Questions/Comments on Cotati Station Apartments
Smaller questions on Cotati Station:
1. On packet pg. 127, I do not understand what timeline requirement (1) is referring to in regards to finding this project eligible for CEQA exemption as an infill project. Can you just explain what needed to happen within five years of what? This 5-year timeline is specific to “community level environmental review” meaning adoption of the City’s General Plan EIR-if we were relying solely on its analysis to deem the project eligible for this exemption. In this case, more specific environmental analysis was done, both for the Santero Way Specific Plan and for the project itself-supporting noise, GHG and air quality analysis to confirm no new impacts. See CEQA Section 15192 and 15915 for more details and specific language.
2. On packet pg. 140 there are some small traffic impact fees related to the commercial portion of the development. It seems logical to me that we would set aside/earmark these for improvements along E. Cotati, perhaps improvements that were identified in the LRSP (such as at the E. Cotati/La Salle intersection). Would these fees be earmarked somehow? The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) was based on a specific list of projects and therefore these fees must be used to cover them. It is administered by Public Works.
3. On packet pg. 165, where did the “20%” figure for Photovoltaics come from in item 7? This is a carry over form the previous project approval but (it is my understanding) was also based on analysis of the roof top space available for panels and the total energy demand of the project.
4. On packet pg. 166, I’m wondering if you know a ballpark figure of how much the CRPUSD impact fees are (compared to our impact fees) I will try to get this number ahead of the meeting.
One longer question on Cotati Station:
Red flags went up for me when I saw the concept “City Standard Parking Lot Light” on packet pg.
74. This light is unshielded and will contribute a lot of light pollution that causes skyglow and interferes with wildlife. My question is, to what extent has lighting design already been completed on this project, and if plans have already been approved, is there any room for the developer to make voluntary adjustments if we request them? It seemed that the lighting design for the parking lot has NOT been done yet because Item 18 on packet pg. 166 stated that a lighting design would need to be submitted prior to building permits being issued. I s this correct? Is this the same for the rest of the project, or has the lighting design already been completed? I saw places for lighting fixtures on the plans, but I couldn’t figure out if there was any more detail about the types of lighting fixtures. I would like to work on a night-sky friendly lighting ordinance in the future as part of our Monarch Butterfly pledge (and also to help preserve the darkness of the night sky for human enjoyment as part of preserving our smalltown feel). However, without that in place are there any steps we can take to nudge this project towards shielded “warm” color temperature outdoor lighting? I believe this is a City-standard light fixture the design of which was previously decided and approved. So, while the specific construction level designs have not been created, the design of these lights has been decided and is intended to be consistent with the other light fixtures in the parking lot and surrounding streets.
For City standard streetlights (i.e. lights in the public right of way), all of the engineering standards are contained in the adopted engineering manual. The City streetlights are LED, which is very directional in light output, compared to the prior generation of high pressure sodium that threw light in all directions. The color temperature is 4,000K. Roadway lighting LEDs are typically arranged in 180- degrees to cast light down to the sidewalk and roadway only (not backcast to the building or home behind it). Park lights typically cast light down and around it in 360 degrees.
Questions on Housing Opportunity Sites
Questions about Housing Opportunity Sites:
1. Site #14 seems to encompass St. Joseph’s Church, how is it feasible to build housing on the church? There is a lot of undeveloped land that they own so this envisions that portion of the property being developed. It is actually becoming somewhat common for churches to use these types of underutilized lands to building housing.
2. On packet pg. 193, can you remind me what the advantage is to maintaining the Admin backup list instead of just including the backup sites on the list initially? Is it because they couldn’t be reused in the future? Or they would become subject to “no net loss” provisions? Yes, there are numerous additional requirements (such as those you referenced) now placed on sites proposed to be “re-used”. So, including the entire potential list of sites now could affect our ability to include them in future Housing Elements. This is essentially a “balancing act” strategy where we try to demonstrate to the State that we have enough capacity to build our 6th Cycle RHNA, but not paint ourselves into a corner where we are forced to include less appealing sites because of the extensive list of State requirements for these properties.
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250-6270), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.