CITY OF COTATI
December 15, 2003
Minutes of the Adjourned
Regular City Council Meeting
and Joint Meeting of the
City Council and Cotati Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
201 W. Sierra Avenue,
Cotati, CA 94931-4217
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
by Mayor Kurvers.
CITY COUNCIL MEETS IN CLOSED SESSION FOR THE
REASON INDICATED BELOW
Mayor Kurvers stated Council would meet in
closed session for the reason indicated below.
RECONVENE
TO OPEN SESSION
The meeting was called to order by Mayor
Kurvers at 7:05 p.m.
PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
ROLL
CALL
Councilmembers present: Kurvers, Gilardi, Berkemeier,
Staff present: Stubbings, Woltering, Bertolero, Lustig,
Gonzalez, Nebb, Anna
CITIZEN
BUSINESS
George Barich, West Cotati, said he had understood
Council was going to meet perhaps once in December, but this project seems to
have taken precedence and so this meeting is being held tonight. At the November 26 meeting, he said, Council
considered the Mexican identification card, and discussion took place regarding
that subject. He said he spoke, and then
a woman stood up to speak and accused him three times of being a racist. He said he was shocked that the woman was
allowed to say what she did and was not stopped. People must be allowed to express their
opinions without being called names, he concluded.
Joan Simon, 618 W. School Street, said there
are two publications in the Planning Department which people should look at – one
regarding green building and one pertaining to recycling building materials.
Neil Hancock, Arthur Street, said at the last
Council meeting there was discussion about the Vehicle License Fees being taken
away, and he asked if Councilmembers have gone to Sacramento to address that
issue. Mayor and Councilmembers
responded that they have gone to Sacramento on this issue more than once in
recent months.
Mayor Kurvers requested Planning Director
Woltering to make the two publications cited by Ms. Simon available at public
meetings.
CLOSED
SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Kurvers stated there was nothing to
report out of closed session.
PUBLIC
HEARING
Request
for approval of an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the South Sonoma Business Park, which previously included
582,900 sq. ft. of office and retail space and 50 residential housing
units. The current proposal, referred to
as Cotati Commons, includes approximately 272,380 sq. ft. of commercial space
anchored by Lowe’s (approximately 165,382 sq. ft.) and associated smaller
retail buildings; 39,750 sq. ft. of small office space and 48 residential
housing units. Specific entitlements
include: a Growth Management exemption for the residential units; a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) establishing development and design standards for the
entire development, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Map
resulting in 44 lots (Lots 1-41 residential, with 8 condominium units on Lot
39; Lots 42-44 commercial) ranging in size from 1,540 to 44,963 sq. ft. each,
and seven (7) common area parcels; a Lot Line Adjustment reconfiguring four (4)
parcels; and Release of Easements. The
subject property consists of 31 acres and is located at the northwestern
intersection of Highway 116 (Gravenstein Highway) and Redwood Drive within the
City of Cotati.
Consideration, and possible action, by the
City Council on the following items:
1. Adoption
of a Resolution Approving an Addendum and CEQA Findings, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the South Sonoma Business Park Revision Project Located at
Northwestern Intersection of Highway 116 (Gravenstein Highway) and Redwood
Drive (P/A #03/02); APN 046-286-011, 046-286-012, 046-286-013, 046-286-014,
046-286-015, 144-050-006, and 144-050-007.
2. Introduction
of an Ordinance Rezoning 31 Acres Located at the Northwestern Intersection of
Highway 116 (Gravenstein Highway) and Redwood Drive from Commercial (C-1) and
Highway Commercial (CH) to CH:PUD (Highway Commercial:Planned Unit Development)
as to a Portion Thereof and C-1:PUD (Commercial:Planned Unit Development) for
the Remainder of the Subject Property and Approval of Planned Unit Development
(APNs 046-286-011, 046-286-012, 046-286-013, 046-286-014, 046-286-015,
144-050-006, and 144-050-007, PA #21-03) South Sonoma Business Park Revision
3. Adoption
of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Tentative Subdivision
Map for 44 lots, (Lots 1-41 residential, with 8 condominium units on Lot 39;
Lots 42-44 commercial) ranging in size from 1,540 to 44,963 square feet each,
and seven (7) common area parcels.
4. Adoption
of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Lot Line Adjustment
reconfiguring four (4) parcels.
5. Adoption
of a Resolution to approve, or a Resolution to Deny, Preliminary Design Review
for the “Village” portion of the Cotati Commons project, which includes, but is
not limited to, 39,750 square feet of commercial space, 48 residential units
and a neighborhood park element.
6. Adoption
of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, Preliminary Design Review
for the “Marketplace” portion of the Cotati Commons project, which includes an
approximately 165,382 square foot Lowe’s Home Improvement Center.
7. Adoption
of a Resolution to Consent to Release/Extinguish Existing Easements on the
Subject Property.
8. Adoption
of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Conditional Use Permit
to allow certain buildings to exceed maximum height standards.
9. Adoption
of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Conditional Use Permit
to allow residential units in a Commercial zoning district.
10. Adoption
of a Resolution to Grant, or a Resolution to Deny, a Growth Management
Exemption for the 48 residential units.
Applicant:
Monahan Pacific/South Sonoma Capital Partners/Newman Development Group,
L.L.C. AP# 046-286-011, 046-286-012, 046-286-013, 046-286-014,
046-286-015, 144-050-006, and 144-050-007
Planning Director Woltering said Council gave
general direction on this project at the meeting of December 9, 2003, and staff
has prepared revised documents in accordance with Council’s direction for
Council consideration at tonight’s meeting.
He said the residential component of the project has been a subject of
some concern to Council, and, therefore, a number of the items associated with
that are being recommended for continuance.
Also, based on the last meeting, the
applicants have prepared a revised plan for the housing component and will
present that plan tonight.
Planner Nash Gonzalez reviewed the items
before Council tonight and summarized direction given at the December 9, 2003 meeting. He noted that, in response to citizen concern
regarding possible economic impacts of the proposed project on downtown
businesses, the City authorized the preparation of an economic and fiscal
impacts study of the project. He said
that Richard Bergson of Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) will provide an
overview of the study’s findings but, briefly, the study found no adverse
impacts on existing local businesses.
Pat Collins, Parsons, stated that Council has
received a Final Addendum which has resulted in a reduction of impacts from
earlier drafts of the Addendum. The
Final Addendum also reflects the results of the economic and fiscal impacts
study which shows there would not be negative impacts upon downtown
Cotati. In addition, Parsons looked at a
revised proposal for 39 residential units, 9 of which are live/work units, and
found such a proposal is within the parameters of the Addendum which considered
48 residential units.
Richard Bergson of EPS, an urban economics
consulting firm, said his firm analyzed three issues: potential impacts upon local home improvement
businesses; effects, if any, on downtown businesses; and impacts on the City’s
budget. He said that Lowe’s revenues are
most likely to come from Home Depot, other major home improvement stores in the
region, and industry growth. Experience
has shown that small businesses can adapt, he said, and the effects of big-box
development have already been felt by the small businesses, given the existing
other big-box retailers already in the area.
They (EPS) do not feel that the restaurants in town will be affected;
the restaurants in the new center are likely to be franchises catering to a
different clientele. Potential impacts
on the City’s budget could be about $730,000 per year in additional sales tax
revenues. They anticipated that there
would be additional police calls, mitigated by on-site security which would be
required for the project. Other
expenditures would be for additional road maintenance, planning,
administration, etc., all anticipated to be substantially offset by new
revenues. A property tax increment of
about $420,000 annually would be generated, plus approximately $180,000
annually for housing set-aside.
Planning Director Woltering spoke regarding
the opportunities existing at present to create a strong economic development
engine in the South Sonoma Business Park and simultaneously encourage the
growth of a healthy and thriving pedestrian-oriented downtown.
George Akel, Newman Development, 2255 Van
Ness Avenue, San Francisco, called attention to his two letters dated December
12, one regarding housing and one regarding the PUD standards. With regard to the PUD standards, Section 8,
energy efficiency and the environment:
it will be impossible to control the users of smaller offices and
buildings, so in his letter he proposes language to address the intent, which
is to substantially improve their energy budgets. They also submitted variations of the green
building alternatives in order to make the smaller buildings as environmentally
friendly as possible.
Mr. Akel continued regarding the Uses
section, Section 11: He has called out
five alterations he would like Council to consider, changing them from
conditional use to permitted use. Those
uses include auto part sales with no installation, bank and financial services,
personal services, business support services, and office business service. These uses are for particular buildings only,
not the whole development. Regarding his
comments in the letter about general retail under 50,001 square feet, and a
conditional use permit for over 50,000 square feet, he said he would be willing
to lower the threshold to the Measure B level of 43,000 square feet for
requiring a conditional use permit, if that would make people more comfortable.
Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific, San Rafael,
stated his opinion that it would be difficult to complete the project without
the whole project being approved, because of the cost sharing considerations among
the components. Referring to the revised
housing component of the Village, he said the perimeter buildings would be
live/work units. The bottom work space
is stand-alone and would serve the needs of smaller users. The buildings in the interior of that
component are residential and the same height as the live/work units.
Ian McCloud, TWM Architects, Carlos Drive,
San Rafael, said the live/work units, like the residential units, are 28’
high. He described how the units are
designed to tie into the surrounding spaces.
Ned Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape
Architects, said the greenway has been divided into two areas. The proposed pool is smaller now, as is the
decking around the pool, yielding more green space. A redwood
and oak tree screen has been provided between the park and the shopping
area. The southern park area is more formal,
with a walkway, seating and small tables, focusing onto a central fountain with
arbors on either side.
In response to a question from Mayor Kurvers,
Mr. Smith clarified that there is also a small fountain at the terminus of the
main entrance to the retail area.
Councilmember Berkemeier asked if landscape
maintenance of the upper portion will be the responsibility of the homeowners’
association. Victor Gonzalez said it will
be, with the southern portion semi-private.
He said they have added 5,700 square feet to the commercial open space
area with this revision. He asked
Council to closely consider the benefits of the proposed project.
Tom Monahan, Monahan Pacific, said they have
worked hard to find alternatives to address Council’s comments regarding the previously
proposed housing design. They have
attempted to “feather” the housing into office-like uses as Council indicated
they might consider. They analyzed whether
the space is good commercial and concluded that it is not a great opportunity,
particularly for retail commercial. They
would not want it to compete with the Marketplace project, and they feel that
the present proposal fits in well. He
said they have delivered as much commercial use as possible on the
property. He said they would be willing
to provide additional in-lieu fees in the amount of $250,000-$300,000 for a
fund to be designated by the City as it wished if the project were to be
allowed to keep some residential uses.
He asked for Council’s consideration of this proposal.
In response to a question from Councilmember Orchard,
Mr. Monahan said the cost of homes in the Village would be about $400,000, with
in-lieu fees in place of affordable housing; in addition, with tax increment
there would be about $180,000 annually for affordable housing.
Linell Hardy, 8171 Arthur Street, referring
to the Environmental Impact Report, asked for clarification on how many turn
lanes there would be off northbound Highway 101 heading west on Gravenstein Highway. Secondly, she asked what sort of access
school children going to Thomas Page School would have. Regarding redevelopment monies to be
received, she stated her opinion that the City is already receiving some
redevelopment money and that should be reflected in the figures. The report contains a listing of businesses
located on North Old Redwood Highway, and she stated that she believed a number
of businesses are left out of that listing.
The report states that “experience in other Bay Area communities has
indicated that home improvement big-box retailers do not present a major
competitive threat for the following reasons,” and the reasons are listed. She said she would like to see a copy of
those studies and citations so she can review them.
Joan Simon, 618 W. School Street, stated her
opinion that no one has talked about traffic noise mitigation for the Highway
116 and Highway 101 corridors from the increased traffic from this proposed
project. She believes that a sound
expert is needed and a provision can be added to make sure that sound is
maintained at present levels. Next, she
asked why only the “nationally recognized” stores would benefit from exceptions
to the City’s lighting standards; there are locally-recognized stores equally
deserving of preferential lighting considerations. She said that providing a display garden at Lowe’s
would be an enhancement to our community, and that Lowe’s response that such an
idea does not fit the Lowe’s prototype was an insulting answer to the suggestion. She asked that Lowe’s be forced to customize
the store for Cotati.
Neil Hancock,
Terrell Watt, of Terrell Watt Planning
Consultants, stated her belief that there are numerous new statements in the Final
Addendum, and no evidence to support them.
Beginning with Page 3.40-4 a statement is made that Saturday peak
traffic represents that of Sunday as well because Sunday traffic is expected to
be less than that on Saturday. She believes
that statement is lacking any evidence. She
stated her opinion that the impact of large trucks wasn’t included at the
project access points and in the recommended mitigation. She said she did not see a single count of
trucks. Regarding a new section
addressing growth-inducing impacts of the new traffic improvements incorporated
into the project, she said she does not understand a sentence on Page 5-2, “Provision
of few jobs will decrease growth inducement.”
It goes on to say “Don’t worry, these traffic improvements won’t induce
growth.” She said there are many other similar
examples in the revision document, and she suggested that, at the very least,
it needs to be edited and the typographical errors corrected.
Referring to the EPS report, Ms. Watt said
she was submitting six new documents into the record related to the impacts of
big box retail, examples of retail leakage strategy studies, and examples of
related impact studies. She said she
would focus on the Petaluma study which she would enter into the record. She stated her belief that the study states
that if you capture specialty retail, it definitely provides a greater revenue
source to the city. It is her opinion
that if this prime piece of real estate is devoted to nation-wide prototypical
stores, the site is lost for more valuable uses for Cotati. She submitted five other studies and said it
is particularly sad to read “Better Models for Superstores.” Among strategies small towns such as Cotati
have used to protect their downtowns are caps on the size of retail stores so
that they don’t cannibalize their local market.
She said she believes the EPS study shows that this project will
cannibalize from other big box and smaller box stores in the region. That either means that this Lowe’s will not
have a market share and will end up being an empty store or that there will be significant
impacts and perhaps blighting regionally, a cumulative impact. She briefly discussed left turn lanes on
Highway 101 northbound and wondered if the one new left turn lane proposed is
sufficient to mitigate the significant impacts on the freeway.
George Barich, West Cotati, said we have seen
the projected sales tax revenues for this project go from $1 million down to
around $750,000 from the expert appearing before Council tonight. He said he was pleased to see Council say
clearly that they did not want any more housing in the development. Now he sees another attempt by Monahan
Pacific to ignore Council’s clear statement of preferences. Second, he called attention last week to the
huge roof on top of the proposed Lowe’s store.
He said he has not yet seen plans for skylights or photovoltaic cells to
generate electricity, though he was assured after the last meeting that there
were such plans. Lastly, he stated his
opinion that parks such as those proposed for this project are sites for
various types of criminal activities, and he has not heard that addressed to
date. After developments such as this
one are built, it is not cost effective to install security measures. He commented that the homeowners in this
development will have no rest until after Lowe’s closes at night. He asked Council to approve no more
residential uses in this project.
Jenny Blaker,
Tim Frank, Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club
has serious concerns about big-box retail in Cotati. He stated his opinion that the full regional
impacts have not been looked at yet. The
Sierra Club likes inclusion of housing in the project, he said, and they think
the developers have done a good job on that aspect. They would like to see a “Supplemental EIR”
looking at impacts of the retail, including possibly a supermarket as well.
Les Adler, 550 W. School Street, said he has
lived at that location for 26 years and now feels like the proverbial frog in
boiling water – the frog doesn’t notice the water is getting hotter until it’s
too late. He remarked on Ms. Simon’s
comments about noise and asked what can be done to mitigate the noise we know
is going to grow.
Chris Skinnell, of Nielson, Merksamer, Parrinello,
Mueller & Naylor, addressed what he termed the failure of the Addendum to
address the proposed casino in Rohnert Park.
The Addendum states that the casino is way too speculative to be
considered, or to study the possible impacts.
He stated his opinion that Rohnert Park has adopted a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Graton Rancheria tribe, and there is no example he is
aware of where a MOU has been adopted and the tribe did not go ahead and put in
a full-scale casino on the property. The
Addendum suggests that the details of the casino are too speculative, but the
MOU does not bear that out.
Reimbursement amounts are discussed in the MOU in such detail that it is
clear that there are definite plans for the casino.
Lloyd Draper, resident and property owner in
Cotati for over 50 years, stated his opinion that what Cotati needs is new retail
base so we can survive. He has heard
negative comments about the proposed development, but people are not realizing
that it would be better to go with one developer with a good plan than
scrambled development.
Judy Davidoff of Steefel Levitt & Weiss, representing
the Newman Group, responded regarding the Addendum. She reminded Council that the City is
precluded from requiring a subsequent environmental impact report unless
certain findings can be made – based on substantial evidence – that the project
will result in new significant impacts not previously considered, or
substantial increase in impacts that were identified before. She stated her opinion that staff and
environmental consultants have gone to extraordinary lengths in the context of
an Addendum to demonstrate with reports that there are no new impacts. She said the opposition has not submitted any
substantial evidence which would demonstrate that either of those exceptions
exist. She asked Council to approve the
Addendum tonight. She said the MOU with
Rohnert Park does not mean there is a project.
The project being considered is not within the jurisdiction of the City
of Rohnert Park, and the tribe is in the midst of initiating a NEPA review that
will take several years, and the land is not even in trust at this time. So she said she feels the Addendum has
treated that proposed project quite appropriately.
John Dell’Osso, 227 Eagle Drive, resident for
18 years, stated his opinion that it is important from a consumer standpoint
that we get additional retail in the City.
However, a lot of dollars do go out of town because of the lack of
retail businesses here. He feels it is
important to give the other 7,000 people in this community a chance to spend
their consumer dollars in this city.
Matt Kramer, 101 Ross Street, who has lived
here for two months, said he really appreciates Cotati. He has noticed Home Depot is not very busy
and he asked if there is really a need for a Lowe’s in Cotati.
Thora Lares, 9094 Old Redwood Highway, said
she is here because she loves the town, although she does not reside in the
city limits. She said she shops in
Cotati and is concerned about the big box in Cotati. First, she is concerned about the impact on
businesses in Cotati and also on the quality of life. Her second concern is traffic. Noise is increasing, she said, and it’s hard
to get in and out of her driveway. Her third
concern is about water. Over the years
they have had to keep lowering their pump, she stated, and finally they have
had to dig; at 465 feet they found water.
In the impact study at 3.68 the water supply is addressed, and it
appears to her that the water supply could come to depend on deep wells, and
that could seriously affect her and her neighbors.
Prue Draper, 718 W. School Street, a resident
for 50 years, said that what will make this sweet little town go is that we
don’t have enough money. She stated that,
in her opinion, we need the money this development will bring. She appreciated the Town of Windsor’s actions
in bringing in retail enough to support a town center. She and her husband have businesses in the
downtown area, she said, and they don’t feel that the proposed development is a
threat to downtown businesses.
Karen Hungerford, south of town on Old
Redwood Highway, said God lives in the minutiae, the small details. She learned recently that
Robert Coleman said he has been struck by the
eloquence of speakers on both sides of the issue. He said to Council that they received a small
margin of votes [on Measure B], not a mandate.
He said Council cannot dismiss any of the evidence provided. He acknowledged that the City does need more
revenue, but said we should look not only at Windsor but at Rohnert Park and
ask why one apparently succeeds and why one fails. It seems to him that
Jan Kravits, 79 William, Homeowners
Association, said the previous speaker made some good points. He said he is against the “Rohnert
Park-ization” of Cotati. He stated his
opinion that this project needs at least a year to study; there is no reason to
believe that Lowe’s will solve Cotati’s financial problems.
George Arthur, resident for 60 years, said
the City of
Paul Foti, 7883 Old Redwood Highway, said
Council originally mandated housing in the South Sonoma Business Park project
area so the employees at Nokia could walk to work. After Nokia was gone, and after many
meetings, he said, no one said not to build houses. Last week these developers were told to take
out the houses. He stated his opinion
that there needs to be some finality so the developers can get on with their
lives.
Bob Renat,
The public hearing was closed at 9:14 p.m..
The meeting was recessed at
Richard Bergson, EPA, responding to comments
regarding property tax increment, said it is their intention to indicate the
amounts above the amounts currently being received and anticipated by the
project. Regarding businesses in the
downtown, he said there are certainly more businesses in the area but their
intention was to show a representative number of businesses. Additional businesses do not change the
conclusions of the study.
Pat Collins, Parsons, responded to questions
on the Addendum. Regarding the question
of left turn lanes from the Highway 101 northbound ramp at Gravenstein Highway: She said that the November addendum required
2 left turn lanes onto Gravenstein. In
this addendum, they stated there is one additional left turn lane (one already
exists). It is not a change, simply a
difference in description.
Ms. Collins continued, regarding pedestrian
use for school children: Ann Huber of
the CRPUSD said the District has a school bus.
There will be lights at the project entrance; a bus can make a left turn
into the project, pick up children, and go out into the highway. She stated that she was pleased with the
requirement for a signal at Alder and finds it is an acceptable method of
transporting children to and from school.
Ms. Collins continued regarding comments on
traffic noise: The Addendum includes a
noise analysis from a professional noise engineer. The analysis shows that the housing would be
in a conditionally acceptable area; called it a potentially significant impact
because of the proximity to Highway 116, and required a mitigation measure of
noise control of interior noise control in the housing. The office buildings would be within the
acceptable range, as would all the retail buildings. Regarding impacts to existing uses off the
site, they analyzed vehicular traffic at 11 intersections, both current and
cumulative conditions in the future, and found that in no case would street
noise increase by more than three decibels.
(Three decibels is important, she said, because that is the increment at
which the human ear can discern a difference.)
Therefore, it was found to be less than significant.
Regarding trucks, Ms. Collins said that during
the construction period there will not be more trucks in this project than
there would have been with the previous project. This project is building about half the
square footage of the original project, so it will not have additional truck
traffic during construction. During
operations, the trip generation data includes a percentage of trucks that comes
from actual surveys done on similar examples of projects: a home improvement superstore. So that is built into the number of trips
that are generated, and also it is built into the way calculations are done –
it is a standard methodology. In
addition to the standard methodology, the City Engineer and traffic consultant,
W-Trans, decided that the Helman Lane and Redwood Drive intersection, although
the congestion was not a significant impact, they will require a traffic light
at that intersection, specifically because of truck deliveries. So trucks have definitely been considered in
this analysis.
Regarding bicycles: Ms. Collins said that, similar to trucks,
they felt that the number of bicycle trips will be substantially less for this
project than with previous project. Retail
uses do not generate as many bicycle trips as an office use such as the large
Nokia campus previously proposed. The
need for bicycle facilities is actually less than for the previous
project. Both projects propose new
improvements on Highway 116 along the frontage of the project on both sides
going east and west. There will be
improved shoulders on Highway 116 for bicycle use. Those improvements are part of the project
proposed by the applicant.
Regarding water supply: Ms. Collins said that the previous project
was estimated to use 54,500 gallons per day.
The existing project is estimated to use 56,000 gallons per day,
essentially the same with a very slight increase. Availability of water for this amounts to
very small increment on what the City presently uses and within the amount of
water the Urban Water Plan says is currently available for the City through build-out
of the General Plan.
Regarding security, Planning Director Woltering
said the conditions of approval require that the project conform with the
City’s building security ordinance.
Regarding skylights and energy conserving design measures, there are
conditions of approval and planned unit standards which require the project to
comply with certain energy conserving and green building measures. He noted that, at the previous meeting, a
Lowe’s representative stated there will be a large number of skylights –
approximately 120.
Planning Director Woltering recommended
Council discuss the proposed modifications to the housing component of the
project, then review the CEQA resolution which includes the Addendum, the
conditions of approval, the statement of overriding considerations, and the
mitigation monitoring program. Then the
PUD ordinance should be reviewed, with the permitted uses, conditional uses and
standards.
Vice Mayor Gilardi asked, regarding the
request to have square footage threshold for a conditional use permit increased
to 50,000 square feet, for clarification of how they would obtain 50,000 square
feet. She wondered if they would have to
combine Building A and Building B.
George Akel responded to her question, saying that the aggregate square
footage of Building A and B is about 50,000.
He proposed to use the pre-Measure B level (43,000 square feet) which
would allow him some flexibility with the initial construction, and also in the
future. Part of the reason for the
request for the flexibility is because going through the “Savings By Design”
criteria, he will need to have those users lined up together to come in
together for an overall package to present to PG&E to exceed Title 24 by at
least 10%. The other reason for the
request is, when it comes to construction, trying to accommodate both users
through one construction schedule and mobilization.
Vice Mayor Gilardi asked how many retail
users were anticipated. He responded
about 16 total, including Lowe’s. She said
she would like to make sure it [Buildings A and B] does not exceed the
pre-Measure B square footage threshold, and is most concerned that there is
diversity in the businesses. She added
that even “marginal” commercial is better than residential that brings no
revenue ten years from now. She likes
the park better now, and the live/work surrounding the residential.
Councilmember Moore remarked on housing required
with Nokia – that was pre Measure B. She
said she likes the live/work plan, but is uncertain still regarding the housing
component.
Mayor Kurvers said she has developed a
different perspective since becoming an elected representative – seeing how
cities survive and trying to balance that reality with her perspective as a
homeowner. She said that this
development is balanced and will enhance the City. She said this proposal feels more comfortable
to her – from the point of view of both the shoppers and the employees.
Councilmember Orchard addressed a comment
regarding projected revenues to the City from this development. She said the projected revenues have not
decreased and in fact may be more than discussed during the Measure B
debate. Regarding Rohnert Park’s
financial condition, she believes that Rohnert Park has, for a long time, paid
for everything out of their general fund.
Now they have run into trouble. She
said that Cotati does not face the same issues.
Regarding housing, she is more open minded about it than she was
previously; she believes it will soften the commercial development in that
neighborhood. She would like to see some
more work on the plan – an affordable housing component built. However, she recognizes the City has a very
good track record on affordable housing, so she knows we will use the money put
into that fund well. The proposal is a
good start, she said, and she is willing to talk about how they can put housing
into the development. For the overall
plan, she feels we are at the point where we can have a good project
built. She discussed a number of
amenities that the City can have with sufficient revenue, which this project
begins to address. Regarding the
Addendum, she said she has no information that indicates the Addendum is not
sufficient.
Councilmember Berkemeier recalled the many
proposed developments that have come and gone on this property and said this is
the best proposal he has seen. He likes
the live/work housing better than the last proposal without it. He feels the community concerns have been
addressed adequately.
Mayor Kurvers asked if low, bollard type
lighting can be considered. Councilmember
Moore asked if security patrol will be provided at the stores. Planning Director Woltering responded that an
outside security service will patrol the store area as well as the park area.
Councilmember Berkemeier asked about
hazardous waste at Lowe’s. Planning
Director Woltering responded those would all have to comply with existing
regulations for transport and disposal.
Mayor Kurvers asked if the preservation of
the wisteria on the property has been addressed; the landscape architect
responded that it has.
In response to a question from Mayor Kurvers regarding
bicycle racks, Planning Director Woltering said that racks are required
throughout the project (50 in number) and will be handled at Final Design
Review.
Councilmember Moore noted citizens had asked
if local businesses could relocate into the project. Planning Director Woltering responded that local
businesses would perhaps work with the Chamber of Commerce and the applicant to
locate businesses that would do well in the development.
Planning Director Woltering discussed the
various options Council may select from in the Planned Unit Development
Standards.
Following
Council discussion, consensus was reached on the following points:
In Exhibit C to Ordinance No. 752:
At No. 5.C.:
Approval of zero lot line setback on both Town homes and Live Work units.
At No. 8:
Approval of the 10% option.
At No. 8:
Approval of bulleted item #3.
#11 – under Uses: Permitted (Marketplace)
General
retail under 35,000 43,000 square feet
#11 – under Uses: Conditional (Marketplace)
Auto
parts sales with no installation services – Pad A, B and C only
Bank
financial services – permitted use on Shops 3, Pad A, B and C only
Business
support services – permitted use at Shops 1 and Shops 3 only
General
Retail – more than 35,000 43,000
square feet or more
Personal
Services
Add:
Office – Business Service
#11 – under Uses: Permitted (Village)
Approved
Artisan shop (in live/work units only)
#11 – under Uses: Conditional (Village)
Approved Live/Work (up to a maximum of 9 and
a minimum of 9 units to be located only in the location indicated on Cotati
Commons Master Plan Sheet L1)
Approved Residential Uses (up to a maximum of
30 units only in location indicated on Cotati Commons Master Plan Sheet L1)
#12 – Signage –
Signs shall conform to the Master Sign Plan (after it has gone through Design
Review)
#13 – Approved proposed language
The meeting was recessed at 11:36 p.m. and
reconvened at 11:45 p.m.
Council
consensus was reached on the following items in Exhibit B, Conditions of
Approval:
#25 – Approved with deletion of the words, “if
possible.”
#30 – Approved.
#31 – Approved.
#32 – Approved for 30 residential units and 9
live/work units.
#33 – Approved for a minimum of 15 feet in
width.
#34 – Approved with deletion of the word,
“substantial.”
#35 – Approved .
#36 – Approved.
#44.k (iv.) –
Approved to read, “Install one additional northbound left turn lane on the
northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp.”
#75 – Approved to
read “The Applicants shall install opticom controls (sensors) at all new
traffic signals and modified traffic signals.”
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by Moore,
to adopt Resolution No. 03-77 Adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, approving an Addendum and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the South Sonoma Business Park Revision located at the
northwestern intersection of Highway 116 and Redwood Drive, for APNs
046-286-011/046-286-012/046-286-013/046-286-014/046-286-015/144-050-006/144-050-007.
Yes: 5 No: 0
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by
Berkemeier, to introduce Ordinance No. 752 as amended above, including
acceptance of a gift of $300,000 as offered by Applicant.
Yes: 5 No: 0
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by
Berkemeier, to adopt Resolution No. 03-79 Approving a Lot Line Adjustment
reconfiguring four existing parcels into four new parcels with different
property lines for the South Sonoma Business Park Revision located at the
northwestern intersection of Highway 116 and Redwood Drive, for APNs
046-286-011/046-286-012/046-286-013/046-286-014/046-286-015/144-050-006/144-050-007,
amending the Conditions of Approval as agreed upon above.
Yes: 5 No: 0
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by Orchard,
to adopt Resolution No. 03-81 Approving a Preliminary Design Review for the
construction of a 165,382 Sq. Ft. Lowe’s Home Improvement Center building,
75,100 sq. ft. of retail space consisting of four (4) Retail Commercial
buildings located on a 23 acre site (The Marketplace at Cotati Commons) located
at the northwestern intersection of Highway 116 and Redwood Drive, for APNs
046-286-011/046-286-012/046-286-013/046-286-014/046-286-015/144-050-006/144-050-007,
amending the Conditions of Approval as agreed upon above.
Yes:
5 No: 0
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by Moore,
to adopt Resolution No. 03-82 To Consent to Release/Extinguish Existing
Easements on the Subject Property (South Sonoma Business Park APNs 046-286-011/046-286-012/046-286-013/046-286-014/046-286-015/144-050-006/144-050-007.)
Yes: 5 No:
0
It was moved by Gilardi, seconded by
Berkemeier, to adopt Resolution No. 03-83 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to
allow buildings within the Marketplace at Cotati Commons project to exceed the
35-foot maximum height limit within a C-1 (Commercial) and CH (Highway
Commercial) zoning district, located on a 23 acre site (The Marketplace at
Cotati Commons) located at the northwestern intersection of Highway 116 and
Redwood Drive, for APNs
046-286-011/046-286-012/046-286-013/046-286-014/046-286-015/144-050-006/144-050-007,
amending the Conditions of Approval as agreed upon above.
Yes:
5 No: 0
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was
adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Deputy City Clerk
* * *
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950.5
ET SEQ, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MEET IN CLOSED SESSION. MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE
GROUNDS FOR THIS CLOSED SESSION MEETING IS PROVIDED BELOW.
CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant
exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code §54956.9(b): One
potential case