From: Laurie alderman
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 8:13 PM
To: Kevin Patterson <[email protected]>; Laura Sparks <[email protected]>; Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Kay Rivers <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; Sylvia Lemus <[email protected]> Cc: Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>; Chris Simmons <[email protected]>; Michael Hilber ; John Bakker
<[email protected]>; Craig Scott <[email protected]>; Angela Courter <[email protected]>; Noah Housh <[email protected]>; George Barich ; Jon-Paul Harries <[email protected]>; Autumn Buss <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for Tuesday's Council meeting Agenda #11A, Cotati Village II--- please delay vote until after jury trial on property in September.
CAUTION:EXTERNAL SENDER
If suspicious, do not click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials and report it by using the "Phish Alert Report" button.
I had resigned myself to the Cotati Villages II passing on Tuesday, but I have since discovered some information that I believe calls for the City of Cotati to delay the vote, due to a jury trial on the property in September 23rd scheduled in Federal Court in San Francisco. The result of the trial could be a windfall for Monahan Pacific and finance the project...or it could go the other way and impair the ability of the developer to go through with the project in the long run.
3:22-cv-03593-JD - Monahan Pacific Corporation et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America is the case in Federal Court ready for trial next month. It has to do with the fire at Red's Recovery Room and the commercial insurer's payout for the fire in 2020. There is a question of demolition costs being fully reimbursed, but the larger issue is the commercial business replacement for Red's Recovery Room. The insurance company say that Jane's Dispensary, the pizza place, etc., are not equivalent businesses and entitled to damages for the Red Recovery Room bar. The insurance company offered $400k for the business part as benefits, but Monahan Pacific paid over $4 million for constructing the dispensary and related properties. Monahan Pacific is seeking punitive damages also. I am attaching one of the recently filed trial briefs on the situation.
Public Comment
Given that the result of this lawsuit would severely affect either way the Cotati Villages II and the ability to proceed with the project, my hope is that the decision can be tabled until after the result of the insurance lawsuit.
Second concern, is one that I just realized this week while taking Milo, my cat, to Cotati Small Animal Hospital next to the proposed development. None of the staff knew about the 4 story housing developments next door. That's not a total surprise to me, as the Cotati Small Animal Hospital has been told for 30 years that something would be built next door, from a Nokia office to assisted living, etc and nothing happened. They are probably assuming that this will not be built like the rest.
I did notice something significant though there related to the housing development and the large animal hospital in the back. Building A of the Cotati Villages II development is only a few yards away from the Cotati Large Animal Hospital. It's the light green building in the upper left in this picture in relation to the development.
I don't think this has ever been considered...that the sick animals, i.e. horses, pigs, llamas, would be only yards away from the 4 story buildings and visa versa, the residents of Building A would be living next to a stable/barn/animal hospital. Having construction so close to them for an extended period of time, perhaps years, along with the already noisy Hwy 116, would be distressing to the animals. This is also a reason to delay the vote, to see if this situation can be mitigated for the welfare of the animals and of the future residents next door. Hopefully a delay in the vote would also help come up with mitigation of this situation.
Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman