Cotati Planning Commission recommends city council approve mixed‑use project at 8150 La Plaza, asks applicant to shift building to save oak

The Cotati City Planning Commission voted on [date not specified in transcript] to forward a recommendation that the City Council approve preliminary and final design review, variances and a tree removal permit to allow construction of a mixed‑use project at 8150 La Plaza, after requiring changes intended to reduce impacts on adjacent Arthur Street residences.

Senior Planner JP Harris told the commission the proposal includes two new buildings with ground‑floor commercial space, enclosed garages and five residential units overall; staff recommended approval, with entitlements including a tree removal permit and variances for rear setback, vehicle access from La Plaza and modest height increases. "Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution recommending that the city council approve preliminary and final design review, variances, and a tree removal permit to allow construction of [the] mixed use project at 8150 La Plaza," Harris said.

Why it matters: neighbors raised concerns about loss of mature oak trees that provide screening, increased building mass close to rear lots and whether the project could meet zoning density with smaller units rather than taller structures or reduced setbacks. Jenny Blaker, an Arthur Street resident, told the commission the project "will be affected by the site, the size, the height, the proximity, and the loss of the oak trees," and said screening and neighborhood compatibility should weigh heavily in the decision.

What the commission did: Commissioners debated design alternatives — including flipping the three‑story mass toward La Plaza and moving the rear building east — to preserve an identified multi‑trunk oak and reduce shadowing on Arthur Street back yards. The panel voted to recommend that the applicant "flip and move" Building 3 to the east in order to save the oak and then voted to recommend moving the building forward 10 feet while removing two on‑site parking spaces, allowing an on‑site parking variance from 14 to 12 spaces to achieve a 20‑foot setback from rear property lines.

Architect Brent Russell said the layout seeks to place vehicular activity in the center of the site to buffer neighbors and that design constraints such as required covered parking and an accessible ground‑floor unit drive much of the footprint: "The idea of putting the buildings around the perimeter was to more effectively use the site and also provide a barrier between vehicular activity and the neighbors behind us," he said. Russell agreed he could shift the building and eliminate two parking spaces if commissioners wanted to pursue that tradeoff.

Tree and mitigation details: Staff identified three trees of concern — two oaks and a redwood — and disclosed a discrepancy between architectural and civil drawings about exact locations. Harris said one redwood is declining and likely will not survive construction; the multi‑trunk oak discussed by neighbors contains trunks measured at roughly 10 and 11 inches and a smaller third trunk near 5–6 inches. Harris said mitigation could include planting additional trees or paying an in‑lieu fee and that staff recommended bumping up mitigation to account for multiple trunks.

Regulatory context and affordability: Harris told the commission the project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and CEQA screening (staff cited CEQA Guidelines §15183 and an infill exemption under CEQA §15332). He also noted the state "no net loss" density restrictions that prevent approving a project with fewer units than zoned unless compensating upzoning occurs elsewhere. The project contains five or fewer units and, under Cotati practice for projects of this size, the developer could pay an in‑lieu fee to the city’s affordable housing fund rather than build deed‑restricted units on site; as a result, no units are currently proposed to be deed‑restricted affordable housing.

Accessibility and mechanical requirements: Commissioners pressed about the accessible unit’s location and implications for elevators and footprint. The architect said an accessible unit at ground level avoids elevator requirements and that state law requires at‑least EV‑capable outlets and encourages solar; he said those requirements would be met.

Next steps: The commission approved a motion to forward the project to City Council with the recommended conditions: flip and shift Building 3 to save the oak, move the building forward 10 feet and allow a 12‑space parking layout, and consider window opacity for rear‑facing windows to protect privacy. Chair Moffitt stated that the commission is making recommendations to the City Council; if the applicant will not accept the recommended conditions he said the applicant may return the project to the commission for reconsideration.

Quotes from the hearing are drawn from staff and public testimony at the Planning Commission meeting on the project. The City Council will receive the commission’s recommendation and decide whether to approve, modify or deny the entitlements.