D R A F T

CITY OF COTATI

MINUTES for the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission

DATE OF MEETING: Monday, December 1, 2003

TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 p.m.

PLACE OF MEETING: Cotati City Hall, City Council Chambers

201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairwoman McClelland called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

II. ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Hammond, Rock, Pagnusat, Dutra, McClelland

Staff Present: Woltering, Gonzalez, Lustig, Nebb, Bertolero, Brisbine

III. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

There were no changes to the agenda.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. For the Regular Meeting on November 17, 2003

It was moved by Commissioner Pagnusat to approve the minutes as submitted.

George Barrich, West Cotati Oaks Ct., requested an opportunity to clarify his comments as reflected in the minutes.

After receiving clarification from City Attorney Nebb on procedure, Chairwoman McClelland opened the meeting to public comment concerning the minutes of November 17, 2003.

p. 4: Mr. Barrich requested that his comments include his recommendation at the November 17 meeting that the meeting notifications be mailed to an area of 750 feet or 1000 feet, rather than the standard 500 feet, given the size of this project.

Concerning his comments regarding concerns about cut-through traffic into the residential neighborhood, he referred to the left turn from Gravenstein Highway to West Cotati Avenue as a “death trap” and he wanted that reflected in the minutes. He recalled that Commissioner Pagnusat and Vice Chairman Dutra also referred to a “death trap”.

Vice Chairman Dutra and Commissioner Pagnusat requested no change to the minutes as far as their comments are concerned.

It was moved by Commissioner Pagnusat to approve the minutes of November 17, 2003, with amendments to George Barrich’s comments as requested. Second by Commissioner Rock.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

V. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Joan Simon, 618 West School Street, said that it is the Planning Commission’s role to review planning application materials only, in an unbiased and non-partisan manner. Political issues are for the City Council to decide. At the last meeting on November 17, Ms. Simon expressed her opinion that Vice Chairman Dutra improperly questioned a speaker about his legal fee arrangements concerning a lawsuit against the City. When the lawyer declined to answer the question that involved an issue not on the Planning Commission’s agenda, the Chair exacerbated the situation by questioning the City Attorney about litigation standards. The response dealt with only one possible scenario. The Planning Commission was not advised that their discussion was outside the realm of the agenda.

Ms. Simon stated that, at that time, she attempted to respond to the discussion and to provide some clarification. However, she was asked to sit down.

Procedurally, Ms. Simon suggested that there is no opportunity for the public to comment after all public comments are received in order to address new issues, or to provide qualified input. She suggested that there should be a challenge period added to the procedure following the public hearing.

VI. MATTERS AT HAND

A. Request for approval of an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Sonoma Business Park, which 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 that the Planning Commission will be considering include a Growth Management exemption for the residential units; a Planned Unit Development (PUD) establishing development and design standards for the entire development, Design Reviews, 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. [Continued from November 17, 2003]

Consideration, and possible action, by the Planning Commission 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. Adoption of a Resolution Recommending Introduction of an Ordinance by City Council 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 Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Conditional Use Permit to allow certain buildings to exceed maximum height standards.

8. Adoption of a Resolution to Approve, or a Resolution to Deny, a Conditional Use Permit to allow residential units in a Commercial zoning district.

9. Adoption of a Resolution to Grant, or a Resolution to Deny, a Growth Management Exemption for the 48 residential units.

(PA# 21/03) 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 provided an overview of the meeting. Of the entitlements listed on the agenda, the tentative map will be continued because of revisions, the Lot Line Adjustment will be reviewed by City Council only, the Preliminary Design Review for the Village will be continued, and the Conditional Use Permit to allow residential in a commercial zoning district will be continued.

Nash Gonzalez, planner, presented the staff report and highlighted changes since the previous meeting on November 17.

City Attorney Nebb distributed Exhibit D, Ordinance No. 762, “Findings”; and, revisions to the Addendum.

Pat Collins, Parsons, discussed changes to the EIR Addendum resulting from changes to the project. Overall, the trip generation estimates have been reduced. The elimination of drive-throughs, elimination of Shops 2, and the proposed number of dwelling units reduced from 48 to 42 contributed to the reduced traffic figures. As a result, impacts related to air quality have been decreased as well.

Steve Weinberger, W-Trans, addressed specific questions related to traffic improvements. He discussed changes to the northbound 101 off-ramp. Concerning left turns from West Cotati Avenue to Gravenstein Highway (westbound), the new signal at Alder Avenue and a turn pocket will improve that turn movement.

Chairwoman McClelland opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:56 p.m.

Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific, introduced the team of consultants.

Herman Chang, EN Engineering, discussed the location and function of bioswales. Bioswales will filter all surface water before it flows to the stormdrain. Two locations are provided for retention. The system is designed for a capacity of .94 inches of rain in an hour.

Ned Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape Architects, said that the bioswales would be planted with native, mowable, grasses. Wildflowers could be added.

Bill Mattinson, Sol Data, Santa Rosa, said that the residences would be designed to comply with the California standard of the federal “Energy Star” program, which is 15% better than Title 24. He said that there is no Energy Star program for commercial construction, however, “Savings by Design” provides for 10% less energy consumption that gets certified by PG&E.

George Akel, Newman Development Group, addressed the suggested conditions of approval (Exhibit B, Resolution No. PC 03-24).

Concerning signage (conditions 11, 15 & 16), he requested that they be allowed to have internally illuminated signs on the buildings.

Concerning condition #19, he requested that they be allowed to work with the Planning Commission sub-committee on energy issues rather than returning to the Planning Commission.

Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific, said that he will provide energy details at final design review.

In response to a question about why the City should allow residential uses in a commercial zone, Mr. Gonzalez said that housing is what makes the commercial uses viable. He said that he would be open to more retail space if the market will support it. However, the portion of the site proposed for residential development has no highway visibility, which is very desirable for commercial development. He suggested that the remainder of Gravenstein Highway has the potential for commercial development.

Regarding parking, each component is designed to stand on its own and he would prefer to keep it that way instead of providing a reciprocal agreement.

Linnel Hardy, 8171 Arthur Street, pointed out that there are no traffic figures provided for Sundays. She wanted to know how that would change the addendum. She suggested that the square footage of Lowe’s be reduced. She asked how residents of this project site would access Thomas Page School.

Suzanne Whipple, 8709 Dorfman Drive, recommended that the housing component of this proposal be denied. She said that it has been a long term goal of the Chamber of Commerce to get more retail in the City. Where retail can benefit the City in terms of sales tax revenues, housing costs the City money. She recommended that the site plan could be revised to be more of a “village” with improved pedestrian access.

Joan Simon, 618 West School Street, stated her opinion that a traffic light at Alder Avenue will be an improvement. She noted that the previous project’s condition #73 has been added to this project as condition #139. She brought up the issue of saving the existing wisteria on the site that came up during the South Sonoma Business Park project and asked if that will be applied to this project as well. She suggested that the project should aim for higher-end retail businesses that could make the shopping center a tourist destination. She re-stated her recommendation for a reduced size Lowes and the possibility for separating the nursery. Include a demonstration garden? She spoke in favor of including residential, but suggested reducing the number to 35 or 36 larger units. Having homes on the site and someone there all the time will add to security. She stated her understanding that 90 tons of emissions will be generated for the estimated traffic levels. It was also her understanding that Caltrans will not proceed with any northbound interchange improvements until 2009.

George Barrich, West Cotati, stated his opinion that there is no need for additional housing at this location. He said that he sees the potential for commercial development along Gravenstein Highway in the future. Energy savings for the project should be better than Title 24. The large roof on the Lowe’s building should include skylights and photovoltaic panels. He said that he remains concerned about traffic safety at the West Cotati Avenue/Gravenstein Highway intersection. Commercial truck deliveries at this location, in his opinion, will not mix well with residential uses.

Ann Wallace-Rock, 35 Page Street, stated her opinion that the improvements proposed at West Cotati Avenue are not adequate. She was opposed to housing at this location.

Terrell Watt, 1937 Filbert Street, San Francisco, identified herself as a planner hired by Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, to review the environmental document prepared for this project. She reviewed her findings in a letter dated December 1, 2003. In summary, she concluded that the EIR Addendum is not adequate for this project, and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report may be necessary.

Lisa Stanley, 601 West School Street, encouraged careful consideration of impacts to the Gravenstein Highway/West Cotati Avenue intersection.

Tim Frank, identified himself as a representative of both the Sierra Club and the Greenbelt Alliance. He requested additional time to review the environmental document. Particular concerns identified were the impacts of “big box” retail to traffic and to the downtown commercial area. He suggested that the differences between this project and the previous project need to be evaluated more closely. Consideration should be given to a full Environmental Impact Report.

John Mueller, 591 Redwood Highway, Mill Valley, said that this process has not allowed time for meaningful review of the environmental document as called for in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He stated his opinion that an EIR Addendum is not adequate and recommended a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

The EIR Addendum, he said, does not evaluate impacts to existing businesses and the project’s possible contribution to downtown blight. He recommended an economic study be undertaken. He stated his opinion that a big box retail store does not conform with the General Plan in that it does not encourage the stability of existing businesses and does not promote a small town character.

Paul Foti, 7883 Old Redwood Highway, discussed required population to support commercial businesses. If the project goes through, he recommended that the applicants be allowed adequate signage to avoid A-boards. Concerning northbound 101 interchange improvements, he suggested that the City pay for the improvements, at least partially, and not wait for Caltrans.

Nancy Uber-Kellogg, 380 Maple Avenue, requested continuation of this meeting to allow more time to review the environmental document. In order to be more environmentally sensitive, the project could use the oak savannahs and existing water courses in the landscape plan. She suggested that traffic impacts are difficult to mitigate given the size of Lowe’s. Could the size of Lowe’s be reduced.

Jenny Blaker, Arthur Street, said that Resolution No. 03-23, Exhibit B – Statement of Overriding Considerations, gives the impression that the City Council is adopting the considerations prior to Planning Commission review. She recommended an Economic Impact Study to evaluate impacts to local businesses. She noted that there will be increased weekend traffic and impacts to air quality. The project does not meet the General Plan goal of promoting a small-town character. Evaluation of Biological Impacts needs to include more information on the California Tiger Salamander. Generally, the assumptions need more careful evaluation.

Neil Hancock, Arthur Street, said that results of a telephone poll regarding Measure B, citizens cited traffic impacts and impacts to current businesses, as issues of concern. He said that large retail outlets might not necessarily have the best prices when comparing stores. Lowe’s would be a large organization for a community the size of Cotati.

Chairwoman McClelland closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 9:34 p.m.

The meeting was reconvened at 9:48 p.m.

The applicants for agenda items B and C were in attendance. Because of the late hour and the amount of time it would take to finish the current project, the applicants were given an opportunity to have their items continued to another meeting.

Discussing the possibility of another meeting, the Planning Commission reached a consensus to continue the items to Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. All of the Commissioners, with the exception of Vice Chairman Dutra, indicated that they would be able to attend.

It was moved by Commissioner Pagnusat to continue agenda items B (Miller Subdivision, PA# 30/02) and C (Altman Acres, PA# 16/00) to Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Second by Commissioner Rock.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

The Planning Commission resumed their discussion on the Cotati Commons project (PA# 21/03).

• Resolution No. PC 03-23, related to CEQA, was reviewed first.

In response to an inquiry from Vice Chairman Dutra, City Attorney Nebb said that an economic study is not required by CEQA unless the economic impact could lead to a physical impact. There have been no such impacts identified for this project.

Commissioner Hammond requested and received information on the pedestrian connection under the freeway to connect with downtown.

In response to Commissioner Rock, Planning Director Woltering said that a landscaped median is not proposed because the required width could impact California Tiger Salamander habitat on the south side of Gravenstein Highway.

City Engineer Toni Bertolero clarified that medians (not landscaped) could be installed in areas without turn lanes.

Commissioner Rock expressed an interest in having the speed limit reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph.

Steve Weinberger, W-Trans, responded that the speed of traffic will change once the improvements are installed. Caltrans could adjust the speed limit downward according to the changed conditions, but not necessarily as low as 25 mph.

Commissioner Hammond asked if hazardous materials issues were addressed with regard to occupancy, or just for construction. City Attorney Nebb responded that impacts related to hazardous materials at the construction phase were not determined to be significant and no mitigation was provided. The handling of hazardous materials by businesses (i.e.: paint products, fertilizers, etc.) is regulated by State and Federal law.

Concerning Resolution No. 03-23 (Section 1 - Record), City Attorney Nebb advised that the “Record” needs to include amendments to the EIR Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.

It was moved by Chairwoman McClelland to approve Resolution No. 03-23, with an amendment to Section 1 to include amendments to the EIR Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the “Record”. Second by Vice Chairman Dutra.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

• Resolution No. 03-24, PUD Rezoning, was considered next.

The Planning Commission commenced review of Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval.

Condition #3.g

Commissioner Hammond requested that consideration be given to eliminating 17 parking spaces in front of Lowe’s along the perimeter; and an additional 13 spaces between Pads A and B, and between B and C. The adjustment would allow for an 8 foot increase to the size of the bioswales.

A majority of the Planning Commissioner’s agreed with the recommendation and requested a response from the project engineer.

Herman Chang, EN Engineering, responded that the requested increase in the bioswales is possible along the Redwood Drive frontage and between pads B and C. The increase could not occur between pads A and B due to the necessary grading to keep the existing oak trees at their current elevation.

There was a consensus to amend condition 3.g as follows:

Bio-swale areas, designed by a design professional with knowledge and experience in the design and operation of bio-swales, shall be increased in width, as necessary or appropriate a minimum of 8’ from the area behind the Green Oaks restaurant north to Helman Lane. Plant selection in the bio-swale areas shall emphasize appropriate plant material to promote localized infiltration of storm water runoff.

Condition #3.f

Commissioner Hammond discussed the appropriateness of using primarily native plant materials along Redwood Drive, Gravenstein Highway, the pedestrian walkways, and in the park.

Ned Smith, Smith & Smith Landscape Architects, responded that two species of oaks are proposed on the Redwood Drive perimeter and in the park. Landscaping along Gravenstein Highway will require the approval of Caltrans. He suggested that they could possibly add a riparian species to the bioswale areas.

There was no change to the condition.

Condition #11, 15, 16 and 98.

Chairwoman McClelland had questions related to externally lit vs. internally lit signage.

Staff advised the Planning Commission that the Mitigation Measures approved with acceptance of Resolution No. 03-23 (Exhibit A, page 4) identify non-internally illuminated monument signs as mitigation for visual impacts. In addition, condition no. 98 requires that monument signs not be internally illuminated. If the Planning Commission wants to change that requirement, then Resolution No. 03-23 that approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program will need to be revisited.

City Attorney Nebb suggested that staff could review the photometric plan that was a part of the original Environmental Impact Report to determine appropriate mitigation measures for anything other than non-internally illuminated monument signs.

Vice Chairman Dutra expressed his opinion in favor of internally illuminating the proposed 20-foot tall monument sign for visibility from Highway 101.

The signage conditions were discussed again following condition #44.

Condition #17

Page Winkler, Nadel Architects, requested that condition no. 17 be modified to allow a 12-foot wide sidewalk in front of the retail anchor. In response to an inquiry from the Planning Commission, he said that the 12-foot sidewalk would accommodate trees and suggested Pear trees planted in 3-foot square tree wells.

Commissioner Hammond suggested specimen trees.

The Planning Commission consensus was to amend condition #17 as follows:

17. The walkways in front of the “Retail Anchor” shall be 12’ in width, and the “Retail A”, “Retail B” and “Shops 1” buildings, also within the “Marketplace” component of the Project, shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide, with five by five foot trees wells approximately 25-feet on center, and be the side walks shall be constructed of colored concrete materials that are complementary to the building design.

Condition #19

Planning Director Woltering said that the condition will allow for future review of projects related to Green Building guidelines. Exhibit C, Ordinance No 752, Planned Unit Development Standards, will need to be modified to reflect this requirement.

Condition #23

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #23 as follows:

Drive-thru restaurants shall not be allowed within the overall project,. including at “Retail Pads A and B”.

Condition #25

32.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #25 as follows:

The proposed wood shingles within the Cotati Commons master plan housing component shall be a minimum of Class A -fire rated, if possible, subject to the review and approval of the to resist being flammable, to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

Condition #27

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #27 as recommended by staff:

The Applicants shall install all light standards in accordance with the following:

a. On the Project site all lighting shall be downcasting ornamental “acorn” style or (if unavailable) some other decorative downcasting light standard approved by the Design Review Committee (as part of Final Design Review). No parking lot public or private street lighting shall be in excess of 14’ high, however, within the parking fields lighting shall not exceed 18’ in height.

b. Lighting on Public Streets shall be the City Standard “acorn” style lighting.

Condition #28

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #28 as recommended by the City Attorney:

Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any building on the project site, the Applicants shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement between each of the parcels in the project sufficient to ensure access rights and meet City parking requirements and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney.

Conditions 30 through 36

After considering the alternative conditions provided by staff, the Planning Commission consensus, with the exception of Commissioner Rock, was to approve the conditions as follows.

20. Ground floor uses of Office “Building B” shall be “retail” as provided in Exhibit C. Office uses shall be allowed on the second floor.

OR

30. Ground floor uses of Office “Buildings A, B and C”” may be a mix of “retail” or “office” as provided in Exhibit C. Office uses shall be allowed on the second floor.

14.31. The Applicant shall design the residential units with staggered front building lines, providing vertical and horizontal architectural/structural offsets and shall vary the use of exterior materials, colors and individual model types.

15.32. A maximum of 42 residential units shall be permitted. Said units may be located in the area of “Phase 2-Cotati Cottages” as shown on the “Cotati Commons Master Plan Sheet ______”. In order to achieve this, a minimum of 6 units shall be eliminated (one from each row of housing) as shown on the “Cotati Commons Master Plan Sheet ______”.

33. Prior to Final Design Review approval, the east/west pedestrian walkway along the northern edge of the commercial portion of the “Village” component shall be enhanced to provide a parkway between the commercial and residential components of the Project.

36.34. Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential component of the “Village”, permits shall be issued, and substantial construction completed, on a minimum of 200,000 square feet of the approved commercial development within the overall Project area on the Retail Anchor building and on at least one of the retail buildings A, B, or C of the Village, to the satisfaction of the City Council.

35. The Applicant shall install solar electric and hot water plumbing stub outs in all residential units that have south-facing roofs. The Applicant shall offer an upgrade option for these units for solar heating domestic hot water and solar electric.

36. The Applicant shall submit a revised site plan and architectural plans for an indoor recreation area a minimum of 1,000 square feet for Final Design Review approval for any residential units on the Project Site (in addition to that provided for the already approved Cotati Cottages Project) .

OR

31. Resident1al Units shall be eliminated from the Project. The Applicant may apply for substitute land uses for this area in the future.

Condition #34

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #34 as recommended by staff.

36.Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential component of the “Village”, permits shall be issued, and substantial construction completed, on a minimum of 200,000 square feet of the approved commercial development within the overall Project area on the Retail Anchor building and on at least one of the retail buildings A, B, or C of the Village, to the satisfaction of the City Council.

Condition #36

There was additional discussion concerning condition #36 and the requirement for a 1,000 square foot indoor recreation area.

Victor Gonzalez, Monahan Pacific, explained that there is a recreation building being built as a part of the Cottages

project currently under construction. That, in addition to the pool and changing room proposed for the Cotati Commons project, will be shared by both projects. He suggested that they might also be able to combine the changing room with the adjacent building in order to create a larger space.

Planning Director Woltering stated his opinion that the intent of the condition has been met with the pool, changing room, tot-lot, and recreation building.

City Attorney Nebb said that reciprocal easements will be required for the shared facilities.

Condition #44

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to amend condition #44 as recommended by staff:

The Applicants shall submit improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. The Applicants shall submit improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, and Caltrans (for improvements within State right-of-way) prior to issuance of the first grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. Prior to issuance of any other subsequent permits, grading or building, the Applicants shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, due diligence and progress in securing Caltrans’ approval of improvements within State right-of-way. However, even if the improvements for Gravenstein Highway are bonded, under no condition shall a Certificate of Occupancy be issued for Buildings A, B, and C, in the Village and Shops 1, Pad A or Pad B in the Marketplace without substantial completion, as determined by the City Engineer, of the Gravenstein Highway improvements. Improvements shall meet City of Cotati standards and Caltrans standards (for those improvements within State right-of-way. Said plans shall include:

a. Grading and drainage plans. Grading plans shall also be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval and shall include demolition plans, tree removal plan and construction fencing.

b. Roadway improvement plans, profiles and cross-sections. Structural sections and profiles (for drainage reviews) of the interior drives, walkways and parking lots shall be submitted and subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.

c. Water, sewer, storm drain plan and profile sheets, including points of connections, outfall structures, and post-construction best management practices for storm water management and pollution control. Each residential unit shall be individually metered and have a separate sewer cleanout. Final location of each meter and cleanout is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.

d. Street lighting and park lighting plans. Street light plans along public streets shall include a lighting analysis to determine spacing requirements for the lights. Type of street light shall be decorative, minimum height of 14 feet, 125 watts, HPS, otherwise in parking fields up to 18 feet, and subject to the review of the Planning Director and City Engineer. Interior street lighting plan shall be included and is subject to the review of the Planning Director and the Police Chief.

e. Signing and striping plans.

f. Erosion control plans.

g. Traffic control and construction sequencing plans.

h. Curb, gutter, 8-foot parkway strip, and 8-foot sidewalk along the north side of Gravenstein Highway. The sidewalk shall be detached from the curb with an 8-foot parkway strip for the entire property frontage.

i. Standard City hydrants at location(s) as designated by the Fire Department.

j. The following traffic improvements are part of the project and the Applicants shall include these improvements in the improvement plans:

i. Provide a traffic signal at Helman Lane and Redwood Drive with a northbound left turn lane from Redwood Drive into Helman Lane;

ii. Provide either on-site or median channelization to prohibit left-turn movements in and out of the Green Oaks Driveway. To serve access to northbound Redwood Drive, provide an internal connection between the project’s circulation system and the parking lot to Green Oaks Restaurant.

iii. Install a westbound left turn lane on Gravenstein Highway at Madrone Avenue.

iv. Install westbound left turn lanes on Helman Lane at the two easternmost project driveways.

v. Restripe the southbound approach on Redwood Drive to one dedicated left-turn lane and one combined left-through-right lane and extend the existing westbound right turn lane to the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp.

vi. Install two northbound left turn lanes on the northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp.

Condition #11, 15, 16 and 98.

Pat Collins, Parsons, addressed the mitigation concerning internally illuminated signs in the previous Environmental Impact Report. Mitigation included downcast lighting on the building exteriors and externally lit monument signs. The mitigation did not address signs on buildings. Impacts from light and glare at the Helman Lane/Redwood Drive intersection were not addressed. It was her opinion that internal lighting of the monument sign at this location is not a serious impact because of the amount of activity proposed for this location.

Commissioner Rock suggested that the roof lines overhanging the monument signs be extended to reduce glare.

Planning Director Woltering said that internal illumination could be allowed by modifying the mitigation measures in the CEQA Resolution. Specific locations where internal illumination would be allowed could be determined at a later date.

Due to the late hour, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue this agenda item.

It was moved by Commissioner Pagnusat to continue this agenda item to Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.

Second by Commissioner Rock.

Yes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0

B. Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rezoning from R-2 to R-2:Planned Unit Development, a Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review approval for a proposal to construct six (6) detached single-family homes with detached garages. Second dwelling units are proposed above all six (6) of the detached garages. The site is 0.6 acres located at the northeast corner of Ryan Lane and East Cotati Avenue.

PA# 30/02 Applicant: Miller/Leys

AP# 144-301-009

Continued to December 4, 2003.

C. Request for interpretation of condition no. 34 (Resolutions 01-63 and 01-64) regarding front yard setbacks for lots 11 through 14 at Altman Acres Subdivision located at 8770 Old Redwood Highway.

PA# 16/00 Applicant: Dennis Altman

Continued to December 4, 2003.

D. Selection of a Subcommittee to review energy issues related to the Cotati Commons/Lowe’s project.

Vice Chairman Dutra and Commissioner Hammond were selected to serve on the subcommittee.

VII. REPORTS BY STAFF

There were no reports by staff.

VIII. REPORTS BY COMMISSION

There were no reports from the Commission.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Chairwoman McClelland adjourned the meeting a 1:00 a.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary