From: Elyse Lord
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 8:26 AM
To: Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Sylvia Lemus <[email protected]>; John Savage <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; Laura Sparks <[email protected]>
Cc: Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>; Craig Scott <[email protected]>; Henry Babits <[email protected]>; Kevin Patterson <[email protected]> Subject: Item 8B – Freeway Oriented Development Zoning Overlay 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.
Dear Mayor Lemus and Members of the City Council:
I'm writing regarding Item 8B, the proposed Freeway Oriented Development Zoning Overlay. I've reviewed some public comment submitted ahead of this hearing. I believe the proposed policy change is associated with difficult tradeoffs among freeway-oriented businesses, existing local businesses, community character, and city revenue. In general, I would position myself to be in favor of slow growth, although I have some questions and suggestions I hope the Council will entertain.
Where I Agree with the Citizen Concerns Already Raised
Cotati's slow-growth approach (e.g., the drive-through ban, the big-box size cap, the fast-food chain limits, the emphasis on walkability) wasn't accidental. It came about after citizens protested in droves and pushed back against the recommendations of a nolonger employed City of Cotati Economic Development pro-growth new-hire. This slowgrowth approach has allowed Cotati to stay Cotati, a beloved place that is very distinct from Rohnert Park, Petaluma, or Santa Rosa. I don't think that slow-growth should be discarded lightly. In addition, I share the following concerns:
1. Loosening the fast-food ordinance or approving new drive-throughs in this corridor could undercut work the community specifically fought for, especially when nearby cities already offer the same handful of chain options.
2. Extending the overlay south of Helman Lane doesn't seem well justified. The Redwood cover appears to block freeway sightlines there, and that stretch includes housing and small independent businesses rather than industrial frontage.
3. Treating this overlay as a one-off "initial focus" risks becoming a precedent applied elsewhere without the same scrutiny, unless the Council makes it clear that any future expansion requires its own full public process.
4. Larger or digital signage may add visual clutter without clearly helping businesses more than good placement and legible design would.
Where I See Gray Areas Due to the Competing Needs of Stakeholders I recognize the Council is revisiting policy because of the competing needs of stakeholders. I acknowledge the following to be true and therefore important to discuss with all stakeholders’ needs in mind:
1. Some businesses along Redwood Drive may genuinely depend on freeway visibility to stay viable. Restricting signage and use flexibility too tightly could push some of these customers to Rohnert Park or Santa Rosa rather than to downtown Cotati, which would mean a quieter but real loss of local jobs and lease revenue.
2. Restricting fast-food and drive-through uses here may simply shift that demand to neighboring cities rather than eliminate it, meaning Cotati could forgo tax revenue and jobs without necessarily reducing regional traffic or emissions. This is worth weighing even for those of us who would strongly prefer not to see more chain restaurants locally.
My Request for the Council
I'd urge the Council to be explicit that this is a decision about who gains and who bears the cost, and not a decision where everyone benefits equally. That is--
1. Keeping current restrictions largely intact would likely benefit existing downtown and independently owned businesses, residents who value the town's current character, and environmental interests tied to the Laguna de Santa Rosa. It may come at some cost to freeway-adjacent business owners who could have benefited from more visibility or flexibility, and to city revenue that might otherwise flow to neighboring jurisdictions.
2. Loosening restrictions as proposed would likely benefit property owners along the freeway corridor and chain franchises seeking entry, and could increase city sales tax revenue if those businesses succeed. It may come at a cost to existing independently owned restaurants and downtown businesses facing new competition, to residents who value the town's character, and potentially to the Laguna de Santa Rosa watershed if industrial or recycling uses expand nearby without added safeguards.
Before acting on Item 8B, I respectfully ask the Council to:
1. Clearly identify the principal tradeoffs the proposal is intended to make, including expected effects on freeway-oriented businesses, existing local businesses, community character, and city revenues.
2. Limit any overlay to areas where the stated objectives are demonstrably applicable, and make clear that any future geographic expansion will require its own independent public process.
3. Hold at least one additional, well-publicized workshop with affected businesses and residents to refine the proposal before final adoption.
Whatever decision the Council ultimately reaches, I believe it will be stronger if those tradeoffs are made explicit.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Elyse Lord