Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: Consideration, introduction and first reading of a draft ordinance to amend Chapters 17.22 Allowable Land Uses, 17.30 Standards for All Development and Land Uses, 17.42 Standards for Specific Land Uses,
17.44 Telecommunication Facilities and 17.62 Permit Review and Decisions of the Cotati Municipal Code
Date: May 27, 2025
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of a draft ordinance amending Cotati Municipal Code (CMC) Chapters 17.22 Allowable Land Uses, 17.30 Standards for All Development and Land Uses, 17.42 Standards for Specific Land Uses, 17.44 Telecommunication Facilities and 17.62 Permit Review and Decisions to correct errors, streamline permitting processes, establish consistency with state law, and allow flexibility in the development of residential accessory equipment, structures and fences, citywide.
Background
Periodically, Community Development staff identifies areas of the code that would benefit from minor language changes to address re-occurring challenges with implementation, correct inconsistencies and/or improve processes. This perspective is typically informed by community input, staff experience and City Council direction. Over the past several months, staff have identified sections of the code that would benefit from clarifying language or minor modifications to ensure that their application is consistent and efficient or to improve the experience for community members. In every instance, the proposed amendments to the CMC are intended to improve the clarity of regulations, streamline permitting processes, establish consistency with state law and/or correct errors and inconsistencies.
On April 21, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the code changes proposed in the draft ordinance, provide input and direction on the proposed updates, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the ordinance. After reviewing all materials provided and conducting the hearing, the Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance implementing the identified code changes and updates.
Analysis/Discussion
Land Use and Planning Considerations of Proposed Changes This section provides a brief summary of the proposed changes to each section of the zoning code, the challenges the existing language poses and the intent behind the proposed change. For greater clarity regarding the proposed code language changes, staff has prepared a red-line version of the draft ordinance revisions, included as Exhibit A.
Proposed Change:
CMC Section 17.22.020, Table 2-2 establishes the allowable uses of properties and the permit requirements for uses within low density and neighborhood zones. The proposed change in this section is to change the superscript next to the Crop production, Community Garden, Farmers Market, and Produce stand from 5 to 6.
Reason for Change:
The reason for the change of the superscript from 5 to 6 is to correct a typo. The superscript references the notes at the bottom of Table 2-2, and currently, the 5 superscript refers to a note that these uses are permitted as an accessory use, while the 6 identifies the reduced fee directed by the City Council for these proposed agricultural uses.
Proposed Changes:
CMC Section 17.30.020, .030 and .042 (Table 3-2) govern general setback requirements, fence height regulations and equipment setback rules. The proposed changes are intended to reduce the setback requirements for heating and cooling equipment; provide the same setback regulations for swimming pools as for other accessory structures; and to create a discretionary mechanism by which property owners may request additional height for solid fencing in their front yard setback.
Reason for Changes:
Changes to 17.30.020 C. Setback Requirements are intended to add heating and cooling equipment to the list of exemptions from setbacks. It is common for replacement HVAC equipment to be proposed in the same location as existing (to take advantage of the existing electrical and condensation lines setup for the previous equipment), or for newly installed heating/cooling compressors to be located in the side yard. However, many homes in conventional subdivisions are built to the side setback line, leaving no room for this new or replacement equipment to comply with the setback requirements. Further, new and replacement HVAC equipment is often within the acceptable noise range for single family neighborhoods, making placement of said equipment within the setback less problematic than other types of equipment. Changes to 17.30.040 Mechanical and utility equipment placement further detail application of these allowances.
Changes to 17.30.020 G. Setback Requirements for Specific Structures are intended to make the setback requirements for swimming pools consistent with other accessory structures across all zoning districts. The current language creates unique setbacks for swimming pools while also making them variable based on lot size. This difference is arbitrary and creates inconsistent setback requirements across properties within the same zoning district (which can be punitive and problematic to apply). Given the range of allowable uses within the setback areas now allowed under state housing law, staff sees the proposed standard setbacks for all accessory structures as an improvement to the consistency and fairness of the zoning regulations.
Changes to 17.30.030 Fences walls and screening. B. Height Limits Table 3-2 are intended to make seven-foot side yard fencing permissible by-right, and the addition of lattice for a maximum height of eight-feet, permissible by-right with a building permit. The California building code currently allows up to seven-foot fences without the need for a building permit and many properties are developed with side and rear yard fences up to eight feet in height. This creates enforcement challenges and sets up conflicts when existing fencing is proposed to be repaired or replaced. Lastly, the changes create a (discretionary) mechanism by which property owners may request to construct solid fencing. While limited, there are occasions where property owners may be justified in requesting solid fencing above the 42-inch height currently allowed within the front setback. The proposed changes would create a mechanism for this to be requested, while also keeping the process discretionary to ensure planning staff has input on the request and design.
Proposed Changes:
CMC Section 17.42.080 and .160 govern home occupation and residential accessory uses and structures. The proposed changes are intended to respond to changes in state law regarding Cottage Food Operations and Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations (by adding them to the list of permissible home occupations uses) and to remove the covered parking requirements from home occupation uses, generally. CMC Section 17.42.160 A. & F. govern the number and location of residential accessory structures. The proposed changes are intended to clarify the number and type of residential accessory structures allowed.
Reason for Changes:
The State of California has recently made changes to the allowable food related businesses which may be operated from a private residence, and these uses include Cottage Food Operations and Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKOs). As such, these uses are being added to the list of allowable home occupation business operations to bring the CMC Section 17.42.080 into conformance with State law. Additional changes are proposed to remove references to covered parking, given the City’s recent elimination of the covered parking requirement, citywide. Changes to CMC Section 17.42.160 are proposed to increase the number of residential accessory structures allowed on an individual parcel. Currently the CMC language limits the number of accessory structures allowed in most residential zoning districts to just one, effectively preventing a property from adding a shed if it is already developed with a detached garage. This language seems arbitrary, potentially punitive and unnecessary given there are many other factors limiting accessory structure development including lot coverage, setback and height limitations. In most instances allowing more than one accessory structure on a residential parcel will have no negative impacts on the surrounding character or use of the property.
Proposed Changes:
CMC 17.44 governs the installation, design and review procedures of telecommunication facilities throughout the City. Changes proposed to this section of the CMC would add two new requirements to the application materials required upon submittal of an application for a new telecommunication facility: coverage maps and an Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) exposure report.
Reason for Changes:
During the review of a recent application for a telecommunication facility, City staff and decision makers became aware that the above-mentioned materials were not required upon initial submittal for a new telecommunication facility in Cotati. The information contained in these reports was identified as of critical interest to the public, staff and decision-makers to inform the review of any proposed new telecommunication facility. As such, these two reports are proposed to be added to the list of application requirements identified in CMC 17.44.040 Permit requirements. B. Application Requirements.
Proposed Change:
CMC 17.62.030 describes the review and decision-making process for Limited Term Permits, which provide a mechanism for a temporary (less than 12-months) activity or use of a property.
Limited Terms Permits are primarily used by businesses and event promoters to conduct unique activities beyond the typical use of a business or property and are seen as beneficial tools for economic development and community events. The changes proposed are intended to improve the predictability in the decision and timeline of the process.
Reason for Change:
Due to their unique and infrequent nature, businesses planning an event may not fully understand the timelines needed for the City to finalize a decision related to a Limited Term Permit Request (LTP). Under the current procedures, City staff notice the surrounding property owners (and residents) of the requested permit and, pending a (Director level) decision on this request, identifying that a hearing will be held to make the decision only if requested. This creates a process whereby interested or concerned individuals often feel their only recourse to participate in the decision on the LTP is to request a hearing be held to make the decision. This request then adds significant time and cost to the decision process, which may not have been considered by the applicant in their event planning schedule.
The proposed changes would modify the decision process to elevate the decision to be made at a publicly noticed meeting (without the need for it to be “requested”), allowing interested parties to participate directly in the decision, but also adding certainty into the date and overall cost for the applicant. Anyone dissatisfied with the decision would have the right to appeal to the Planning Commission as a recourse.
Proposed Change:
CMC Section 17.62.060 provides the purpose and decision process for approval of a variance and minor variance. A minor variance is similarly decided by the Community Development Director and also includes the potential for a two-step process described above for Limited Term Permits, adding similar uncertainty and cost to the process unnecessarily. The proposed change to the process would mirror that of the LTP, identifying that the decision be made at a publicly noticed meeting allowing all interested parties to participate, but ensuring the decision would occur on a set date and utilizing a specific process.
Further, CMC 17.62.060 C. is proposed to be modified allow a minor variance to grant relief to certain requirements to increase from 10% to up to 25%.
Reason for Change:
The reason for the proposed change to the decision process is to add certainty to the timeline and cost for the decision, while also providing opportunity for any interested member of the public to participate in the decision process for a minor variance.
The reason for the proposed change to the scope of an allowable minor variance is to make their application more functional. Setback requirements are the most common and granting relief up to 10% is often not functional relief. As an example, 10% of a five- or ten-foot setback would allow the setback to be reduced by 0.5 feet or 1-foot respectively. Allowing up to 25% would make the application of a minor variance more functional and available provide relief in more situations.
General Plan Consistency
The amendments to CMC Title 17 in the proposed ordinance are consistent with and will further established goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan to streamline permitting processes, provide best in class customer service, and use land appropriately. Below are the most applicable General Plan goals and policies supporting the proposed code amendments.
-Policy LU 2.12: Continue to permit home occupations in residential areas, provided they do not alter the residential character of the neighborhood.
-Goal LU 4: Provide a streamlined and straightforward permitting process that promotes transparency, predictability, cost savings, and customer service. -Policy EV 1.11: Encourage commercial uses that provide everyday goods and services for residents.
-Policy EV 1.12: Encourage the growth of new commercial enterprises within appropriately zoned areas while maintaining the stability of the existing commercial businesses. -Policy EV 1.18: Ensure clarity and transparency in local regulations, permitting processes, and fee structures.
Specifically, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.22 Allowable Land Uses, 17.30 Standards for All Development and Land Uses, 17.42 Standards for Specific Land Uses, 17.44 Telecommunication Facilities and 17.62 Permit Review and Decisions are consistent with and implement the identified General Plan goals, policies, and programs. These changes will serve to streamline the residential fence permitting process, allow for flexibility in the development of residential accessory structures, establish consistency in permitting procedures, expand the clarity and transparency of regulations and improve customer service.
Financial Considerations
There are no direct impacts to the general fund identified as a component of the review and decision on the draft ordinance. The staff time and hearing notice costs allocated to the effort is within the adopted department budget.
Environmental Issues
The potential impacts of the proposed project were analyzed and addressed to a less-thansignificant level in the Cotati General Plan Update EIR (SCH# 2013082037), which was certified by the Cotati City Council on March 24, 2015, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with an existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designations and densities established by the Cotati General Plan, for which an EIR was certified.