La Plaza Village
Comments to Planning Commission
11/17/2025
8171 Arthur St.
Cotati, CA 94931
Nov. 16, 2025
Dear Planning Commissioners,
If we look at this plan as a puzzle that needs to have all of it pieces to be complete then this plan is missing some pieces.
I am a piece of the puzzle which has been lost in this plan. My family is a piece of the puzzle that has been lost. My home is a piece of the puzzle that has been lost in this plan. My neighborhood is a piece that has been lost in this plan.
The plan is a rendition of one personís vision that needs certain approvals to go forward. It needs to have 2 setback variances, 1 height variance, 1 access variance and 3 tree removals all of which affect negatively affect me, my family and the property that I have called my home since 1987.
I would ask that the planning commission deny the following: the 10 foot rear setback together with the removal of the 30 ft Oak located directly behind my property see attached photo.
If this is not possible then I would further request that they deny both the 10 foot rear setback and decrease the height of Building 3 to 2 stories so that the 30 foot setback is not an issue.
My home was brought to the property in 1952 and was 2 houses recycled into 1 totaling about 900 square feet. It is not a big house but is quite adequate for the needs of my family. The backyard has several garden plots where various vegetables are grown and shared with friends and neighbors.
There is historical value in not overburdening the land and once upon a time this was the norm. It is a memorial to a historical moment when people lived in small rooms and treasured a large yard. We find peace in our quiet time in the garden watching the seasons change and the birds searching for food. Keeping the privacy and peace, we find in the yard is of value to the community and the food grown helps feed both our bodies and souls. This tiny parcel may be out of sync with current trends but is a jewel worth preserving.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
There are several places in the report which do not give the complete picture which I would like to focus on in support of my requests to either deny the 10 foot rear setback together with the cutting down of the one Oak located in the center rear of the property or deny both the 10 foot rear setback and decrease the height of Building 3 to 2 stories so that the 30 foot setback for the 3rd story is not an issue.
On Page 17 of 63
1) ìReduced Setback
Rear setbacks within the DSP range from ten feet to twenty feet. Within the La Plaza District the DSP establishes a 20-foot rear setback. The primary reason for the larger rear setback in the La Plaza District is because all vehicular access is to be from side streets and alleys with parking located at the rear of the property within the rear setback. As noted above, this site cannot be accessed via an alley or side street which limits where parking and buildings can be placed. Building 3 is proposed to be located 10 feet from the rear property line. If Building 3 is located 20 feet from the rear property line then four surface parking spaces will be lost, which conflicts with the parking standards and will have an adverse impact on the future businesses and residents.î
The plan can remedy the loss of the 4 surface parking spaces with some of the 850 square feet of excess open space that are included in this plan or they could decrease the footprint of Building 3.
The limitations of where buildings could be placed could be remedied by reducing the footprint of the buildings.
I alone should not have to bear the burden of this plan asking for a smaller rear setback than the 20 feet that is required by the DSP.
The DSP specifies that the rear setback be 20 feet for the La Plaza District.
I would like to know which of the parcels in the La Plaza District of the DSP have rear setbacks that are 1) less than twenty feet and 2) were approved after the adoption of the DSP.
2) ìOne of the properties is currently developed with a single-family home; however, the residence will be over 90 feet from Building 3 and development of a singlefamily home on the Arthur Street lot would not be permitted today due to density requirements. ì
This also seems to imply that I am somehow at fault because my parcel has less density than is now required. My home has existed on this land since 1952 This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
before the current NM zoning on the Westside of Arthur Street. On the Westside of Arthur St. there are only 3 buildings that would fulfill the current density requirements but there are 6 single family homes including mine. I would request that the 20 foot required rear setback be adhered to minimize the intrusion into my life of this plan.
3) Stating that ìStrict adherence to the 30-foot setback standard would eliminate all eight proposed and existing surface parking spaces including the accessible spaces, which would violate the American with Disabilities Act.î 4) ìReducing Building 3 to two stories results in the elimination of three garage parking spaces and the accessible studio unit, which would cause the density to be too lowî
Both of these statements are true and the remedy would require a reworking of the plan. This is not an onerous request given that the requirements existed before the plan and were not hidden. They should have been incorporated into the overall design from the start.
I have several ideas of how these problems might be satisfied. For density on Building 3, make it 2 stories - lose the parking garages and make them into a studio or 1 bedroom unit. With this plan, only 2 parking spaces are lost and the need for the 30 foot setback for the 3rd story is eliminated. The additional parking places could come from the extra 850 square feet of open space in the plan. The second story would be a 2 bedroom apartment. Thus, there would still be 3 living spaces for the density.
Another idea might be to have the 3-story building in the front and the smaller building in the back.
The footprint of the buildings could have been smaller- I will point out that all of these 2 bedroom apartments are bigger than my 3 bedroom single family home.
The rules for the setbacks have been put in place for good reasons and granting a variance should be a last resort because once granted it sets a precedent for all development that follows. The city should be seeking an equitable solution which places equal importance and urgency on all partiesí needs and interests.
5) ìThe approval of the tree permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and approval of the tree permit is consistent with the provisions of this chapter; ì
6) ìAdequate provisions for drainage, erosion control, land stability, windscreen, buffers along the road and between neighbors have been made where these problems are anticipated as a result of the removalî
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
7) ìThe trees proposed for removal do not act as privacy buffer, provide wind screening, or affect on-site drainage, erosion, or land stability, and there are no expected adverse impacts resulting from its removal.î
These statement all have to do with the removal of 3 trees on the site. One of these is a 30 foot Oak tree which is directly in back of my property. It does provide a privacy buffer and screening and would continue to do that if left in place. The planting of 6 much smaller trees would do little to provide the buffer and screening we have from the 30 foot Oak. Please see the photo attached of the 30 foot Oak in question.
The intrusion of 12 windows, 3 doors and 2 balconies overlooking my yard will not be mitigated by the 6 smaller trees that are planned.
My privacy and the quiet enjoyment of my property will all be affected by the monolith construction and building. The proposed screening will do little to help within the next 10 years. At 72 I suspect I will not see any benefit from these trees that are intended to mitigate the negative impact of this plan.
On Page 17 of 63
8) ìThe project is well designed to be compliant with the DSPís vision for the area, provides the required density and parking, and requires variances to comply with the overarching development standards and receive the same privileges as other properties within the same district.
I would like more specifics on which properties this is referring to that are in the La Plaza District?
Finally, as I now am disabled and have mobility issues my home and the adjoining yard have become my world and since I am limited in my access to the wider world, I need to have this little corner to be as good as it can be.
This little piece of the puzzle thanks you for your all consideration.
Sincerely,
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Linell Hardy
Please note: The attached photo shows the 30 foot Oak that is to be removed. The fence is 7 feet high and the Building in the Photo is the existing 2 story building on the project site.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to communicate some issues I found in the Cotati Planning Commission Meeting Packet report for the proposed project at 8150 La Plaza. In the report, there are three requests for variances: one request pertains to setbacks; another request pertains to building height; and another pertains to access. I would like to address the request for a variance for a 10ft set back for building 3 of the proposed project at 8150 La Plaza.
The minimum setback for the La Plaza District is 20’ and according to the diagram titled (Parking Placement Plan) it states “alley where occurs” (DSP, Ch. 3, pg. 3) which implies the possibility of cases where there are no alleys but it does not negate the need for the 20’ setback. The space provided by the 20’ setback acts as a mitigation measure for the frequency and intensity of any noise or intrusions generated from the neighboring property. The language in finding three which states, “Provides attractive and desirable site layout and design, including building arrangement, exterior appearance and setbacks, drainage, fences and walls, grading, landscaping, lighting, signs etc…” (Cotati Planning Commission Meeting Packet report,pg. 15), is particularly problematic because it completely ignores the adverse impact a reduction from a 20’ to a 10’ will have on the setback’s capacity to mitigate effectively any and all intrusion and noise caused by the neighboring property.
Moreover, although it is true the 20’ setback laid out in the DSP serves a purpose of providing vehicular access where cars would access parking at the rear of structure from a side or alley street; it also serves another equally legitimate purpose-acting as a mitigation measure. Both purposes are important and deserve equal consideration in order to make a determination of compliance. Therefore, reducing the 20’ setback, would undermine the purpose of the 20’ setback’s mitigation capacity and undoubtedly intensify frequency and intensity of potential noise generated from neighboring property which is in direct conflict of finding number 3, in particular the part pertain to setbacks (Cotati Planning Commission Meeting Packet report,pg. 15).
The setbacks were established for a legitimate reason: to mitigate the frequency and intensity of any noise or intrusions generated from the neighboring properties. If consideration to reduce the setbacks is made, there should be an equally good reason to make a change which reduces the setback. Providing the reason that not making a change to the setback rule will interfere with plans the owner of 8150 property has made falls way short of a good reason to change setback rules laid out int the DSP. The Downtown Specific Plan established a 20ft setback for the La Plaza district and should be adhered to in order to maintain the integrity of the DSP.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Thank you,
Reg Colbert
8171 Arthur St.
Cotati, CA 94931
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Cotati Planning Commission Nov 17, 2025 Item 8.A Pg 1
Re Item 8.A Mixed use at 8150 La Plaza
Nov 17,2025 Cotati Planning Commission
To: Chair Gilardi, Vice-chair Moffet and commissioners Berman, Long and Sparks From: Neil Hancock, Cotati
I would like to advocate that the
1) Rear Setback Variance of 10ft be disallowed, or encouraged to be closer to the DSP LaPlaza at 20’ for 2 story or 30’ for 3 story, for back neighbor screening. 2) The back Oak Tree with TWO trunks each measured at 44” circumference (diameter 12”) be kept for privacy and new building massing screen.
OR possibly one trunk be pruned, and the furthest back trunk be kept for screening of new building mass This oak is barely discernable on the “Grading and Drainage Plan” PdfPg 39.
The back two trunks, is marked on the Site Plan PdfPg21 as a ‘ 10” ⌀ OAK ’ , looks to be incorrectly sized.
It would provide privacy screening and relief for the large massing of the proposed new building, and a deeper rear setback be a better outdoor patio space for ground floor apartments.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Cotati Planning Commission Nov 17, 2025 Item 8.A Pg 2
The picture of the Oak
Tree side view from back
fence is
A close up, shows two trunks
each circumference of 44” (12”
Diameter)
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
Cotati Planning Commission Nov 17, 2025 Item 8.A Pg 3
Pdg Pg 29 Grading and Drainage Plan – position of Two Stemmed Oak Tree barely visible.
The units size are not stated in the plan, its typical that these can be varied to the footprint of the property.
Many thanks
Neil Hancock, Arthur Street neighbor to Arthur Street property behind 8150 La Plaza.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
1 Carla Duncan
From: Jenny Blaker
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2025 4:50 PM
To: John Savage; Ed Gilardi; Kimberlyn Moffet; Shelley Berman; Ryan Long Cc: Carla Duncan
Subject: Design Review: 8150 La Plaza, request for variances & tree removal Attachments: 8150 La Plaza from front.jpg; KnifeShop-rear-and rear oak.jpg; KnifeShope-rear-and oak.jpg
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.
RE: Design Review: 8150 La Plaza, Request for Variances and Tree Removal Dear Planning Commissioners
I’m concerned about the impact of the proposed project at 8150 La Plaza and its impacts on the immediate neighbors and on the older neighborhood to which it is adjacent.
My concerns are mainly about the requests for variances for the rear setback and building height, and the request for tree removal permits.
REAR SETBACK & HEIGHT
The proposed three-story buildings will dwarf all other buildings in the neighborhood. I am not aware of any other three-story buildings anywhere in the Cotati Hub.
Much attention has been paid to the front of the building facing La Plaza, but very little to the rear of Building 3, its height, its proximity to the neighbors, or its intrusion onto existing neighbors’ privacy. The neighbors would be impacted by the proximity of Building 3, its height, and the loss of a privacy screen if the oak trees at the rear of the property are removed.
portion of a building shall be set back 30 feet from adjacent properties in lower density zones developed with single-family residences.”
The project has requested three variances: (1) a reduction in the rear setback (from 20 feet to 10 feet), AND (2) an increase in height above 35 feet, AND (3) a reduction in the 30-foot setback required for a three-story building.
All of these would have impacts on the immediate neighbors and on the character of the existing older neighborhood.
not be permitted today due to density requirements.”
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
2 However, there are six single-family residences along this side of Arthur St., not just one as implied in the staff report. The question is how to make the proposed project compatible with the existing older neighborhood which was built long before these requirements were created.
fits into the existing development patterns of the community.” This raises a question about how best to integrate new buildings and new requirements with an immediately adjacent historical neighborhood with existing homes, considering the well-being of existing neighbors and honoring an older part of the City, as well as meeting new requirements due to the increased need for affordable housing and housing density. The variances requested would set a precedent which would override the requirements in the DSP.
To solve the problem and avoid setting a precedent, the height of the buildings should be set at a maximum of 35 feet with a minimum 20 foot setback.
Given that the density requirements are based on number of units, not on size, possible solutions could include reducing the size of the 2-bedroom units, and/or reducing the square footage of decks and patios (as the plans provide 850 more sq ft than required), and/or using some of the covered garage space for living units.
To minimize impacts on neighbors, perhaps some of the rear-facing windows could be replaced by skylights to allow in natural light without intruding on the neighbors’ privacy.
TREES
Some of the information about the oak trees on the site appears to be missing or incomplete and underplays their significance, location, size and function. The staff report states that “The trees proposed for removal do not act as privacy buffer, provide wind screening, or affect on-site drainage, erosion, or land stability, and there are no expected adverse impacts resulting from its removal.” However, the oaks towards the rear of the property are in fact an important visual and privacy buffer, as shown by the three photos attached, taken from both the front and the rear of the property. They are probably at least 30-40 feet in height and at least 30-40 years old. The tree at the rear of the property actually has two 12” trunks, not one 10” trunk. The neighbors would certainly be negatively impacted by the removal of these trees, which provide a buffer, shade, habitat, and visual appeal. It would take decades for any newly planted trees to replace them or mitigate for their loss in any significant way.
diameter redwood tree and two oaks (~10” diameter).”
but two will be removed, with 10 trees planted to mitigate for the loss of two 10” oaks.
landscape legend show trees to be removed. Page 39/63: The Grading Plan doesn’t show the oak tree at the rear at all, but labels the two trees to the side “Ex Tree to be removed”. These plans appear to be inconsistent with one another and with reality.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
3 If the minimum rear 20 ft setback requirement was met, this would protect the tree that has two 12” trunks and which provides a considerable screening buffer.
Two other questions:
How would lighting impacts on neighbors be minimized? Page 13/63: How does this project meet Policy H-3-3 regarding providing low- or very- low income housing? It clearly wouldn’t provide units targeted to service senior households.
I hope you will reject the request for variances and ensure that the oak trees at the rear of the property are protected.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jenny Blaker
8166 Arthur St., Cotati.
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c) This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c) This information was received after the agenda was
posted and is made available to the public pursuant to
California Gov’t. Code Section 54957.5(c)
From: William Parrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:56 PM
To: Carla Duncan; Jon-Paul Harries
Subject: Comments Regarding Proposed 8150 La Plaza Project 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.
Cotati City Planning Commission,
I am the immediate neighbor to the proposed project at 8150 La Plaza, and after reviewing the submitted plans, I would like to share several concerns regarding its potential impact on my property.
1. Privacy and Enjoyment of Property
Our home has a small enclosed backyard that currently provides privacy and quiet enjoyment. The proposed buildings would introduce approximately twelve windows and two balconies facing directly into our yard, well above the existing fence line and visible from multiple units. In addition, the height of the rear building—particularly the third story of Building #2—would overlook our property from only about a 4-foot southern setback. This significantly compromises our privacy. I would ask the Commission to consider a larger setback for Building #2 and potential privacy treatments to mitigate sightlines for windows and balconies facing adjacent residential properties, or the removal of those windows.
2. Loss of Sunlight
The height and proximity of Building #2 would almost certainly reduce or eliminate the natural sunlight that currently reaches our backyard and the southwest-facing windows of our home, which sit only about 15 feet from the proposed structure. We maintain a small vegetable garden that depends on this sunlight, and its loss would materially affect our use of the space.
3. Removal of Mature Trees
The proposed removal of the 30+-foot oak tree behind our house would eliminate an important natural privacy screen between our property and the new development. Additionally, there is an existing live oak tree at the center of the northwest property line—appearing to straddle both parcels—that would almost certainly need to be removed to accommodate Building #2’s 4-foot setback, though it is not identified in the plans. This tree also currently provides meaningful privacy and visual buffering. I would like the Commission to address the removal of the live oak tree on the northwest property line, and if the removal of trees is unavoidable to consider requiring privacy screening along the property line to replace the natural buffer.
4. Drainage Concerns
Our flat lots already experience water pooling during heavy rain. The additional hardscaping, roofing, and redirected gutter flows from the project raise concerns about increased runoff onto our property. I would like to ensure that drainage is adequately engineered to divert water toward the front of the proposed site rather than toward neighboring parcels.
Thank you for considering these concerns as you evaluate the project. I appreciate your attention to the impacts this development may have on surrounding residents.
Sincerely,
Willie Parrett
8140 La Plaza
City of Cotati emails and website have changed from .org to .gov. Please update the email address in your contacts accordingly. Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §7920.000-7931.000), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.