[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6579584,"mediaKeyId","3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b","parentId",3074975,"title","Cotati planning commission recommends council approve Redwood Row mixed‑use project with conditions","audioSeconds",4060,"startMs",1355000,"endMs",5415000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b&start=1355&end=5415","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b/thumbnail_1355000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579584/Cotati-City/Sonoma-County/California/Cotati-planning-commission-recommends-council-approve-Redwood-Row-mixeduse-project-with-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579584-25b9765d30fc3350cebf20d406a25c12/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176819&Signature=VTIC3aNdWicn1~Yo7QeYr4EOIeYi-Qp7Uh6~snjdaV2nvljYe-3uMv8ndqKUScbW~~F4wK3TuF4~wsfYlnapIa-oKmAeBm5Z91AuAfIVg70JaOKE9qUVUIdYTL6lkfgONLwdJF0kbrL-t8y-uCS5LERL-Mlbgh3OAMnGVewPz17ClW1Amt9M-CnW8XE8O22go5yCmAUFrbbdB55Zfbw4SLxCtD0HlDJgbEts9SfheTQvzZBGUQn-hnvtkt5E3V0EuCoYURPwQ1eTguUKUQPzACbc6SO611RqJd7Hz-HpBwTBPU93NyfmKJVc8rUvvyIWKtOcpw7a9xF7~t4FyQdo-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cotati, CA","date","2025-04-22T04:18:16.033Z","article","The Cotati Planning Commission on Monday voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve preliminary design review, a tree‑removal permit, parkland dedication and a vesting tentative map for the Redwood Row mixed‑use project at the northwest corner of State Route 116 and Redwood Drive.

The commission’s action followed a detailed staff presentation, a developers’ slide presentation and more than two hours of questions and public comment. Director Noah Hausch presented staff’s analysis, citing the project’s consistency with the general plan and with mitigation measures in the city’s EIR; Adam Foster of City Ventures and other members of the project team then described the site plan, proposed housing mix, parks and frontage improvements.

Staff and the developer said the application seeks design review, a tree removal permit and a tentative map for a roughly 10.6‑acre site. The proposal described in the staff packet and in the public presentation includes townhouse‑style condominiums (34 homes across 26 buildings), an optional accessory dwelling unit (ADU) option for some condominium buyers, a 44‑unit apartment building proposed to satisfy the city’s affordable‑housing requirement and about 10,000 square feet of commercial condominium space fronting Highway 116. The developer said the project would provide roughly 1.08 acres of dedicated parkland in two pocket parks and pay fees for the statutory parkland requirement beyond that dedication.

Why it matters: the project would build market‑rate for‑sale units and a sizable below‑market rental component on a long‑vacant, previously graded site west of Highway 101 that has been the focus of earlier land‑use planning. Staff said the application came in under Senate Bill 330 and is vested to the code in effect as of the application date.

Key details
- Affordable units: Staff and the applicant said the proposal meets the city’s base inclusionary requirement (15%) with 8 very‑low, 8 low and 8 moderate units and proposes an additional 20 moderate‑income units in a consolidated 44‑unit apartment building. The developer said that consolidation is intended to make the affordable component more competitive for state and tax‑credit financing and to facilitate partnership with an experienced affordable‑housing developer.
- Density bonus and waivers: The project is proposed as a state density‑bonus project and seeks concessions and waivers (including reduced commercial floor‑area percentage and some setback and accessibility waivers). City staff told commissioners the city must grant concessions required by state density‑bonus law if the applicant qualifies; staff also said legal analysis and a city‑attorney opinion will be available to the City Council.
- Parks and parkland dedication: Under the city’s parkland formula the project’s residential yield triggers a 1.88‑acre requirement; the applicant is proposing to dedicate about 1.08 acres of parkland and pay in‑lieu fees for the remainder, with credit given for park improvements to be completed by the developer.
- Trees and mitigation: Staff said the project avoided most trees and identified one eucalyptus and potentially up to two oaks that may be removed after final engineering; city council—not the commission—must act on oak tree removals under Cotati code. The project proposes extensive new plantings and landscape mitigation.

Questions and commission direction
Commissioners pressed the team on waste collection logistics for narrow internal streets (\"woonerfs\"), emergency access and fire‑apparatus circulation, parking and how homeowners would accommodate 64‑gallon carts. The applicant said the woonerfs are 24 feet wide and that Recology can collect by crews backing into and out of short dead‑end streets; staff committed to referring the design to Recology and the fire department during final design review. Commissioners also asked about ADUs, accessibility requirements, and how the market‑rate and affordable components would be sequenced at build‑out; staff and the developer said occupancy of market‑rate homes would not proceed until construction of the affordable component had begun, and that permit conditions will set specific triggers.

Public comment summarized
Speakers from the public and neighborhood groups raised questions about the project’s traffic impacts and the timing of intersection improvements, ground‑floor commercial area, unit sizes for the affordable building, the visibility of the affordable building from the market‑rate homes, and whether the consolidated affordable building would feel segregated. The project team responded with design options to increase visual and pedestrian connections between the components (for example, special paving, shared pathways and carefully sited trees), and said they would work with staff and prospective affordable‑housing partners to refine those details before council review. Local commenters also urged the applicant to confirm Recology’s pickup plan and asked that any shared amenities be accessible to all residents.

Action and vote
Commissioner Pat Gilardi moved approval of a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the findings and approve preliminary design review, the tree‑removal permit, parkland dedication and the vesting tentative map for the Redwood Row project as described in the staff report. Commissioner Susan Sparks seconded. The planning commission approved the motion by roll call vote: Commissioner Sparks — yes; Commissioner Gilardi — yes; Commissioner Michelle Berman — yes; Vice Chair Long — yes; Chair Moffitt — yes. The motion included the commission’s suggested conditions and recommendations (staff reported the motion asked staff to carry forward the commission’s suggestions about ADU infrastructure, pool/amenity access for the below‑market building, enhanced wayfinding signage, public art and trash/dumpster siting).

Next steps
The commission’s action was a recommendation to the City Council. Staff said the project will proceed to the council with a fuller packet that will include the city‑attorney opinion on density‑bonus waivers, the final design review materials, environmental findings under CEQA Guidelines §15183 and the conditions of approval. The council will consider the ordinance and tree removals and may adopt or modify the commission’s recommendations.

Quotes
\"The intention is to create a bit of a community and it's not lost on us that Cotati is not a huge city,\" Adam Foster, City Ventures, said during the presentation.

\"If the commission, if the council thinks that there's a better sort of amenity mix for that area, we're all ears,\" Foster said when asked about park design.

Ending
The commission’s recommendation advances the Redwood Row project to the City Council with a clear set of design issues to resolve at final design review and council hearing. The council will receive additional legal and financing detail and consider the project and the required tree‑removal approvals at a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 21, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Cotati Planning Commission on Monday voted unanimously to recommend the City Council approve preliminary design review, a tree‑removal permit, parkland dedication and a vesting tentative map for the Redwood Row mixed‑use project at the northwest corner of State Route 116 and Redwood Drive.","taxTitle","Cotati City, Sonoma County, California","taxId",72376,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579575,"Planning commission backs Cotati code‑cleanup ordinance to align rules with state law and streamline permitting",1196,6018000,7214000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b&start=6018&end=7214","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b/thumbnail_6018000.jpg","/articles/6579575/Cotati-City/Sonoma-County/California/Planning-commission-backs-Cotati-codecleanup-ordinance-to-align-rules-with-state-law-and-streamline-permitting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579575-8f343c042f5e025f3c7617ebaea03d99/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176819&Signature=R3grpGyp2vAhhIBU6wTwTdNTCsZ2g98hsNYSgwSM5rvJP29FzRDCGylPFJ-Zy8A2e0AMU7g1QY1fAJoJRFY2QDuuh6qlK3MTUxXTvJ~umxWxfWG0auRD2FXigBE23oaiF7tYnF0lo4DXgEnxnFfEb4v4YtSWOW79Pkw3FPlvihgTHUnXbNvRRY3G0tzZRvTU0psagbmT~RJJculrzQctecryDwpPglje-oZSUnhs4s4HniPHJYRU4Bu9myXEy2aAlnqDFKQA0cywCuJlQLihJMgQHsRPW~aUbYOgFpnjtzz9DJzwTnQxdXCelK7eDKcPSGTgXMFg3Fm6Cc2RK38SEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cotati Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to correct typos, update code references, and streamline a range of permitting processes, staff told the commission during a presentation on the package.

Community Development staff presented proposed amendments to multiple chapters of the Cotati Municipal Code (primarily chapters 17.22, 17.30, 17.42 and 17.62) intended to: correct errors and inconsistencies; update the code to reflect state law changes (for example, to recognize state‑authorized home kitchen and microenterprise operations and to update ADU/parking references); standardize setback rules for accessory uses including swimming pools; allow reasonable proximity for heating and cooling equipment when replacement would otherwise be blocked by existing lot layouts; reconcile building‑code allowances for fence heights with zoning review thresholds; create a discretionary review path for certain solid front‑yard enclosures; require coverage and RF/exposure documentation up front for telecommunications applications; and make limited‑term permits and minor variances a publicly noticed director‑level meeting decision (appealable to the planning commission) instead of an ad hoc processed desk approval.

Why it matters: the package is intended to reduce friction on routine projects such as equipment replacements, pools, fences and home occupations while preserving public notice and appeal rights for discretionary situations. Staff said the changes implement the general plan’s policy goals for predictability and customer service and will align local rules with state requirements where the state has acted.

Selected proposals explained
- Heating and cooling equipment: staff said many replacement compressors are sited close to property lines in older subdivisions; the amendment would allow replacement equipment to be placed with a reduced setback in defined circumstances and would rely on equipment decibel and manufacturer standards to limit nuisance impacts.
- Pools and accessory structures: staff proposed a standardized 5‑foot minimum side/rear setback for pools to replace a patchwork of rules keyed to parcel size and zone.
- Fences and walls: to resolve a conflict between building‑code allowances and zoning review, staff recommended allowing fences up to 7 feet (with the top foot open/lattice if above 6 feet) without an extra planning approval, while creating a director‑review mechanism when a solid front‑yard fence over 42 inches is requested.
- Minor variance and limited‑term permits: staff proposed shifting minor variances from 10% flexibility to 25% and routing decisions to a publicly noticed director meeting (with appeal rights to the commission) so neighbors would be informed without requiring full public hearings in all cases.
- Home‑based businesses: the draft ordinance would explicitly recognize state‑authorized cottage food operations and microenterprise home kitchens in the municipal code and remove references to covered parking where state law or newer local parking rules made those references obsolete.
- Telecommunications: staff would require coverage maps and electromagnetic exposure reports at the initial application stage rather than later in the process.

Public comment and staff answers
Laurie Alderman and other commenters raised process and enforcement concerns; one commenter referenced ongoing, separate code‑enforcement issues in the city. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about specific standards—such as minimum lateral clearance for replacement HVAC compressors and whether limited‑term‑permit meetings would add fees. Staff said the mailing and notice procedure for director‑level meetings will eliminate newspaper publication and aim to balance cost and notice (mailing to property owners within 300 feet) so the change should not increase overall costs materially but will create a predictable meeting schedule. Staff also said appeals will remain possible and will require the normal appeal fee.

Action and vote
A motion recommending that the City Council adopt the draft code amendments was moved and seconded; the planning commission voted in favor (roll call: all commissioners present voted yes). The resolution directs staff to forward the ordinance and supporting materials to the City Council for introduction and adoption.

Next steps
Staff will send the ordinance and the planning commission resolution to the City Council for consideration. Several items (for example, specific clearance distances for mechanical equipment and telecom RF documentation) will be finalized in implementing guidelines and in coordination with the fire department, building division and, where applicable, utility providers.

Quote
\"Staff have identified sections of the code that could benefit from minor language changes to address reoccurring challenges, address inconsistencies, and improve our process overall,\" Community Development Director Noah Hausch said during the presentation.

Ending
The commission’s recommendation moves a package of clarifying and streamlining changes to the council with staff direction to finalize technical standards and to preserve public notice and appeal rights.","The commission recommended the City Council adopt a package of municipal‑code corrections and clarifications to align Cotati’s zoning and permitting rules with state law, reduce procedural friction for common accessory uses, and provide clearer ministerial and director‑level review processes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579580,"Cotati planning commission administers oath to new commissioner; public commenters raise Form 700 and land‑acknowledgment concerns",624,213000,837000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b&start=213&end=837","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074975-7d580a299d8f29332ae430184d2a4d1b/thumbnail_213000.jpg","/articles/6579580/Cotati-City/Sonoma-County/California/Cotati-planning-commission-administers-oath-to-new-commissioner-public-commenters-raise-Form-700-and-landacknowledgment-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579580-807feb30eb3a4dcc55211bc2856981e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176819&Signature=JY8DGz3WpcOva8cbyV0lJzmML8FxNnYfFoP2utuxYcr5pCFaR6OsxfW3yklzun4YwTP0r8ZRVzc81NiI7JvajKMpNgliLuUPSsmUzeZqb-kwD2MN7iRYkYoEOtTDNWeMUxnwVNYfu2TXVgc3rQE9kwtQk5TpXk~jH7McRMGLYQGltiGEvtc-fjzEa-DCUQRy06ORrXvim5bfT80IUq19Y1DrnmBhl4KsjUwy1QAuTRXlW2Z-eVBHSpZ~LMADUVMjVw6IDuLCQoCQ8n6huappBPkIeoeC~LBM9vqekb3yKCywYdMfc4z6vJv0K61fGibMyi~zdUk1UkAAfGmfXr2lbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cotati Planning Commission opened its meeting by administering the oath of office to newly appointed planning commissioner Sarah Sparks. Community development technician Carla Duncan led the oath and invited the new commissioner to sign the appointment documents.

Public comment during the administrative portion produced two distinct themes. Resident George Barich told the commission he believed some commissioners and council members had not filed required Form 700 statements of economic interest and said those filings should be completed before appointees act in their roles. Barich said, \"Ms. Berman is a, convicted money launderer,\" and told the panel he had pursued public‑records requests and Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) complaints in the past; the commission did not act on the allegation during the meeting. A separate Zoom commenter, Laurie Alderman, urged the city to publish Form 700 disclosures so the public could review potential conflicts.

Another member of the public used the public‑comment period to criticize a proposed or existing land‑acknowledgment statement. A speaker described the acknowledgement as \"a bunch of hyperbole\" and objected to changes to the city seal; the speaker urged commissioners to research and reconsider the wording. The commission proceeded with the agenda after the public‑comment period closed.

Why it matters: Form 700 filings are a state‑required disclosure of economic interests for many public officials; public requests to see completed statements are a recurring transparency issue for local governments. Residents also raised political and cultural objections to the city’s land‑acknowledgment language during the same public‑comment period.

Quotations
- \"Ms. Berman is a, convicted money launderer,\" — George Barich, public commenter (verbatim from the meeting record).
- \"They’re supposed to be given on obtaining office ... they're supposed to be readily available,\" — Laurie Alderman, Zoom public commenter, urging the city to post Form 700 statements.

What the commission did: The commission administered the oath to Sarah Sparks and proceeded with the meeting. The meeting record does not show any formal city action on the Form 700 concerns or on the land‑acknowledgment wording during this session; commissioners did not vote on those matters at the meeting.

Next steps: The comments are part of the public record. If residents wish to pursue alleged statutory violations they may file complaints with the FPPC (as described by speakers) or pursue public‑records requests; any staff follow‑up on Form 700 filings or land‑acknowledgment language would be handled in subsequent meetings or by city administration.","The commission administered the oath of office to a newly appointed commissioner. During the administrative period and public comment several residents raised concerns that required Form 700 economic‑interest disclosures were not posted and criticized the city’s land‑acknowledgment language and past changes to the city seal.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cotati planning commission recommends council approve Redwood Row mixed‑use project with conditions

Planning commission backs Cotati code‑cleanup ordinance to align rules with state law and streamline permitting

Cotati planning commission administers oath to new commissioner; public commenters raise Form 700 and land‑acknowledgment concerns