DATE OF MEETING: Monday, April 23, 2001

TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 p.m.

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: McClelland, Mulligan, Pagnusat, Moore

Commissioners Absent: Dutra

Staff Present: Dennis Dorch, Director of Planning

Marsha Sue Lustig, Senior Planner

Diane Henderson, Consultant Planner

A. For the regular meeting on April 2, 2001

It was moved by Commissioner Mulligan to approve the minutes for April 2, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commissioner McClelland.

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

There were no changes to the agenda.

Director of Planning Dorch recommended continuing Item A because the final materials have not yet been prepared for submittal this evening. He suggested opening the public hearing and continuing to May 7, 2001.

There were no further oral or written communications.

Chairwoman Moore opened the public hearing and continued it to May 7, 2001.

Director of Planning Dorch introduced Diane Henderson, Consultant Planner.

Consultant Planner Henderson presented the staff report and offered to answer questions from the Commission.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Consultant Planner Henderson clarified that the building setback along Gravenstein Highway will be increased from the standard setback of thirty feet to forty feet because of the height of the tower element.

Chairwoman Moore asked for clarification on the actual number of trees that will be saved on the site. Section 3.35.1 of the EIR states that possibly 20 trees will be saved, then the staff report says 49 native trees will be saved. Consultant Planner Henderson acknowledged that there were inconsistencies in the EIR. She offered to get an answer to Chairwoman Moore's question.

Commissioner Mulligan asked for confirmation that a condition of approval has been added to the project to require the construction of residential units. Consultant Planner Henderson responded that the actual conditions are still being worked on to be included in the resolutions. It will be up to the Planning Commission whether or not to approve that condition.

Commissioner Mulligan then requested and received clarification that the street shown as across from the main entrance to the project is the realigned West Cotati Avenue.

Chairwoman Moore invited comment from the applicant.

Tom Monahan, Monahan Pacific, said that the EIR discusses several project alternatives and that the application before the Planning Commission at this time is the Orchard Alternative Plan. He clarified that the application includes a request for five conditional use permit applications. There is a sixth lot at the northwest quadrant of the site that would hold the housing. The applicants propose to bring that portion of the project back to the Planning Commission as a separate application due to the necessity of zoning amendments to allow the type of housing that they propose. They propose 50 townhouse cottage-style homes.

Mr. Monahan discussed how the site was selected and how the master plan was developed. He introduced the project team as follows: Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific; Bill Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape Architects; Mark Adams, Architect with Robinson, Mills & Williams; and Zora Wellborn, Civil Engineer with Carlile & Macy.

Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific, reviewed the project history and the evolution of the proposed project. He discussed the specific features of the site design, development concept, architectural features, proposed improvements to Gravenstein Highway, and benefits to the community resulting from the project. The project, he said, provides a necessary balance in the community by providing jobs; and sets a precedent for high quality development along Gravenstein Highway.

Bill Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape Architects, discussed site neighborhood and landscape context, site organization and landscape context, and site organization and landscape concept. The landscape plan strives to create a western gateway with a village orchard setting.

In response to an inquiry from Chairwoman Moore, Mr. Smith said that the area at the termination of the main street, they propose a water fountain feature and an open, accessible turf environment comprising approximately one-half to one acre.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Mr. Smith discussed the concepts around tree selection with a goal to provide a balance between evergreen and deciduous trees.

In response to an inquiry from Chairwoman Moore, Mr. Smith discussed ultimate tree heights assuming proper growing environment, planting, care and water. The heights ranged between sixteen feet (crape myrtle) and thirty-six feet (populus fremontii).

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Mr. Smith discussed the variety of landscaping proposed that is based on location and intended use of the area He said that a landscape irrigation system will be developed at a later date.

Mark Adams, RMW Architects, discussed the architectural features of the project with illustrations and color/material samples. He discussed methods used to soften the impact of the three story buildings.

Zora Wellborn, Carlile Macy, identified herself as the civil engineer on the project. She discussed the proposed improvements to Gravenstein Highway.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Ms. Wellborn discussed improvements to Helman Lane with a total width of 44 feet. She said that there is no plan at this time to provide improvements at Madrone Avenue. She was not aware of conditions at this point in time that would require improvements at that intersection.

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Mulligan, Mr. Adams said that if the setback from Gravenstein Highway was increased from 40 feet to 50 feet, other aspects of the project would be impacted. Lowering the height of the tower element to 35 feet would make the tower equal in height to the adjacent buildings and would take away from the effectiveness of the entry.

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Director of Planning Dorch said that there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces by 15% when the parking is shared.

Commissioner Mulligan re-stated his concerns for the safety of school children crossing Gravenstein Highway at Madrone Avenue to get to Thomas Page School, particularly because of increased traffic resulting from this project.

Director of Planning Dorch responded that the project does not propose traffic controls at Madrone Avenue to assist with pedestrian crossing at this time. He said, however, that is an issue that can be addressed by the Planning Commission.

Director of Planning Dorch clarified, in response to an inquiry from Chairwoman Moore, that the Planning Commission's discussion at this meeting could result in suggested conditions of approval for the project when it returns on May 7.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat asked about maintenance agreements, particularly for the landscaping. He was concerned with the long-term life of the trees and landscaping.

Assistant City Attorney Nebb addressed the question. One of the conditions being recommended by staff would require a shared maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement would apply to all of the common area. The maintenance agreement would be recorded and required for each of the lots. The agreement would include a provision that would allow for city enforcement of the maintenance responsibilities.

Also in response to Vice Chairman Pagnusat, Assistant City Attorney Nebb discussed the improvements to Gravenstein Highway and the necessity for Caltrans approvals. The project will be conditioned to provide the improvements, and if Caltrans permits were not approved within a reasonable period of time, some financial security to insure construction of those improvements would be required.

Commissioner McClelland asked about the potential including housing on the third floor of the 3-story buildings shown further back on Main Street. Director of Planning Dorch responded that a conditional use permit would be required that would be a discretionary action on the part of the Planning Commission and City Council.

Consultant Planner Henderson addressed an earlier question about the number of trees to be saved on the site. Basically, the number of trees to be saved would depend on which project alternative was built. The Orrchard Plan Alternative currently under consideration would result in 49 trees being retained on the site.

7659 Isabelle Drive, stated his opinions about why the proposed project does not fit into Cotati. He suggested that the way to soften the impact of a three story building is not to build a three story building. He restated his concerns about the safety of school children crossing Gravenstein Highway at Madrone to access Thomas Page School. He spoke against approving a project at this location until one is submitted that fits Cotati. He expressed doubt that the project will provide the kind of revenue that are expected.

176 West Cotati Oaks Ct., stated his opinion that the proposed plan is a terrible plan. He said that he lives close to the site and is not opposed to development, but opposed to this project. He expressed concerns about the potential for added traffic to the west Cotati neighborhood and the lack of energy efficiency in the design of the project. He expressed concerns about the proposed retail area with parking in front and how freight trucks are going to service the retail stores. He also wanted to know where the signage will be for these businesses. The property, in his opinion, could be developed in such a way that it would be a tourist destination.

718 West School Street, said that Cotati is currently at a crossroads with people pounding on our doors. She cited several developments currently under construction, and several in the planning stages. The projects are appropriate in-fill projects in the proper zones. She spoke about the City needing to provide services, but that there needs to be a revenue source to pay for them. She said that the city's industrial parks are almost built out but that there has been virtually no retail development in years. She urged the Planning Commission to approve this application.

425 Helman Lane, spoke about lost opportunities for development over the years for various reasons. After citing specific instances of lost commercial and residential growth because of citizen opposition and a no-growth attitude, he requested that the Planning Commission accept this project and allow it to proceed on to its next level. He expressed the opinion that the South Sonoma Business Park project is well designed, pleasant visually and offers additional housing.

8210 Old Redwood Highway, said that as a Cotati business owner she sees the South Sonoma Business Park project as a genuine viable plan. She expressed the opinion that the project will be a positive catalyst in bringing much needed revenue to our business community, thereby allowing improved city services. She recommended approval of the project.

8163 Arthur Street, said that he agrees that vacant land within the City should be filled with appropriate housing and appropriate businesses. However, he said that he vehemently opposes the South Sonoma Business Park project. If the project is built, however, he discussed mitigation that should occur. His concerns related to water capacity and energy conservation. He suggested requiring solar panels and wind generators so that they produce their own electricity. He was opposed to the proposed 50 foot building height. He was concerned about Gravenstein Highway and creating a very dangerous situation turning it into a freeway. He cautioned that there may not be tenants for the new buildings and the development could turn into a ghost town.

1055 Adobe Road, Penngrove, discussed regional traffic impacts. Traffic volumes in Penngrove have increased to the point that the fire department can no longer respond in the same reasonable amount of time during the peak commute hours. Projected road improvements to Old Redwood Highway, U.S. 101, and Eli Road will never occur and traffic generated by growth within the cities will impact the towns and the surrounding rural areas. Water usage was also identified as a concern. Surrounding rural properties can be forced to dig deeper wells with higher-forced pumps to get back into the groundwater.

8845 Lund Hill Lane, complimented the people on both sides of this issue for calm and reasonable discussion on this issue. He stated his opinion that statistics can usually be used to argue one way or another for a project. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project because this property has been designated commercial for some time. He spoke in support of the proposed project and said that without a project like this going in there would be dry cleaners, video rental stores, etc. with strip mall developers that just want to take the money and run.

Gravenstein Highway @ Redwood Drive, said that he has been in business in Cotati for 20 years and that he has seen many projects turned down on the property. He said that when he came to Cotati he spent more money than intended in order to design the building how the City wanted it. He said that he brought a quality business to the community and brought many people in from out of town. He stated his opinion that the City is lucky that Monahan Pacific is willing to spend the kind of money necessary to provide a quality development. He said that the City needs the financial help that this project can bring and he needs some neighbors to help support his business also.

8483 Loretto Avenue, restated previous comments that this project needs to be looked at from its relative merits and from the impacts that it's going to have on the community, not from the standpoint of what sort of business it might bring. Currently, he said, there are no committed tenants that he is aware of. He referred to a letter that he submitted to the Planning Commission previously and remains concerned about energy. He agreed with someone's suggestion for considering a parking garage to mitigate impacts to the wetland area.

8511 Dorfman Drive, stated agreement with stated concerns about energy conservation and suggestions for solar panels as a part of this project.

8313 LaSalle Avenue, identified himself and the owner of the Inn of the Beginning on Old Redwood Highway, also agreed with requiring energy conservation for the is project, including provision for solar power. Concerning the proposed planters and benches being made in teak, he expressed the opinion that the use of teak would be in opposition to the communities principles of conservation of maintaining the use of local resources. Regarding the development of this site, he agreed with bowing to the City's General Plan. However, the project is in opposition to the spirit of Measure F that set a maximum square footage for commercial buildings. This project goes around that requirement by keeping the building sizes within the range, but building several of them.

Mill Valley, identified himself as being in the construction and development business also. He said that his knowledge of Monahan Pacific is that they are seasoned and qualified developers. Specific to the project, he said that this site is one of the last major sites up and down the 101 Corridor and its impact and importance to the county and to the community is critical. He stated his belief that the project proponents have carefully addressed this site from the standpoint of its location. The project is consistent with the zoning. The site is located at a gateway and links the west side of Cotati with the Hub. He stated his opinion that with careful planning, it will be an excellent project in Cotati.

635 West Cotati Avenue, restated his concerns regarding the alignment of the main street of this project with West Cotati Avenue. He stated a preference for pear trees that would bear fruit. The west Cotati neighborhood is rural.

No Address Given, stated his concerns about the cumulative effects of this project on the water table, recommended that photovoltaic solar panels be included on the south-facing roofs, and suggested that the City maintain copies of the architectural renderings for future comparison with the actual buildings. He suggested some mitigation to the height impact could be planted berms along the highway. He stated his preference that the site remain the headwater of the laguna and that the site be retained as a nature preserve.

1415 Madrone Avenue, stated support for the project and her opinion that Madrone Avenue is out of the scope of this project. She said that, in her opinion, most of the children come by car and are not crossing Gravenstein Highway. If they walk, they come from the south side of Gravenstein. She stated her belief that the Gravenstein Highway Specific Plan showed the possibility of widening Gravenstein Highway to four lanes and closing off Madrone.

BRIEF RECESS

380 Helman Lane, spoke in support of the project. He stated his belief that the site will be developed and that this project is well thought out is preferable to the site being developed piecemeal.

8510 Dorfman Drive, stated support for the project and for it's benefits to the community.

8171 Arthur Street, requested and received clarification from Director of Planning Dorch on the actual square footage of the project under consideration.

Ms. Hardy noted a discrepancy in the dates on the staff reports. She mentioned that the Redevelopment Agency that brings in the bulk of the money for this development ends in 2026. After that, the property taxes would revert to a normal tax base, not increased because of the Redevelopment Agency. She agreed with a previous comment that instead of trying to lessen the impact of a three story building with different architectural techniques, why not just reduce the size of the building? Again on the subject of finances, Ms. Hardy discussed the projected City revenues resulting from the project and pointed out that the full amount will not be realized until the project is built out fully, which the EIR projects at seven years. Regarding the benefits associated with one master project built by one developer, she pointed out that the property will still be divided into separate parcels that could be sold at a later date and developed piecemeal. Ms. Hardy stated her opinion that the new businesses locating in this business park will not be high-tech, citing recent lay-offs in the high-tech industry.

Old Redwood Highway, voiced concerns about the adequacy of the EIR and said that it is the consensus of the local scientific community that the EIR is not adequate. He discussed the down side of building according to current trends using the factory stores in Petaluma as an example. Because of the current power situation, he encouraged incorporating solar features in the project. He also recommended that consideration be given to water availability because the Eel River diversions will not go on indefinitely; and significant amounts of gravel taken from the Russian River for this project.

25 Pine Tree Circle, spoke in support of alternative energy sources for the project and for a round-about at the new intersection.

Chairwoman Moore closed the meeting to public comment and continued the Public Hearing to May 7, 2001.

Chairwoman Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary