From: jennyb < >
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Mark Landman <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; John Moore <[email protected]>; Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Laura Sparks <[email protected]>; Autumn Buss <[email protected]>; Noah Housh <[email protected]>; Kevin Patterson <[email protected]>
Subject: Cotati City Council, 11/8/22, Agenda items 6.A and 11.A.
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.
Good morning, Cotati City Council members
Re: City Council Agenda, November 8: Agenda items 6.A. General Plan Progress Reports for 2019, 2020 and 2021 (see comments to Planning Commission in email below) and
11.A. Introduction of an Ordinance to amend the City's Land Use Code to facilitate Urban Agriculture (see pdf letter to Planning Commission, attached).
I'm forwarding below the email which I submitted to the Planning Commission on Sunday. I also attach a letter I submitted to the Planning Commission regarding item 6A, General Plan Progress reports. My comments to the City Council are mostly the same as to the Planning Commission and I hope will be taken into consideration tonight.
However, I would like to add one more comment to those I made on 6.A., General Plan Progress reports (Planning Commission agenda item F2), which focused primarily on one aspect of the Circulation element. I would also like to add now that although according to Pkt Pg. 37, General Plan Action CHW3d is about promoting urban agriculture as a "desirable civic activity that improves the quality of urban life, food security, neighborhood safety and environmental stewardship" and specifies collaboration with the Sonoma County Food System Alliance, Health Action, and other groups and agencies, the Ordinance being introduced is unnecessarily restrictive and is likely to inhibit rather than encourage urban agriculture in Cotati. It is not clear whether there has been collaboration with nonprofits, agencies etc. with expertise in farming issues to help craft a more workable ordinance that is more friendly to urban ag. and local food production. See email below for more specific comments on the proposed ordinance.
Thank you!
Jenny
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Planning Commission 11/7/22 - Agenda item F1 - Local food production and urban agriculture Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 19:19:47 -0800
From: jennyb < >
To: Keri Pajon <[email protected]>, [email protected], Noah Housh <[email protected]>
To: Cotati Planning Commission
Monday, November 7, 2022: Agenda Item F1. Planning Commission Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Code to facilitate local food production and urban agriculture
"Day Care Center" language: I understand that the primary reason this item is being brought back to the Planning Commission is because the wording including Day Care Center land use had been inadvertently omitted at the last meeting. I support wording to allow this, as one of the most valuable aspects of the Veronda-Falletti Ranch is to promote youth educational programs and opportunities for children of all ages to have hands-on experiences learning about and working with plants and animals. Without this provision, the Ranch would lose much of its potential as a valuable resource for Cotati, neighboring communities, schools and other groups.
Restrictions on urban agriculture: If it is not too late to comment on other aspects of this issue, I still consider that rather than facilitating local food production and urban agriculture as per its stated goal, this ordinance risks placing unnecessary restrictions on gardeners and farmers in terms of, among other things:
Hours of use for mechanized equipment, 9am-5pm, when many people growing food will have other full-time jobs and will need to do this work earlier in the mornings, the early evenings, and at weekends; Restrictions on acreage e.g. one half-acre maximum for a Market Garden seems very small for anyone seriously attempting to set up a business to grow food for sale; Setbacks which may be unduly restrictive and difficult to work around; Parking requirements e.g. why would two parking spaces be needed for a small market stand, perhaps children selling excess fruit from their backyard for a few weeks during the summer? Garden stands: it seems absurd to me to require that a garden stand can only be operated a maximum of two days per week, must be temporary in nature, and dismantled and stored out of sight when not in operation. Surely this is not realistic for someone seriously trying to start a small business growing food; and as mentioned before this means they would require extra storage space, refrigeration, etc. for the five days a week when they are not allowed to put their produce out for sale. Surely, the fresher the better, for gardeners and customers alike?! (Think of all those wilting lettuces in the summer, or shortterm but abundant supplies of eggs?) Fees, including for permits and business licenses. The ordinance claims to be facilitating local food production and urban agriculture but the combination of restrictions and fees, in addition to all the other legal health and safety requirements, may instead make it prohibitive for people even to try to do this, at whatever scale, from those trying to set up a business, Community Supported Agriculture etc. to children selling excess seasonal fruit or eggs.
While I understand the need to ensure health and safety for all concerned, and to avoid upsetting neighbors, I hope that the City will eventually pass an ordinance that actually does encourage and facilitate local food production and urban agriculture rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions that may be counterproductive and prohibitive.
Sincerely
Jenny Blaker