Cotati council introduces zoning code amendments to allow more flexibility for accessory structures and streamline permits

The Cotati City Council on May 27 held a public hearing and voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance amending several sections of the Cotati Municipal Code (Title 17) to correct errors, clarify permit processing and provide greater flexibility for residential accessory structures and development standards.

Senior planner JP Harris presented amendments that include: correcting a typographical cross‑reference in the allowable uses table; allowing some ground‑mounted mechanical equipment associated with primary structures to locate within setbacks when no reasonable alternative exists; reducing pool setbacks to match other accessory structures (a 5‑foot side/rear setback rather than the larger, variable setbacks currently in the code); permitting a 7‑foot solid front‑yard fence (or 8‑foot where the top foot is open design) without a public hearing; clarifying standards for home‑based “cottage” food operations and aligning other rules with state law; and changing the limited‑term permit and minor variance processes so the director schedules a public meeting up front and interested neighbors are notified within 500 feet rather than creating last‑minute hearing delays.

Harris told council the changes aim to streamline permitting, correct internal inconsistencies (for example references to covered parking where that requirement has been removed), and to reduce the administrative burden of repetitive variance hearing requests. He noted that telecommunications code language (Chapter 17.44) would be brought back separately for focused review.

Council members asked for two additions before final adoption: a post‑installation validation test for electromagnetic field (EMF) coverage reports tied to cellular/telecommunications facilities, and an explicit caveat that noise‑producing HVAC or pool mechanical equipment may be allowed in a setback only when there is no reasonable alternative and noise standards are met. Staff agreed to bring final language back for the next reading.

The council introduced the ordinance for first reading and added the amendments discussed at the meeting. The motion to introduce passed unanimously. Planning Commission had reviewed the draft on April 21 and recommended approval.

Councilmember Harvey, who had asked about consistency with state rules for cottage food operations, was assured by staff that MECO (state cottage food law) is regulated by county health permitting and that the proposed code references would not conflict with state law.

The introduction clears the way for a second reading and adoption at a future meeting, with staff returning to incorporate the council’s requested validation/testing language for telecommunications installations.