many years of conducting business in Cotati and experience with development of property, he stated his opinion that the Draft EIR is as complete as it can be. He said that the proposed project has been revised 3 or 4 times already and he believes the applicants are paying attention to what they hear at these meetings.

8682B Old Redwood Highway, Cotati, requested that Monahan Pacific stop sending mailers. He said that he considers them to be propaganda and raises the whole question of undue influence on the process. He stated his opinion that the title "Cotati Orchard" is a major misnomer. He encourage the Planning Commission to consider residents of the west county as this is a regional issue that will have an impact on everybody out to Bodega Bay.

718 West School Street, Cotati, said that she has really studied the EIR and thinks that this is a great EIR. She urged the Planning Commission to find it acceptable. Having lived near the project site for over 45 years, she was amazed by the salamander presented by Dr. Northen and said that she would not submit her written comments on that subject.

Mrs. Draper discussed information contained within the report that dates back to 1985 evidencing efforts towards developing the subject property. She directed the Planning Commission's attention to Figure 4001, Existing Parcels Alternative, and urged them to give it careful consideration. It was her opinion that this property will be developed and in her opinion it would be better to work with one developer rather than several individual property owners. Working with one developer will make it possible to improve Gravenstein Highway, particularly at its intersection with West Cotati Avenue.

Mrs. Draper pointed out that the engineers state in the EIR that this project is a well designed example of urban infill development. This in combination with the site being located within the Redevelopment area would make the project a benefit to Cotati's long-term economic health and vitality. She encouraged the Planning Commission to welcome it.

122 Myrtle Avenue, Cotati, identified himself as a long-time Cotati resident. He stated his belief that the mitigation efforts for any environmental concerns are extensive; would be successful; and, a great thing for Cotati. He said that the traffic impacts might be overstated in the EIR, that the traffic might not be that bad if more of the employees lived in Cotati.

Sebastopol resident, stated her opinion that this a regional issue in terms of the potential growth-inducing aspects to the region. She discussed her concern with EIRs being that they are based on an individual project and don't really deal with cumulative impacts.

35 Page Street, stated his opinion that the this is a good project and the City needs it. He had concerns about traffic. He predicted that 2,000 vehicles would be added to the streets daily and he wondered if the people working at this site would have to drive to other locations in the City. Traffic, in his opinion, could actually increase more than the study shows. He suggested transportation alternatives should be considered. He asked about the traffic signals and will they be pedestrian-friendly. If this project is meant to meld with the existing downtown instead of being isolated, that will need to be considered.

Mr. Rock asked if a project alternative could be designed that includes the wetlands. It should be looked at even though it is said that this isn't a viable alternative. It could be a good example for other cities as well.

Chairwoman Moore said that after the next speaker, she would call for a 5-minute recess.

25 Pine Tree Circle, Cotati, suggested that the project include an arrangement with Sonoma County Transit to get people there instead of providing hundreds of parking spaces so that they can drive there individually. He suggested that the final EIR consider the impact of drainage into the Laguna during a wet year because of all the paving. Could this cause downstream flooding in Sebastopol and the Russian River? He also had some concern about retail at this location because of the Walkable Cotati preference for retail in the downtown core. He said that he was not necessarily opposed to the project.

Chairwoman Moore re-opened the public hearing.

850 West Cotati Avenue, said that her home is across the street from the project site. She stated her opinion that the all of the new trees, shrubs, and flowers planted as a part of this project will help her to breathe because clean air is what she needs. Further, she said that the environment could thrive with a project like this if it's done well and with the City helping it along.

57 Gilbert Way, Cotati, suggested that the ornamental trees shown in the plans be replaced with native trees. He also asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping, the developer or the City?

Chairwoman Moore informed Mr. Fuhs that there is no answer to his question at the present time but that it will be addressed in the final EIR.

Unidentified Speaker asked that since there is no answer to the question asked by Mr. Fuhs, that it be brought up during a meeting with the developer.

8166 Arthur Street, suggested that people read the Monahan Pacific brochures, both what they do say and what they don't say. She stated that the brochures talk about preserving heritage oak trees. However the EIR states that 41 oaks will be cut down. The EIR does not actually state how many will be preserved or what will be done to make sure that they aren't impacted by construction and irrigation or other things that can occur to destroy them after the construction has happened.

121 Flamingo Road, expressed some concern about statements in the EIR indicating that impacts associated with jobs, housing balance and traffic are significant, cumulative, and unavoidable. Regarding traffic, the EIR includes mitigations reducing the local impact to less than significant but the regional impact is unmitigatable. That needs to be addressed.

Regarding the housing and job section, the creation of new jobs would be wonderful. However, there will be a need for 12,076 new housing units. How does this relate to the Growth Management Ordinance? The county cannot absorb that additional amount of growth with their own projected increase in jobs and necessity for housing units.

Ms. Elles stressed the need for these issues to be addressed at a regional level.

Santa Rosa resident, Cotati property owner, expressed his opinion that the proposal is a quality project to set precedent for Gravenstein Highway.

He stated his opinion that the professional office component won't have as much of an impact on traffic as retail/commercial businesses for the whole site, or many smaller projects.

380 Helman Lane, Sonoma County, said that he does not oppose the project but encouraged the Planning Commission to make sure that the people that are impacted by this project are protected. He encouraged them to apply conditions to the project and make sure that there is the ability to enforce the mitigation measures.

8201 Old Redwood Highway, Cotati, had questions about specifics of assessment bonds issued to fund the implementation of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan, and the structure of the financing to greatly enhance the project's ability to offset added development costs associated with the Mitigation Plan. How will this impact what kind of situation that we want here, and what kind of situation that we may be able to look at? Perhaps consider another alternative?

Secondly, Mr. Wagner expressed concerns about water useage and availability.

35 Page Street, stated support for the project. She stated concern about traffic and it's impacts to the community and to the region. She encouraged that the EIR give some consideration to alternative traffic-calming measures.

Ms. Rock also agreed with the suggestion that some sort of a transportation system is developed to encourage people to take the bus rather than drive.

There was no further public comment.

Chairwoman Moore closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission comment:

Commissioner McClelland said that she would like to see some more detail on number of benches and how they plan to create a campus environment. She said that if 2,000 people are working in an environment, walkability is increased by having places to sit.

Commissioner Dutra said that he shares the concerns stated by Sandy Elles and complimented her article. His concerns related to traffic and housing. Concerning the wetland issue, he would like more information and would to speak with Dr. Northen. It was his belief that a lot of the area holding water at this point is manmade. He said that there used to be diesel equipment and tractors sold on the property and they would push dirt around to demonstrate their work.

Commissioner Mulligan said that he likes the project but is not yet satisfied with the traffic and parking situation. He also said that he wants to be satisfied that the immediate neighbors are not impacted in a negative way.

Chairwoman Moore wanted to know whether the outdoor seating, water features, short-grass lawn, fireplaces and recreational facilities, bicycle parking, pedestrian lanes for the retail center and the day care will be accessible to the public, or will it be gated for just the project that comes in.

Chairwoman Moore said that there are two conflicting statements in the EIR as to whether or not there will be an on-site day care center. She requested clarification. In the same section the EIR states that a landscape commission will be used where feasible. She also requested clarification on that point.

Concerning Mitigation Measure 3.50, Section 3, Notification. Since the project will be built in phases, will Monahan Pacific or the City monitor the notification? Will the notification come all at once or in drips and drabs?

Concerning Section 3.60, Section 4, school impacts, Chairwoman Moore would like more clarification. The proposed 13 students to be generated would probably come from the residential portion of the development. What about future employees who may live in other areas in or the City who will transfer their children into Thomas Page or La Fiesta because it's more convenient to have them in town and near where they work.

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Commission.

Chairwoman Moore adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.