Cotati planning commission backs proposed Transit‑Oriented Communities zoning changes

The Cotati Planning Commission voted to advance staff’s proposed zoning changes intended to implement Transit‑Oriented Communities (TOC) requirements from the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The commission approved the recommendation with suggested edits and will forward an ordinance to the City Council for adoption.

Staff told the commission the package would apply TOC standards to properties within a half‑mile of the SMART station and, in some instances, citywide. Major elements described by staff included residential densities of roughly 25–35 units per acre in the TOC area, a commercial floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) range of roughly 1.0–3.0, and new parking rules that set maximums (about 1–1.5 spaces per residential unit and roughly 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of commercial space) while proposing no parking minimums in the TOC area. Staff said the package also proposes two new zoning districts — a Santero Way district intended to preserve the character of an existing cul‑de‑sac neighborhood and a separate Transit‑Oriented Communities district to concentrate more intense commercial frontage on East Cotati Avenue.

Why this matters: ABAG/MTC’s TOC framework ties jurisdictions’ competitiveness for 1 Bay Area grant funds to TOC compliance. Staff said jurisdictions that are not judged compliant risk losing competitive points for that grant program; Cotati has relied on that grant money for street and sidewalk projects and receives more than $1 million per year on average. Staff told commissioners the city needs an adopted TOC implementation package for the next ABAG/MTC grading cycle if it wants to be considered for Cycle 4 (2026) funds.

Key compliance choices highlighted by staff included using the city’s recently purchased lot at 120 East Cotati Avenue as a commitment to build a 100% affordable housing project (counting toward TOC production requirements) and using streamlined entitlements under state law (SB 330) to meet production compliance. Staff said those two items together are the recommended compliance path because they align with prior budgetary commitments and the city’s existing housing‑element programs. Staff noted the city’s existing inclusionary housing policy already requires 15% of units affordable in many projects, but meeting ABAG/MTC’s specific income‑mix and programmatic expectations would require additional code changes and less local flexibility.

Preservation and tenant protections: Staff proposed a minor update to the condominium conversion section of the municipal code to add affordability requirements consistent with state policy and the city’s housing element. Staff said mobile‑home park protections currently meet TOC preservation requirements. For displacement mitigation and tenant protection funding (the “protection” bucket in ABAG/MTC scoring), staff described limits on the city’s ability to commit multi‑year funding at the levels ABAG/MTC’s guidance suggests; staff recommended relying on existing rent stabilization and proposed code‑enforcement approaches to reduce displacement, supplemented by the planned homeowner loan program to assist low‑income homeowners with repairs.

Business and small‑business measures: TOC guidance includes policies to support small businesses as areas intensify. Staff proposed creating a small‑business liaison (an ombudsman/liaison role, not an advocate) to assist businesses navigating permitting and redevelopment. Staff said preference or right‑of‑first‑offer policies for small businesses present implementation challenges because the city typically does not participate in private real‑estate transactions and enforcement mechanisms are unclear.

Parking, circulation and mobility hubs: Staff proposed parking management tools including shared parking, unbundled parking (separating the parking rental cost from housing rent), higher bicycle parking standards, and curb‑management expectations for new development. Staff also proposed code language to encourage mobility‑hub elements (EV charging, bike/scooter facilities, car‑share spaces) near the station.

Land‑use details and code cleanup: Staff recommended two targeted land‑use changes: reclassifying tattoo studios from a “personal services – restricted” use to a standard personal‑service use so studios may operate in more zones, and adding a defined “retail tobacco store” land‑use category and marking it as not allowed (while allowing accessory tobacco sales in existing retail uses, subject to a 25% cap used previously in a permitted convenience store). Staff also described a limited interim use approach for certain existing warehouse buildings (allowing some light industrial or contractor uses to occupy existing structures as interim uses until redevelopment).

Timeline and next steps: Staff said the city plans to take the draft ordinance to the City Council after commission input and hopes to have adoption completed before December to meet ABAG/MTC grading timelines; ABAG/MTC’s grading for the next 1 Bay Area grant cycle is expected in February 2026. The commission voted to approve staff’s recommendations with the changes offered during the workshop and forward the package toward ordinance drafting and council consideration.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the TOC implementation recommendation (motion approved; vote recorded as yes by Commissioners Sparks, Gilardi and Vice Chair Long). The motion was made and seconded during the hearing record and the commission adopted the staff‑recommended direction with the edits noted at the meeting.

What the record shows: The commission’s action was to provide direction and request staff prepare an implementing ordinance and related code changes. Final regulatory effect, specific mapping and any site‑level approvals will require subsequent ordinance adoption and, for some projects, separate development permits or building permits.