Cotati City Council, January 13, 2026: Item 8A: 8150 La Plaza, request for variances
Dear Mayor Lemus, Vice Mayor Harvey, and Council members Ford, Savage, and Sparks,
I would like to thank the Planning Commission for their very careful and thoughtful review of this project, and to urge you to approve their conditions of approval added on 11-17-2025, as per the Agenda Packet, page 148/387 (and below). I’d also like to appreciate the applicant’s re-working of the plans to accommodate these conditions, i.e. relocating Building 3 and preserving the oak tree at the rear of the property.
However, I urge you to deny the applicant’s current request to reduce the rear setback to 10 ft instead of the 20 ft setback required by the Downtown Specific Plan, or the 30 ft setback normally required for a three-story building. Bear in mind that the setback requirement for this project has already been reduced from 30 ft to 20 ft.
ADDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 11-17-2025
93. Relocate Building 3 to the south in order to preserve the 30” oak tree and reverse the building layout to minimize impacts to parking.
94. Relocate Building 3 to the west so that a twenty-foot rear setback (instead of a 10-foot rear setback) is provided.
95. Provide window opacity on the eastern elevation of Building 3 to preserve the privacy of the residents on Arthur Street.
I would like to draw your attention to a few points in my letter to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2026, which is in your Agenda Packet, and the photos attached.
• The Cotati Municipal Code states that for Neighborhood Compatibility, “…any third-story portion of a building shall be set back 30 feet from adjacent properties in lower density zones developed with single-family residences.”
• Neighborhood Compatibility: “The project design must… ensure new multifamily housing 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 [e.g. do 2-bedroom apartments really need 3 bathrooms?], 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.
Jenny Blaker