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

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.