CITY OF COTATI
December 9, 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 6:00 p.m.
by Mayor Kurvers.
CITY COUNCIL MEETS IN CLOSED SESSION FOR THE
REASONS INDICATED BELOW
Mayor Kurvers stated that Council would meet
in closed session for the reasons indicated on the notice below.
RECONVENE
TO OPEN SESSION
The meeting was called to order at
PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
ROLL
CALL
Councilmembers present: Kurvers, Gilardi, Berkemeier,
Staff present: Stubbings, Woltering, Lustig, Bertolero, Gonzalez,
Anna, Nebb
CLOSED
SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
There was nothing to report from 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 retail space
anchored by Lowe’s (approximately 162,700 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
approximately 272,380 square feet of retail space including an approximately
162,700 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
_______________________________________________________________________________
Planner Gonzalez reviewed and summarized the
actions of the Planning Commissioner to date.
He requested Council consider and analyze the information provided.
Planning Director Woltering reviewed the
revised application and stated that certain documents pertaining to this
application are not yet available.
Therefore, he said, Council will not be able to take action at this
meeting but may hear comments from the public and from the applicant. He recommended that, at the close of public
comment and Council discussion, this meeting be adjourned to Monday, December
15 at 7:00 p.m., at which time Council will be able to consider and take action
on the complete application and attendant documents.
Pat Collins, Parsons, said additional
environmental review is required as a result of revisions to the original application. The Addendum will be integrated with
revisions made
Regarding visual impacts, she said the
question would be if this is a worse visual impact than the Nokia office campus
previously proposed? In the present
application, the Lowe’s store is not as high, is set at the back of the parcel,
and thus presents a less massive appearance than Nokia; the rest is no
different than for the Nokia proposal. In
summary, their evaluation showed no significant impacts, no impacts that were substantially
more severe, and it is thus appropriate to analyze as an Addendum to the
original EIR. She commented that they
are halfway through their analysis; the final addendum will come out later this
week and will include revisions based on the revised site plan.
Planning Director Woltering reviewed the
entitlements being requested by the applicant.
The focus tonight is to move forward with the Marketplace as well as the
Addendum for the overall 31 acres; the Planned Unit Development ordinance
provides for entire 31 acre Cotati Commons area. Tonight the applicant will provide a more detailed
overview of the project, the public may ask questions, and Council will have a
thorough discussion on key issues of concern and give staff direction on those. He suggested focusing on the minutes from the
Planning Commission, the PUD standards, and the supplemental staff report.
The public hearing opened 7:45 p.m.
Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific,
George Akel, Newman Development Group,
Ned Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape
Architects, 1501 Northpoint, San Francisco, talked about pedestrian circulation. He said they are using existing oaks and
planting more, as well as redwood trees.
Both native and indigenous plants will also be used, along with Bradford
pear, olive trees, and Idaho locust, an indigenous tree. There will be a buffer park as a separator
between the residential and commercial; a bioswale will also be located
there. A 25’ frontage in front of the
shops will provide for trees and seating.
In response to question from Mayor Kurvers, he said it will take about 4
years to achieve the 50% shade feature in the parking lot. Some 15 gallon, some 24” box platanus trees
will be used.
In response to questions from Councilwoman Moore,
Woltering said the pool will be private, but the southern portion of the park
will be public; he anticipates buffers will be created. There will be a 5’ fence surrounding the pool.
Victor Gonzalez clarified that the park is
technically a private park but is for the use of residents and shoppers. Assistant City Attorney Nebb clarified that
the homeowners associations will maintain the park, both for shared use and
shared maintenance.
Ian McCloud, TWM Architects, 181 Carlos Dr.,
San Rafael, talked about architectural features of the Village residential
units.
Page Winkler, Nadel Architects, discussed the
retail portion of the project. He
remarked that the parking and loading areas will not be visible because of
landscaping. The residential
architectural elements were carried into the design of the large Lowe’s
building. There will be a clock tower at
the end of the main entrance off Gravenstein Highway.
Bill Mathison, Sol Data, spoke regarding energy
and resource conservation. He said the
homes will meet Energy Star standards – 15% better than the standard
house. This will be the first
residential subdivision to attain Energy Star status. On the commercial side, they will meet
standards of Savings by Design, exceeding Title 24 standards by 10% - a very
tough accomplishment, he said. He added
that there is no retail development that has qualified for this same criteria
of 10% above Title 24. In the small
retail shops, lighting is a large part of what makes the business successful, and
will be designed and installed by each business owner, so that is out of the
control of the developer. That portion will
meet Title 24 standards but may or may not exceed those standards.
Skip Moore, Bill Moore & Associates, sign
design and marketing retail development, has been assigned to develop the sign
package for the project. He noted the
externally illuminated signs on buildings nearer the street, with the buildings
400’ back proposed for internal illumination of their large signs. He explained that when people are looking for
particular stores, they are also driving.
It is safer to identify the store quickly, make it recognizable quickly
from a distance. He stated it is often
believed that internal illumination is less energy efficient, but the reverse
is true. His sign package is permitted
by Cotati’s code, he said.
Jack Mandell, Lowe’s Senior Site Development
Manager, Carlsbad, said Lowe’s is very excited about coming to Cotati. Lowe’s has grown and is proud of its standing
of being a good corporate citizen. They
participate in local causes and are major contributors to Red Cross, United
Way, and others. They aspire to be good
stewards of the areas where their stores are located.
Tim Cremin, Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, San
Francisco, said they reviewed the Addendum to see if it complied with CEQA and
found that it does. The changes to the
project do not require a subsequent, or supplemental, EIR. He noted that the California Tiger Salamander
did require substantial mitigation, and that has been done and has not changed
the project. He pointed out that the
project is in Cotati’s redevelopment area which has been determined to be
blighted. The Lowe’s project will reduce
blight rather than increase it. Traffic
and air quality are not changed with the proposed revisions. Regarding objections on process, he said the
City must consider whether further environmental review is required, and the
City has done that. Public hearing is
not required by law, yet the City is providing that opportunity.
Tom Monahan, Monahan Pacific, thanked Mayor
and Council for their time and continued support for the project. He commented on the numerous attempts to develop
this property. In all, he feels the
present project is a good balance of retail and residential and looks forward
to moving forward with the project.
The meeting was recessed at
Linell Hardy, 8171 Arthur Street, feels the
addendum is inadequate; it only considers traffic on six days of the week
whereas, with the retail uses, there will actually be traffic on seven
days. She said that on November 17 and December
1 she submitted letters and has not yet received any response to her questions
which deal with the EIR. She said Joan
Simon brought up comments about the size of the Lowe’s store. It is not necessary to have such a large
store; it could be smaller, and the garden center could be separate. She asked how the elementary age school
children will get to school and how will they be safe if they miss the bus.
Peter Alexander Chernev, from Sonoma County
at large, said Sonoma County is the best place to grow food. He said he will offer two thirds of his
cactus plants to begin a cactus farm for children. He pointed out there are many people needing
help in this world, and we should be doing more than talking about more stores.
George Barich, West Cotati, stated that he
has said for years that this property is prime for retail. However, he said the present proposal
violates the City’s General Plan. The
City needs sales tax dollars, not more residential development. The anchor tenant is located in the worst
possible location – it should be where the Cottages are now located. Regarding energy efficiency, it is important
to see that Lowe’s has skylights and photovoltaic units. The project needs to be redesigned so that it
will be something we can be proud of.
Joan Simon,
Lou Callas,
Wade Balew,
Neil Hancock,
Jenny Blaker, Arthur Street, said this is a
very different project from the one previously proposed, especially with regard
to traffic and air quality. This project
is larger than the entire downtown Cotati area, she stated, and the economic
impacts have not been thoroughly studied.
It is not really a mixed-use project, and she does not see how it will
preserve Cotati’s small-town character.
She quoted from a letter from Monahan Pacific which seemed to indicate
plans for future commercial development along
Tim
Frank, Berkeley, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club and Sierra
Alliance, said tonight’s meeting should not be focusing on details of the
proposed project but on what will be the character of Cotati. There is a change being proposed, from small
local stores to large stores. These
kinds of changes have not been considered in the EIR and the addendum, and they
should be.
Terrell Watt, professional planner,
consultant, said the primary purpose of environmental impact documents is to
tell the truth, and this EIR departs from that purpose from the beginning. This project has many significant differences
from the prior project. It is different
in scale, trip generation, peak periods, and other criteria. Impacts include: on a Saturday, the parking lot will be full;
in the previous project it would be empty.
There is a difference in truck traffic from this project versus
passenger vehicle traffic in the previous project: truck traffic is many times more destructive
than passenger vehicles. This EIR shows
ten significant changes; what is needed is a subsequent EIR.
John Mueller, attorney representing voters
who voted against Measure B, said CEQA guidelines require an economic study of
this project. Secondly, he stated, there
is evidence in the record that there will be a substantial economic impact; for
instance, will there be a physical impact such that some businesses may have to
close their doors. There is evidence
that the additional retail businesses will have a cumulative impact. He is concerned that if Council rushes to judgment
and does not do what is required by CEQA the courts may invalidate the Council
action. The City’s general plan requires
that the stability of existing businesses must be maintained; Cotati’s small
town character must be maintained.
Adrian Lauby,
John Kravitz,
David Ergo, 101 Ross Street, #14, said he and
his neighbors in the co-housing project love the small-town character in Cotati
and he is saddened at the thought of this large project coming to Cotati. He did not hear bicycles or bicycle lanes
mentioned in discussions of the proposed development, and people can’t very
well walk to the shopping center. He
cited figures showing that large-scale businesses have a negative effect on
public revenue as compared with small-scale businesses. Higher road maintenance costs, greater demand
for public safety services are part of the problem.
Marlina Eckel,
In response to question from Vice Mayor
Gilardi, Pat Collins of Parsons said the original EIR looked at weekday
traffic; the addendum looked at Saturday midday peak to represent the weekend;
Saturday from noon to 1:00 p.m. represents peak weekend traffic.
In response to Councilmember Moore’s question
regarding energy savings and meeting standards, Victor Gonzalez said computer
modeling assists in determining what sort of program will get the best results.
In response to a question from Councilmember Berkemeier,
Mr. Gonzalez said the houses are on about 2000 square foot lots with 2 stories,
3 bedrooms, and 2-1/2 baths.
Councilmember Orchard inquired regarding use
of solar power, green building principles and cool roof material. The architect responded that Lowe’s uses cool
roof as a standard materials. The
building also has about 150 skylights in the design as it stands.
Councilmember Orchard asked if it were
feasible to split the garden center off.
The architect and the Lowe’s representative replied that splitting the
garden center off would be a departure from Lowe’s prototype and has not been
done to date. Lowe’s said perhaps on an
odd-shaped piece of property it might be done, but only if necessary.
Councilmember Berkemeier asked if Lowe’s
would be selling the usual bedding plants, shrubs, annuals, vegetables, to
which the answer was yes, as well as potting soils and fertilizers.
Planning Director Woltering said, in response
to a question of Mayor Kurvers, that Ms. Hardy’s letters were forwarded to the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
He said he would be happy to meet with Ms. Hardy and talk to her.
Vice Mayor Gilardi asked about retail on
Highway 101 frontage. Planning Director Woltering
said frontage on Redwood Drive would be reclassified for retail as primary
use. The size of such retail stores
within that area would be in line with Measure F and Measure B. Measure B covered an area of about 52 acres,
but the northern area of Redwood Drive would still be governed by the 43,000
square foot limitation. Vice Mayor
Gilardi emphasized that Reliance Trucking is a viable business that is staying
in Cotati, and that property is not going to change.
Planning Director Woltering said the Planning
Commission recommended Council approval of the project. One issue raised by the Commission was the
question of internal versus external illumination of signs within the
project. It is a question that Council
can decide.
Another area (Conditions 20 and 30) concerns office
versus retail uses in office buildings A, B and C in the Village. The Planning Commission’s recommendation was
that the City should allow for a mix of retail and office uses within those
three buildings – about 39,750 square feet of space. Staff recommends staying with office uses in
those areas in order to stay within traffic and air quality impacts.
Regarding the housing component proposed by
applicant: The applicant has reduced the
number of residential units to 42 from 48.
Council can opt to retain 42 units, or ask for redesign for vertical
mixed use with residential units above and commercial below; or direct that residential
be removed entirely and commercial be placed there instead. If Council selected vertical mixed use or
replacement with commercial, those two options in terms of traffic and air
quality impacts would be beyond the parameters of the addendum analysis and
would need further environmental review in the future. The Planning Commission recommended retaining
housing at 42 units as proposed by the applicants.
Another area has to do with requiring that
commercial development proceed first within this plan area, before residential
development, if residential is retained as a component. The Planning Commission recommended that the retail
anchor needs to go first with at least one of the office buildings A, B or C before
any residential construction (Condition 34).
Woltering clarified Condition 44, allowing
certain development to go forward within the project. A grading permit and a building permit would
not be approved until such time as the improvement plans are approved by the
City of Cotati and Caltrans. Staff is
very firm on “concurrency” – improvements need to be in place as the project
goes forward.
Regarding the swimming pool: The Planning Commission generally supported a
pool but left it to Council to decide whether a pool should be a part of the
park area.
Regarding Energy Star program: The Planning Commission was supportive of
energy conservation measures proposed by applicants.
Vice Mayor Gilardi said she feels the
Addendum is sufficient, as did Councilmember Berkemeier. Councilmember Moore said she is fairly
comfortable with it. Councilmember Orchard
said she is comfortable with it. Mayor Kurvers
said she has concerns about traffic but she would like to capture the revenue
to be made from it – the traffic is here anyway. She is comfortable with the Addendum.
Councilmembers clarified that there are plans
for freeway on and off-ramp improvements at various locations.
Council consensus was to remove the
residential component from the Village; possibly a mixed-use residential and
retail/commercial plan could be considered in the future.
Regarding signage: Councilmembers Orchard and Berkemeier were
satisfied with the proposal. Mayor Kurvers
asked if the larger retail buildings could have external lighting. Mr. Akel said no, that does not work with the
distance of the store from the main street and the ability to be seen from the
freeway. Vice Mayor Gilardi was satisfied
with the program as proposed, as was Councilmember Moore.
Regarding office uses: Mr. Gonzalez discussed office space available
now in Sonoma County, saying that small office space is marketable right now
but larger space is staying vacant. Mayor
Kurvers supported that assessment.
Councilmember Moore said she would like the
large wisteria on the property incorporated into the landscaping in some
way. Berkemeier concurred with her
request.
Council consensus was to schedule an
adjourned regular meeting on December 22, 2003 for the second reading and
adoption of the ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT – to
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Deputy City Clerk
* * *
PURSUANT TO
CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant
exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code §54956.9(b): One
potential case