DATE OF MEETING: Monday, June 4, 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: McClelland, Mulligan, Moore

Commissioners Absent: Pagnusat, Dutra

Staff Present: Dorch, Lustig, Brisbine

Senior Planner Lustig reported that because there is an insufficient number of Planning Commissioner's present that are eligible to vote on Item E (Dluzak Subdivision) the matter will need to be continued.

There were no oral or written communications.

A. Draft Housing Element Update

Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report

Paul Schabracq, Housing Element Consultant, proceeded with a review of the goals contained within the Draft Housing Element. He answered questions from the Planning Commission and received comment.

Goal H-1:

IP-1.1.1 - Chairwoman Moore requested and received clarification on the proposed housing rehabilitation program. Mr. Schabracq said that there will be specific criteria for the low interest loans and the funding will be through CDBG.

IP-1.2.1 - In response to an inquiry from the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Lustig said that this goal is to "consider" zoning ordinance revisions related to residential conversions, to provide for flexibility. Chairwoman Moore and Commissioner Mulligan both stated agreement with the language as proposed.

IP-1.4.1 - Mr. Schabracq suggested that the language for energy conservation improvements could be strengthened. Commissioner McClelland agreed.

Goal H-2:

IP-2.2.2 - Chairwoman Moore expressed some discomfort with the rezoning of Agricultural Commercial lands as proposed because there would be no feathering of residential densities between the A-C properties and existing rural residential properties behind them. Senior Planner Lustig explained that the current A-C zoning allows up to 15 units per acre with a conditional use permit.

IP-2.3.1 - In response to an inquiry from Chairwoman Moore, Senior Planner Lustig said that the definition for live/work units will be a part of the Zoning Ordinance update. Basically the idea is to require that the person who lives in the unit be the same person who operates the business.

IP-2.3.1 - Mr. Schabracq discussed possible changes to the formula for calculating inclusionary housing fees and referred to hand-outs given to the Planning Commission.

Chairwoman Moore expressed some concerns related to 30-year deed restrictions. In some cases, she said, the inclusionary status of the unit was not caught at the time of sale and units were sold at market rate. She agreed with the 20% inclusionary unit requirement for projects involving 2 or more units but suggested that inclusionary units be monitored more carefully.

Commissioner Mulligan also agreed with the 20% inclusionary unit requirement for projects involving 2 or more units because it helps to maintain diversity in the community.

Commissioner McClelland requested clarification on how the inclusionary requirement would apply to smaller subdivisions. Mr. Schabracq said that an in-lieu fee would be applied, possibly based on a percentage. However, he recommended that the Planning Commission discuss it further. He also suggested that the City work with the County on a Nexus Study (IP-2.3.2) that would ultimately establish an impact fee for commercial/industrial developments commensurate with the demand for housing that it would be creating.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

Marti Kashuba

Sierra Mobile Home Park, submitted a written statement dated June 4, 2001, that urges the preservation of affordable housing in the City's mobile home parks and outlines suggestions on how other communities have acted to accomplish that goal.

Marion Coglin

4 Hillview Drive, requested and received clarification on the percentage requirement for affordable housing. Ms. Coglin encouraged the conservation of housing for all income levels.

Carr Kunze

Burbank Housing, discussed the necessity for higher densities in order to compete in the current market and still provide affordable housing. He encouraged the City to allow the potential for a 40% density bonus.

Mr. Kunze distributed a written document, dated July 2000, that provides affordable housing strategies and suggestions for policy formulation in General Plans and Housing Elements. He

also encouraged flexibility in parking standards and distributed a written report outlining data to support the rethinking of residential parking.

Concerning the issue of calculating in-lieu housing fees, Mr. Kunze encouraged consideration be given to land value per unit.

Patricia Jonas-Volgaris, asked what would happen if someone occupying a live/work unit retired. Would they then have to move? She stated opposition to inclusionary housing sales restrictions and impact fees because it's not development friendly.

Theresa Eaton, Sierra Mobile Home Park, spoke in support of provisions for affordable housing, including the manufactured housing alternative.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Chairwoman Moore commented that a lot of the issues of affordability were addressed in the Rent Control Ordinance, but that it was voted out by the citizens. She suggested that that issue needs to be addressed.

Commissioner McClelland said that she would like more information on appropriate levels of density while maintaining a comfortable place to live. Chairwoman Moore suggested that looking at developments that work that include open space might help.

Mr. Schabracq said that he would attempt to get a slide show presentation he was aware of that provides a demonstration of successful high density projects.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like to have more information on the topic of high density.

BRIEF RECESS

Chairwoman Moore reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m.

PA# 03/01 Applicant: AT&T Wireless Communications

AP# 046-111-041

Senior Planner Lustig presented the staff report and outlined staff's recommendation for denial based on a finding that the proposal will negatively impact the Laguna de Santa Rosa bike path and result in the over clustering of antennas in a small area. She said that in an effort to mitigate the negative impacts of clustering telecommunication facilities in the area, the City Council has adopted a Telecommunication Ordinance that will become effective on June 9, 2001.

In response to an inquiries from the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Lustig said that the Telecommunication Ordinance gives the highest priority to facilities that are to be located on City-owned property. She explained that the reason for this is because the community will be impacted by visual blight and so the community should receive the monetary benefit.

The ordinance also requires co-location of facilities wherever possible and independent studies can be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of co-location.

Chairwoman Moore opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 9:25 p.m.

Peter Hilliard, representative for AT&T Wireless, was present. Mr. Hilliard discussed his research into the possibility of co-location with the three existing poles in the area. Concerning the Nextel facility located at the corporation yard, there are separation issues. Also, proximity to Hwy. 101 is an important consideration. Regarding the other two poles in the vicinity, co-location would not be possible without a variance to the height restrictions.

Mr. Hilliard said that he submitted the application in good faith and that there were no regulations in effect at that time to preclude it. He said that if they are allowed to build the facility, they will paint the pole however necessary to limit blight. He also agreed to relocating the equipment structure to meet setback requirements.

Mr. Hilliard stated his opinion that aesthetic issues seem unlikely with only four poles. He said that he had a problem with the City limiting negotiations between a private company and a property owner and that money seems to him to be the factor. He also said that it seemed unfair to him for the City to apply ordinance requirements that did not exist at the time he filed the application.

In response to inquiries from the Commission, Mr. Hilliard said that prior to negotiating a lease, he contacted staff. He said that there was no suggestion from staff at that time to negotiate with the City for placement of the facility on City-owned property. Concerning the currently proposed site at the Compass Lumber property, he said that AT&T does not anticipate the location of a 2^nd pole at the same location.

Senior Planner Lustig provided some clarification on the applicant's discussions with staff and the sequence of events. She reported that prior to Mr. Hilliard submitting the application, she informed him that while the City could not prevent him from applying for this use in the M-1 zoning district, it would be preferable that he investigate location of the facility at the corporation yard. Senior Planner Lustig said that she did not discuss co-location at that time and there was no discussion concerning frequencies. Later, when co-location was discussed, the height of the pole was never discussed. If indeed the existing pole at Dion's Auto Body is 32 feet tall, and co-location could result in a 40-42 foot tall pole, she said that may be something to consider. She suggested perhaps in the future there could be some flexibility in the maximum height requirements to address frequency and related issues.

Senior Planner Lustig reported that the staff recommendation for denial is not based on non-compliance with the new Telecommunications Ordinance. The recommendation follows existing City policy and encouraging initial negotiations with the City for the public benefit.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 9:58 p.m.

Senior Planner Lustig discussed the history of telecommunication pole applications in the community and why it was ultimately decided that the industrial area would be the best location for these facilities away from downtown, etc. It has since been learned that the County includes this area of the laguna in their bike path plan.

Director of Planning Dorch said that in the beginning, he believed that there would only be one or two towers, he did not believe that each carrier would come in with their own application. It wasn't until after the third application that staff realized the potential number of potential applications. He compared telecommunication poles with billboards in that they are both a public blight. He questioned whether there should be a private benefit for public blight.

Chairwoman Moore re-opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 10:04 p.m.

Steve Burdick, Compass Lumber, asked why an ordinance was not adopted after installation of the third pole and the problems about visual blight were recognized.

Christy Beltrane, AT&T Wireless, added that there is a benefit to the community in the service that they provide. She stated that AT&T Wireless currently serves several public agencies.

Chairwoman Moore closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 10:08 p.m.

Commissioner McClelland compared this situation to one concerning a second dwelling unit that she witnessed several years ago. The proposed second dwelling was felt to be too large, however, there was no ordinance section that limited the size of a second dwelling unit to apply at that time. This application for a telecommunication facility was filed prior to the ordinance being in place. She stated her opinion, that if the applicant is willing to work on issues related to setbacks and pole color, then she would support approval.

Chairwoman Moore agreed and said that it is unfortunate that the ordinance is not currently in place, however, future applications will be required to comply.

Commissioner Mulligan also agreed. He expressed difficulty denying something after good faith negotiations have taken place.

In response to an inquiry from the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Dorch said that the Planning Commission can vote on this application now, if that is what they want to do, and then staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting.

It was moved by Commissioner Mulligan to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an application to construct and maintain an unmanned telecommunications facility, which would include a 135 square foot equipment shelter adjacent to a forty foot tower with twelve antennas attached at the top, located at 355 Blodgett Street, and to direct staff to include a Resolution for adoption on the next agenda. (PA# 03/01 - AT&T Wireless Communications). Second by Commissioner McClelland.

Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Pagnusat, Dutra) Abstain: 0

The review of the following Items C and D were combined.

C. Request for approval for a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and a Negative

and . . . .

D. Request for approval for a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Lot Line

Director of Planning Dorch presented the staff reports and reviewed the recommended conditions of approval.

Al Diiorio, Avila Architects, represented both projects. He stated that he agreed with the conditions of approval.

There were no questions from the Planning Commission.

Chairwoman Moore complimented the thorough review of these projects by the Design Review Committee, and expressed confidence that all of the design issues have been addressed.

It was moved by Commissioner Mulligan to adopt Resolution No. PC 01-16 approving design review, a conditional use permit and a negative declaration to allow the construction of a 7,500 square foot office/warehouse building on a .56 acre parcel located at 506 Portal Street in the R.C. Industrial Subdivision (PA# 14/00 - Long/Avila); and, to adopt Resolution No. PC 01-17 approving design review, a conditional use permit and a negative declaration to allow the construction of a 8,850 square foot office/warehouse building on a .73 acre property7 located at 421 and 445 Portal Street in the R.C. Industrial Subdivision (PA# 27/00 - Van Cleave/Avila), with Findings of Fact and subject to the suggested conditions of approval. Second by Commissioner McClelland.

Yes: 3 Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Pagnusat, Dutra) Abstain: 0

E. Request for approval of a Tentative Map and Rezoning from R-2 to R-2 PUD for a

Continued due to lack of quorum.

There were no reports by staff.

There were no reports from the Commission.

Chairwoman Moore adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.

Submitted by:

Kathleen Brisbine, Administrative Secretary