DATE OF MEETING: November 19, 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 7:05 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Dutra, McClelland, Pagnusat, Moore

Commissioners Absent: Mulligan

Staff Present: Woltering, Shaddox, Brisbine, Stewart

A. For the Regular meeting on October 15, 2001

It was moved by Commissioner McClelland to approve the minutes of October 15, 2001, as submitted. Second by Commissioner Dutra.

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

There were no changes to the agenda.

There were no oral or written communications.

City Manager Shaddox presented the staff report and provided a summary of the review process to date.

John Gack, LPA Architects, represented the project and provided a power-point presentation to illustrate changes to both the architectural drawings and to the site plan.

In response to inquiries from the Planning Commission, Mr. Gack said that the proposed parking along West Sierra Avenue would not result in the loss of the bike lane. Exterior color selection and roofing material will help to tie the Police Facility design to that of City Hall. PG&E has been consulted regarding energy efficiency. The intent is to utilize as many energy-saving features as possible with the hope to exceed Title 24 requirements. Although there is no narrative to describe the proposed energy-saving features, there should be an outline available for the City Council next week. The first choice would be to install photovoltaic panels on the carports, but it could possibly be solar hot water panels after a cost/benefit study is completed. There is a gate proposed between the Police Facility and the Multi-Purpose Room, but it has not been designed yet.

Commissioner Dutra expressed the opinion that the submittal is incomplete and asked why the project is being rushed. He said that he would like to see the actual solar features to be incorporated utilizing available funding from PG&E. He said that his first choice would be the installation of photovoltaic panels that could potentially generate enough energy to offset the cost of lighting downtown. Until the research is done regarding energy conservation, he did not believe that the project was ready for approval.

City Manager Shaddox responded that they hope to have construction drawings prepared and ready to go to bid between January and March 2002. The current goal at this time is to determine the basic design elements. He recommended that details of potential design alternatives, including energy conservation features, be outlined for Council consideration prior to the preparation of construction drawings.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:58 p.m.

George Barrich

176 West Cotati Oaks Ct., stated his support for the plan and an understanding of the need to move forward. He did not agree, however, with the need to have bids in the winter. The citizens of the community, in his opinion, desire a first-class police facility. He stated his support for photovoltaic panels on the carports, larger skylights to provide light in the offices, solar water heating, on-site fuel storage.

John Rock

35 Page Street, a Design Review Committee member, said that when the Design Review Committee reviewed the Police Facility on November 15, he did not vote because all items had not been addressed. He stated support for skylights that would provide light to the offices and wood detail around the windows to give the building a craftsman feel and to tie it to city hall. He expressed the opinion that the trellis in front of the workout area should be removed because it appears to be hiding something and might take away from other wood features on the building. It was his recommendation that the plan be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council prior to going out to bid.

The PUBLIC HEARING was closed at 8:10 p.m.

Chairwoman Moore said that she agreed the trellis in front of the workout area appears out of place.

In response to public comments and inquiries from the Planning Commission, Mr. Gack said that the proposed skylights are 4 ft. x 4 ft., but could be larger. There has been no cost/benefit done, however, and consideration needs to be given to the fact that the skylights also let in heat. The trellis in front of the workout area breaks up the elevation and allows natural light to the area while providing privacy. He agreed that wood trim around the windows would help to tie the facility architecturally to city hall.

Commissioner Dutra said that he thinks the plan is being rushed. The project, in his opinion, is going in the right direction but there are still questions that need answers. His recommendation was that the plans come back to the Planning Commission with details prior to it being submitted to City Council.

City Manager Shaddox responded that he needs to address the City Council's direction that the plan be returned to them at their meeting on November 28. The Planning Commission could recommend that City Council proceed no further.

Commissioner McClelland noted that the previous Planning Commission review was not as an official planning actions, but only a request for comments. The plan provides the City with the opportunity to show leadership in energy conservation. In her opinion, the energy conservation features should exceed those required by Title 24. Solar features should be incorporated into the budget, not tacked on afterwards. She agreed with Commissioner Dutra that the project feels rushed.

Vice Chairman Pagnusat reviewed the possible options available to the Planning Commission. He confirmed that the City Council is under no obligation to forward a public building to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission consensus was to continue the project and to recommend that City Council not take a final vote on the project pending submittal of additional information. The Planning Commission concurred with the changes made to the plan in response to comments from the Design Review Committee. It was further their consensus that the final plans be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission.

It was moved by Commissioner Dutra to continue the request to grant Preliminary Design Review approval for a revised plan of an 11,000 +/- square foot police facility on West Sierra Avenue behind City Hall (formerly Cotati Middle School site), to allow the project architect time to report back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding the following:

1. Adding exterior wood treatments to the windows.
2. The opportunity to increase the number of skylights.
3. Design options to the trellis feature that screens the interior workout area along the West Sierra Avenue frontage.
4. Energy conservation measures that could be a part of the project. For example, more detailed information on the type and location of solar collector panels that could be associated with the project. Possible locations include the roofs of the proposed carports; the roof of the police facility, avoiding being directly visible from West Sierra Avenue; and, the roof of the multiple-use building. This information should include an analysis of the amount of energy that could be generated; how this energy could be used; an overview of the costs and benefits of including these conservation measures; as well as possible funding sources (e.g., PG&E grant).
5. A pedestrian connection to the adjoining park area from the police facility as well as more information on the pedestrian connection to City Hall.
6. The design and treatment of the wall at the eastern gate and the type of pavement and structural treatments anticipated in the adjoining plaza area.

The Planning Commission indicated a desire to assure that solar and other energy conservation measures would be included in the budget for the project. The Planning Commission also indicated a desire to receive back for review information on any additional issues identified by the City Council.

Second by Vice Chair Pagnusat

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

Planning Director Woltering presented the staff report. He noted that the correct address is 546 Portal Street rather than 457 Portal Street.

There were no questions from the Planning Commission.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 8:53 p.m.

Jim Thompson, the property owner, was available to answer any questions about the project. He had a scale model of the proposed building.

Victor Lopes, the project architect, was also in attendance. Mr. Lopes said that the 30-inch wide landscape strip along the north property line will not accommodate the proposed redwood trees, and the redwoods will require a large amount of water.

Planning Director Woltering proposed that the Sequoias be replaced with Aptos Blue redwoods and that they be staggered. He said that the issue can be addressed at Final Design and that staff will work with the applicant to resolve the issue.

Mr. Lopes noted a conflict regarding aisle width on pages 3 and 7. Planning Director Woltering acknowledged the conflict and recommended amending condition no. 43 to require a minimum 2-way aisle width of "25" feet.

Mr. Lopes also requested flexibility in roof material, however, that matter will be discussed at Final Design Review.

Mr. Lopes, concerning condition no. 21, said that the Fire District informed him that no on-site fire hydrant is required.

Planning Director Woltering suggested that the Planning Commission amend condition no. 21 as follows:

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 9:06 p.m.

It was moved by Commissioner McClelland to adopt Resolution No. PC 01-31 approving Design Review, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and a Conditional Use Permit with Findings of Fact for a 6,574 square foot industrial building at 547 546 Portal Street subject to the conditions of approval as amended. Second by Commissioner Dutra.

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

1. The color of the metal siding and roof shall be a non-glare shade.
2. The applicant shall provide site details, including such items as fencing, trash enclosure, lighting, benches (if any) and bike racks (one bike space is required per 10 parking spaces), for Final Design Review.
3. The applicant shall submit exterior lighting plans, including illumination that highlights entry points and parking lot areas. No nuisance light spillover or glare onto adjacent properties is permitted.
4. The applicant shall provide detailed landscaping and irrigation plans at Final Design Review.
5. The applicant shall submit a complete sign application for review and approval by the Design Review Committee.
6. The applicant shall provide a color rendering and materials samples at Final Design Review.
7. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one bicycle space in a bike rack on site.
8. The handicap accessible parking and loading spaces shall be in compliance with the provisions of ADA for a van accessible parking stall.
9. This Conditional Use Permit includes approval for 1,200 square feet of office space. The property owner and/or tenant shall be required to apply for a modification to the Conditional Use Permit if tenant improvements are proposed to expand the total amount of office space.
10. The applicant shall sprinkle all construction areas with water (recycled when possible) at least twice a day, during excavation and other ground-preparing operations to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
11. The applicant shall cover stockpiles of sand, soil, and similar materials, or surround them with windbreaks.
12. The applicant shall cover trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spillage onto paved surfaces.
13. The applicant shall sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter through vehicle movement over those surfaces.
14. In the event that any cultural resources are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction excavation activities shall be suspended for a period to be determined by a City-approved archaeologist to allow for adequate inspection, recommendation, and retrieval, if appropriate.
15. The applicant shall clarify and/or correct the address with the County Assessor’s Office prior to Final Design Review.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

16. The applicant shall pay all pertinent plan check and inspection fees.
17. The applicant shall submit building plans for review and approval by the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District.
18. The project shall be subject to standard conditions for an automatic sprinkler system.
19. The building shall be fully sprinklered with water flow monitoring in accordance with the requirements of the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District.
20. The applicant shall install a complete fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA 72.
21. AMENDED. One (1) on-site fire hydrant shall be installed and in service before any construction starts on this project as required by the Fire District. The fire hydrant location shall be as approved by the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District.
22. All exit signs and emergency lighting shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code.
23. All driveway curbing is to be painted "Red" and labeled in "White" lettering a minimum of 4" tall: NO PARKING-FIRE LANE.
24. The applicant shall provide a fire department lock box for this building.
25. Any tenant improvements that interfere with the fire sprinkler system shall be corrected before this Department allows occupancy.
26. All addresses on the property shall be properly displayed (twelve-inch numbers minimum) and shall be visible from the roadside in both directions of travel. Each suite shall have either a number or letter on both the main entrance door and any rear doors.
27. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code Standards and the requirements of the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District.
28. The applicant shall apply and pay for all permits required by the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District before any work is started, including permits for the fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system, fire hydrant and underground fire water mains.
29. A City of Cotati Business License is required for all businesses within the City.
30. A representative of the Rancho Adobe Fire Protection District shall verify all conditions pertaining to this application prior to final inspection.

SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY (SCWA)

31. Drainage design for the project shall be in compliance with the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Flood Control Design Criteria.
32. Access through or construction in property owned by the Sonoma County Water Agency along Copeland Creek requires a Revocable License from the SCWA.
33. The applicant shall submit improvement plans, including detailed designs for any development in or adjacent to SCWA’s Copeland Creek property, for review by the Sonoma County Water Agency.

 

 

 

 

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

34. Three parking spaces adjacent to the trash enclosure shall be reduced to compact width (8 feet) to accommodate an 18" landscape strip adjacent to the trash enclosure on the south side (facing Portal Street).
35. Two feet of backup space shall be added between parking spaces #11 and #12 for improved maneuverability.
36. All storage areas shall be labeled on construction drawings as unconditioned space in terms of heating and air conditioning.

CITY ENGINEER

37. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for the review and approval of the City Engineer.
38. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans to the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Planning Director for review and approval.
39. The applicant shall provide site drainage for the parcel even if minimal grading occurs. No lot-to-lot drainage is permitted.
40. All utilities shall be underground.

Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit and Encroachment Permit

41. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Planning Director.
42. The applicant shall submit erosion control plans prepared by certified personnel to the City Engineer for review and approval.
43. AMENDED. Improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The plans shall include water and sewer connections, sidewalk, ingress and egress arrows. The parking lot shall meet planning standards, including minimum 2-way aisle width of 24 25 feet. The concrete apron can be considered part of the driveway width if there is no grade change.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permit

44. Grading and improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
45. The applicant shall pay applicable permit and plan check fees and submit insurance certificates.

 

 

 

 

 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

46. The building shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Building Security Ordinance. The applicant is advised to install a burglary alarm system.

CITY ATTORNEY

47. The Project Sponsor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys or employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s and/or City Council’s decision to approve this conditional use permit pertinent to this project. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, cost of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the Project Sponsor, including its partners, the City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such action.
48. The Project Sponsor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, employees and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revisiting, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and if the Project Sponsor desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditions on the approval of such documents, in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.
49. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding described in #40 or #41, above, is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Project Sponsor, of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding. In the event that the Project Sponsor is required to defend the City in connection with any said claim, action or proceeding, the City shall retain the right to 1) approve the counsel to so defend the City, 2) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and 3) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense of said claim, action or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action or proceeding where the Project Sponsor has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. Notwithstanding the immediate proceeding sentence, if the City Attorney’s office participates in the defense, all City Attorney fees and costs shall be reimbursed by the Project Sponsor.
50. The Project Sponsor shall indemnify the City for all the city’s costs, fees, and damages, which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions.
51. Unless a shorter period applies, the time within which judicial review of this Resolution must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

A letter from the project engineer was provided to the Planning Commission concurring with staff's recommendation for continuance.

It was moved by Chairwoman Moore to continue the public hearing on the Durenberger Subdivision to December 3, 2001. Second by Commissioner McClelland.

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

Planning Director Woltering presented a staff report and responded to questions from the Planning Commission.

The PUBLIC HEARING was opened at 9:13 p.m.

The PUBLIC HEARING was closed without comment.

It was moved by Vice Chairman Pagnusat to find the Oates/City of Cotati property transfer at the northeast corner of Gravenstein Highway and Locust Avenue to be consistent with the General Plan. Second by Chairwoman Moore.

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

A. Sonoma State University's 18^th Annual Planning Seminar - Saturday, December 1.

Commissioners McClelland, Dutra, and Moore requested that they be registered for the seminar.

There were no reports from the Commission.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.