COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA For the Agenda of: May 6, 2015 Timed: 2:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA For the Agenda of: May 6, 2015 Timed: 2:00 p.m. To: From: Subject: Supervisorial District(s): Board of Supervisors Department of Community Development PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County-Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration All Contact: Tricia Stevens, Principal Planner, Overview Staff proposes that today s public hearing focus on the Board of Supervisors (Board) direction on a series of topics as outlined in this Board letter. The focus is on carry-over items from the March 24, 2015 public hearing and agricultural topics. Urban agriculture is not included in this report. The questions proposed to the Board in this report are intended as the final list for discussion prior to adoption in June All documents are available on the County website at: Recommendations: Conduct the meeting as a public hearing, provide direction and continue the item to a date in June for final adoption. Measures/Evaluation Approval of the Zoning Code update will streamline the development process by simplifying land use entitlements and reducing entitlement processing time, thereby promoting economic development. Approval will create a more user-friendly Zoning Code with clearer standards and greater flexibility, and will implement General Plan policies which promote mixed-use and sustainable development practices. Fiscal Impact Costs for the Zoning Code Update have been included in the Fiscal Year Adopted Budget.

2 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 2 BACKGROUND The Board conducted a series of workshops on the Development Code, including the Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, and the User Guide. The Board is now holding hearings that will lead to adoption of the new Code. Staff will provide a Third Public Review Draft prior to the final public hearing. The Third Draft will highlight changes between the second and third drafts. Proposed changes to date can be found as follows: Revision Sheet dated October 7, Includes changes recommended by the Planning Commission. This Revision Sheet can be found at: Progress/Documents/Zoning%20Code%20Update/Zoning%20Code%20%20Staff%20Report%20ATT%20 8%20-%20Revision%20Sheet%20dated%20October%207% pdf Master List of Comments dated April 20, Includes staff recommended changes based on comments marked with an asterisk. See Attachment 5 dated April 20, Attachment 1 provides a summary of Board direction on the topics from the November 12, 2014, and February 11, 2015, workshops, and the March 24, 2015 public hearing. The Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs reviewed the agricultural-related items on April 22 (Cosumnes) and April 23, 2015 (Southeast) in a workshop format. The Cosumnes CPAC had six members in attendance and the Southeast CPAC had two members in attendance (which was not a quorum). One member of the public spoke at each of the CPACs. CPAC comments are incorporated into this report. DISCUSSION This report covers the following: Board direction on carry-over items from the March 24, 2015 Board hearing Board direction on Agricultural and Incidental Agricultural uses Report back on other Agricultural related topics raised by the Farm Bureau and the Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs Board direction on outdoor merchandise display; utility fixture screening; and covenants, conditions and restriction (CCRs) Report back on landscaping requirements during drought Next steps The report starts with a table that summarizes the questions for Board direction and is followed by a discussion section on the same topics. Staff requests Board direction on all of the items in the table below. The topics marked with a are anticipated to be consent and direction may be provided by the Board as one group. The shaded items marked D will be presented by staff for Board discussion and deliberation. Staff is not repeating analysis from prior reports.

3 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 3 Questions = Consent Topics D = Discussion items Staff Recommendation 1. Room Rentals: Are these new requirements related to room rentals acceptable? 2. Design Review Appeals Should staff level design review projects that are compliant with development standards be appealed to the Planning Commission with the Require a minor use permit for conversions of homes to greater than four bedrooms. Require a finding for issuance of the minor use permit that: a) the floor plan is clearly not intended to maximize the potential use of the property for rental purposes in a boarding house configuration as opposed to floor plan layouts typical of single-family houses; and b) would not substantially change the floor plan in a manner that consists of predominately bedrooms with minimal common usable interior spaces. For new homes or conversions with more than four bedrooms, require: 1. Two additional off-street parking spaces (total of four). 2. Garage conversions not permitted, meaning some type of covered parking is required. The minor use permit will address the need for additional parking, beyond the four spaces. Amend the definitions of Dwelling Unit and Boardinghouse. The Board of Zoning Appeals hears staff level design review appeals without further appeal to the Board of Supervisors. D

4 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 4 Questions opportunity for further appeal to the Board of Supervisors, or appealed only to the Board of Zoning Appeals? 3. Billboards and Signage a) Should the provision for 4:1 removal of existing billboards require 50 percent of removed signage to be within the same community or within one mile? b) Alternatively, if 100 percent of removed signage is within the same community or within one mile, should the ratio be decreased to 3:1? c) Should the removal ratio apply to conversion of static billboards to digital? d) Are the other modified signage changes acceptable, including Gateway signage, master sign program, and promotional multifamily signage? 4. Definitions of agriculture Should the definition of agricultural uses be amended to include additional forms of agriculture? 5. Farmworker housing Should farmworker housing be allowed up to 45 beds or 16 dwelling units with a minor use permit? 6. Accessory agricultural structures a) Should the standards for accessory structures in AR and AG zones be amended as shown on the chart on page 10 and a diagram in Attachment 4? Staff Recommendation a) The provision for 4:1 removal of existing billboards should require 50 percent of removed signage to be within the same community or within one mile. b) The removal ratio should be decreased to 3:1 if 100 percent of removed signage is within the same community or within one mile. c) The removal ratio should apply to conversion to digital billboards, regardless of size. d) Include changes on Gateway signage, master sign program and promotional multifamily signage. Add: a) aquaculture, b) silvaculture (timber management), c) floriculture, and d) apiaries (beekeeping) to the definition of agriculture. Allow farmworker housing up to 45 beds or 16 dwelling units with a minor use permit. a) Amend the standards for accessory structures so there is the same standard for incidental agricultural and non-agricultural structures. D

5 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 5 Questions b) Should reductions to barn setbacks be permitted with a minor use permit? 7. Solar facilities a) Should the solar facility standards be amended to allow ground-mounted facilities (Accessory II) by right in the agricultural and agriculturalresidential zones up to one-half acre? b) Should a Planning Commission level use permit be required for commercial facilities (Commercial I) on less than 10 acres? 8. Uses in the agricultural zones a) Should schools and fraternal halls/ lodges be allowed with a conditional use permit in the agricultural zones? b) Should RV Parks and Social Rehabilitation Centers be deleted as an allowable use in the agricultural zones? 9. Crowing fowl a) Should crowing fowl be defined as shown on page 12? b) Should the definition of general agriculture be amended to include crowing fowl on parcels at least one acre in size and zoned AR or AG? 10. Display of outdoor merchandise Should the setback for display of new merchandise normally used outdoors be decreased from 50 feet to 25 feet with issuance of a minor use permit, as long as required landscaping and parking is Staff Recommendation b) Amend so that a reduction in setback for a barn be permitted with a minor use permit. Amend the Accessory II and Commercial I standards. a) Allow schools and fraternal halls/lodges with a conditional use permit in the agricultural zones, subject to rural institutional findings. b) Do not allow RV Parks or social rehabilitation uses in agricultural zones. Crowing fowl will be classified as general agriculture and only permitted in the AR and AG Zones on at least one acre, as an interim step pending urban agriculture code amendments. Allow setback reductions with a minor use permit. D D

6 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 6 Questions not affected? 11. Utility fixtures in landscaped planters Should the Design Guidelines be amended to encourage the placement of utility fixtures outside of planters and/or to require screening? 12. Requirements for CCRs Should Title 22 be amended to clarify that the County may require the submittal of CCRs for review and approval, for larger projects? Staff Recommendation Amend the Design Guidelines on utility fixtures in landscaped planters. Amend Title 22 to allow for the submittal of CCR s. D Board Direction on Carry-over Items from the March 24, 2015 Board Hearing 1. Room Rentals: At the March 24 hearing, the Board requested staff to provide further information on room rentals with regard to Building and Fire Codes and State licensing. County Counsel has advised that the Building and Fire Code requirements do not have implications for the Zoning Code definition of a single-family residence or boardinghouse. Under the Zoning Code, any number of individuals can occupy a single-family residence as long as they are living as a single household unit. The information below does not change staff recommendations. The Building and Fire Codes classify units with more than 16 unrelated persons with separate rental agreements as R-2 occupancy, similar to multi-family or boardinghouses. This changes their occupancy category from R-3 (single-family) to R-2 (multifamily) with requirements for a sprinkler system and other health/safety requirements. In the case of 3121 Marwick Way, the Building Permits and Inspection Division has requested new plans to show compliance with R-2 occupancy standards since the home has more than 16 persons. The Rosemont case does not have the same requirement as it is less than 16 persons. Staff researched State licensing requirements. If care, supervision, or rehabilitation services are provided, then a home would require a State license. There are two classes of licensing requirements: a) drug and alcohol facilities, and b) community care licensing with care and supervision. In the case of clean and sober homes, such facilities do not require licensing if services are not being provided. Thus, persons recovering from drug and alcohol issues are simply living as a single household. Attachment 2 provides a summary of applicable regulations. The rental of rooms in a single-family residence is exempt from obtaining a business license. The proposed Code amendment would address some of the issues associated with the conversion of existing rental homes by requiring a minor use permit along with certain findings. For example, the home in Rosemont where common living areas have been converted to bedrooms

7 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 7 would likely be denied a minor use permit and would be classified as a boardinghouse because of its room configuration. The home on Marwick Way would also likely have been denied a minor use permit because of the garage conversion and lack of off-street parking. With the new Code amendment, the Rosemont and Marwick homes would become non-conforming and no further expansions or modifications would be permitted. Staff recommends the following provisions: Require a minor use permit for conversions of homes to greater than four bedrooms. Require a finding for issuance of the minor use permit that: a) the floor plan is clearly not intended to maximize the potential use of the property for rental purposes in a boarding house configuration as opposed to floor plan layouts typical of single-family houses; and b) would not substantially change the floor plan in a manner that consists of predominately bedrooms with minimal common usable interior spaces. For new homes or conversions with more than four bedrooms, require: 1. Two additional off-street parking spaces (total of four). 2. Garage conversions not permitted, meaning some type of covered parking is required. The minor use permit will address the need for additional parking, beyond the four spaces. Amend the definitions of Dwelling Unit and Boardinghouse. Question: Are the new requirements related to room rentals acceptable? 2. Design Review Appeals: At the March 24 hearing, the Board requested more clarity on the issue of design review appeals. Attachment 3 provides a summary of the types of design review and their respective appeal procedures, along with examples of other projects. Staff recommends that staff level design review be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals similar to other projects with one appeal. Although there have been no appeals of staff level design review, this change results in a more consistent process over the long run. Question: Should staff level design review projects that are compliant with development standards be appealed to the Planning Commission with the opportunity for further appeal to the Board of Supervisors, or appealed only to the Board of Zoning Appeals? 3. Billboards and Signage: Supervisor Nottoli requested that this item be discussed at the May 6, 2015 hearing in order to publicly respond to testimony received at prior hearings. Staff recommends that conversions from static to digital be regulated the same as a new digital billboard. Please see discussion in Board staff reports for February 11 and March 24, 2015.

8 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 8 Questions: a) Should the provision for 4:1 removal of existing billboards require 50 percent of removed signage to be within the same community or within one mile? b) Alternatively, if 100 percent of removed signage is within the same community or within one mile, should the ratio be decreased to 3:1? c) Should the removal ratio apply to conversion of static billboards to digital? d) Are the other modified signage changes acceptable, including Gateway signage, master sign program, and promotional multifamily signage? Board Direction on Agricultural and Incidental Agricultural Uses The proposed Zoning Code does not make significant changes related to general agricultural and incidental agriculture, but several questions have arisen during the CPAC review and public hearing process that are discussed below. This discussion focuses on general agriculture and incidental agriculture in the Agricultural- Residential (AR-1 to AR-10) and Agricultural (AG-20 to 80) zones. The Urban Agriculture Code Amendment is being considered separately and will address agriculture uses in urban zones. Urban agriculture amendments will address such items as the growing crops for sale, limited farm stands for the sale of crops, keeping of hens in residential zones, and beekeeping in residential zones. 4. Definitions of general agriculture and incidental agriculture: General agriculture means crop production and animal husbandry with no limits on sale of crops or the number of animals (except for hogs). General agriculture is permitted in the Agricultural and Agricultural- Residential zones as long as there is a minimum of 150 feet of frontage. The Farm Bureau recommends that the definition of General Agricultural Uses include reference to other forms of agriculture to insure clarity that these forms are permitted. Added forms include: a) aquaculture, b) silvaculture (timber management), c) floriculture, and d) apiaries (beekeeping). Staff recommends the addition of these items. The Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs agreed with this addition. Incidental agriculture is hobby-type farming and is limited to personal use and consumption. Comments made during the review process have indicated that the definition of incidental agriculture is outdated with today s emphasis on urban farming and encouraging people to raise their own healthy food, and potentially being able to sell their excess food. Because the incidental agriculture definition is so closely tied with the Urban Agriculture code amendment that is being considered separately, staff recommends that changes to the definition of incidental agriculture be folded into the urban agriculture discussion. Question: Should the definition of General Agriculture be amended to include additional forms of agriculture?

9 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 9 5. Agricultural accessory dwellings/farmworker housing: The draft Zoning Code provides more flexibility for the construction of farmworker housing by allowing 36 beds in group quarters and 12 dwellings with a minor use permit. Currently, any employee housing requires a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit and the occupancy and number of units are determined by that process. The Farm Bureau agrees with this new provision for a minor use permit, but would like to increase the numbers to 45 beds or 16 dwelling units, in order to provide more flexibility. Both the Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs agreed with this change. Staff worked with the Farm Bureau on potential changes to standards for agricultural employee accessory dwellings, in particular the requirement that such dwelling be occupied by an on-site employee. Based on these discussions, staff and the Farm Bureau will be monitoring any issues with the occupancy of such dwellings and may address this issue in future code updates. The Cosumnes CPAC agreed that this issue needs to be monitored and addressed in the future. The Southeast CPAC had no comments. Question: Should farmworker housing be allowed up to 45 beds or 16 dwelling units with a minor use permit? 6. Incidental agricultural buildings: The Cosumnes CPAC commented that there is incongruence between the size and setbacks of incidental agriculture structures, general agricultural structures (barns) and non-agricultural structures. A structure used for incidental agricultural purposes, such as a private stable or storage of hay, has a maximum size of 1,000 square feet and a required setback of ten feet. The draft Zoning Code contains a new provision that allows non-agricultural accessory structures in AR and AG zones to be the same size as the main dwelling on parcels up to two acres, or twice the size of the main dwelling on parcels over two acres, up to 5,000 square feet. Barns have no size limit as long as they are setback 50 feet from a property line and located on an AR or AG zoned parcel with at least 150-foot frontage. CPAC members have noted that it is often hard to differentiate between agricultural and nonagricultural use of accessory structures. For example, is a structure that primarily houses a RV but also stores some fertilizer and seed considered agricultural or not? Staff proposes to simplify the current myriad of standards for accessory structures in AR and AG zones as shown on the chart on Page 9. This proposal does not change accessory structure requirements in residential zones. Attachment 4 is a diagram of two examples.

10 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 10 Barns for General Agriculture and Commercial Stables Accessory Structures for incidental keeping of animals, garages, storage sheds, private stables Small Accessory Structures with no keeping of animals or agricultural uses Agricultural and Agricultural-Residential Zones Setback: 50-foot front, side and rear setback; minor use permit to reduce Height: Maximum 50 feet Size: no limit Proposed change: minor use permit to deviate from setback standard. Setback: 20-foot rear and 10-foot side Size: same size as primary dwelling if 1-2 acres; twice the size of primary dwelling if over two acres; maximum of 5,000 square feet Height: same as primary dwelling (30 feet) Proposed change: clarify that these standards are applicable to all accessory structures that are not barns or small non-agricultural structures. Setback: 3-foot side and rear Size: 50 percent of size of primary dwelling and 30 percent of rear year Height: 16 feet No change. The Cosumnes CPAC generally agreed with the revised standards, but wanted to better understand if existing structures become non-conforming. The vast majority of existing structures would remain conforming, with a few becoming non-conforming because of the increased rear yard setback. Staff will monitor and report back in future updates. The Southeast CPAC felt that corrals and animal enclosures should be treated as structures with setbacks from property lines. Their concern for setbacks is already addressed in the Code where stables and corrals are regulated by and are required to be located at least 20 feet from dwellings, and be maintained in a dust-free and sanitary condition. Otherwise, corrals are considered fences and are not subject to setbacks for structures. Regulating fenced areas, including corrals, as structures would result in significant effects in semi-rural and rural areas inasmuch as the County has never imposed this requirement. Furthermore, staff has not discussed such a change with any CPAC except the Southeast CPAC. The Southeast CPAC stated that deviations from the 50-foot setback for barns should require a public hearing instead of a minor use permit. Staff recommends the minor use permit process which provides adjacent properties an opportunity to comment. Questions: a) Should the standards for accessory structures in AR and AG zones be amended as shown on the chart and the diagrams in Attachment 4?

11 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 11 b) Should reductions to barn setbacks be permitted with a minor use permit? 7. Solar facilities: The Farm Bureau commented that solar facilities should enhance agriculture and not result in more conversion of agricultural land. The Bureau recommends the following changes to the draft Code. Allow Accessory II Solar Facilities (ground mounted panels up to one-half acre) by right, instead of a minor use permit, in the agricultural zones in order to streamline the ability of farmers to build solar panels to support farming operations. Require a Planning Commission level use permit for Commercial I solar facilities (less than 10 acres), instead of a minor use permit, because a solar facility even at 10 acres would result in conversion of agricultural land. A Board level use permit is required for Commercial II solar facilities on parcels greater than 10 acres. The Cosumnes CPAC agreed with these changes and the Southeast CPAC had no comment. Staff agrees with these comments as they better reflect protection of agricultural lands. The current language provides for an intertie with the grid and sale to the utility. Questions: a) Should the solar facility standards be amended to allow Accessory II groundmounted facilities by right in the agricultural and agricultural-residential zones up to one-half acre? b) Should a Planning Commission level use permit be required for Commercial I facilities on less than 10 acres? 8. Uses in the Agricultural zones: The Farm Bureau commented that there are a number of uses allowed in the agricultural zones with a Planning Commission use permit that do not support the agricultural community and may foster future development. These uses include: RV parks, social rehabilitation centers, schools, and fraternal halls/lodges. Schools and fraternal halls/lodges are currently permitted in the agricultural zones with a conditional use permit. The Cosumnes CPAC agreed with the Farm Bureau and the Southeast CPAC was neutral. Staff recommends that they continue to be allowed with a conditional use permit as long as they meet the rural institutional findings. Social Rehabilitation Centers are currently not permitted and were added with a conditional use permit to accommodate the potential for an agricultural based facility where the rehabilitation involves working on a farm. The Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs recommend that social rehabilitation centers not be permitted. After further review, staff recommends that social rehabilitation centers not be allowed in agricultural or agricultural-residential zones. RV parks were added to provide more flexibility for tourism activities, especially in the Delta. After further review, staff agrees that standalone RV Parks with more intensive

12 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 12 infrastructure are incompatible and should not be permitted in the agricultural zones, except in conjunction with a permitted agricultural or agtourism activity. Any proposal for a standalone RV Park would need to rezone to the Commercial-Recreation (C-O) zone. Campgrounds would still be permitted with a conditional use permit as they may be compatible in some areas if they retain an open air or natural character. Staff will modify the definitions of RV parks and campgrounds to clearly differentiate between the two and clarify that RV parking in conjunction with permitted agricultural activities is allowed. Questions: a) Should schools and fraternal halls/lodges be allowed with a conditional use permit in the agricultural zones? b) Should RV parks and social rehabilitation centers be deleted as an allowable use in the agricultural zones? 9. Crowing Fowl: Currently, the Zoning Code does not differentiate between types of fowl and the regulation of animals is based on weight. Any animal, including fowl, being kept for personal use can be kept by right on parcels over 20,000 square feet (incidental agriculture). Animals, including fowl, less than 75 pounds may be kept by right on parcels down to 10,000 square feet. The draft Code currently does not change these standards. Many complaints have been received over the years about roosters and other noisy crowing fowl such as geese, turkeys and peacocks in residential zones. Below is the proposed definition of crowing fowl. Any rooster, peacock, goose, quacking duck, guinea fowl, or any other fowl which by their sound or cry unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. In order to address complaints, one option is to amend the definition of general agriculture so that crowing fowl are considered general agriculture and would only be permitted in AR and AG zones on parcels with at least 150 feet of frontage and one acre is size. Crowing fowl would not be permitted in residential zones regardless of size of property. If the Board recommends this amendment, it would be an interim measure to a larger discussion about urban agriculture with appropriate outreach at the time. The Farm Bureau and the Cosumnes CPAC felt that more time is necessary to study this issue comprehensively. If this amendment goes forward, the Farm Bureau feels the 150-foot minimum width should be deleted and that exceptions be given for 4-H or FFA projects on parcels less than one acre. Questions: a) Should crowing fowl be defined per above? b) Should the definition of general agriculture be amended to include crowing fowl on parcels at least one acre in size and zoned AR or AG?

13 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 13 Report Back on Other Topics Raised by the Farm Bureau and the Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs Scenic Corridors/Special Sign Corridors: The General Plan designates a number of rural roads as Scenic Corridors, including State Highway 160, Scott Road, Latrobe Road, and Twin Cities Road. The Zoning Code implements the Scenic Corridor policies by designating a number of rural roads as Special Sign Corridors with certain restrictions on size and height of signage. The Cosumnes CPAC wanted to be assured that there is no conflict between the allowance for farmstands and wineries and the Scenic Corridor/Special Sign Corridor designation. Since the sign size allowance for farm stands and wineries exceeds the allowance in the Special Sign Corridor (50 square feet in size vs. 24 square feet), staff will clarify that signs for wineries and farmstands are exceptions. General Plan policy CI-51 speaks to design review for structures in the Scenic Corridor, but exempts permitted uses related to agriculture. The Cosumnes CPAC agreed with this change. In the future, they would like reconsideration of General Plan policies on scenic corridors. Staff will address in a future General Plan report back. Role of Agricultural Commissioner: The Farm Bureau and the Southeast and Cosumnes CPACs wanted to make sure the Agricultural Commissioner and ultimately the Agricultural Advisory Committee review proposals to insure compatibility with agricultural areas. Staff has coordinated with the Agricultural Commissioner in the past and will set an internal policy to insure that all applications for non-agricultural uses in agricultural zones be referred to the Agricultural Commissioner, including rezones and use permits. Agricultural businesses: The Cosumnes CPAC raised two issues related to agricultural businesses. First, they felt an agricultural business should be able to rent agricultural equipment. The definition of agricultural supplies and services does permit the rental of equipment and is permitted with a Zoning Administrator Use Permit. Second, they felt agricultural home businesses should be able to be conducted out of accessory structures. An agricultural business may be conducted as a home occupation and may be conducted from an accessory structure. The CPACs had no further comments. Public Parks and Wildlife Preserves: The Farm Bureau and the Cosumnes CPAC would like to make sure that public parks and wildlife preserves are under the purview of a public or non-profit organization to make sure that any conflicts with agricultural practices can be addressed. Staff will add a definition for wildlife preserve that clarifies that such uses are under the purview of a public or non-profit organization. A private park or preserve operated as a commercial use, such as a hunting club or outdoor recreation facility, requires a conditional use permit. Non-Conforming structures and uses: The Farm Bureau and CPAC members are concerned that agricultural structures and uses may become non-conforming as urbanization occurs. Staff will add the following sentence to the intent language for Non- Conforming Uses: Consistent with the County s Right to Farm Ordinance, it is the intent

14 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 14 of this Code that the establishment of urban and non-agricultural uses surrounding agricultural and agricultural-residential properties does not result in agricultural uses and structures becoming non-conforming. Otherwise, staff believes the non-conforming use provisions in the draft Code sufficiently protect agricultural homes and structures. The Cosumnes and Southeast CPACs agreed with this change. Following are key points: o Agricultural homes, structures and uses typically do not become non-conforming as urbanization occurs around them, as long as the property maintains its agricultural zoning. o If a structure becomes non-conforming for whatever reason, the structure may be maintained and repaired and does not need to be removed. The draft Code adds a new provision that allows non-conforming structures to be expanded as long as the expansion conformed to setbacks. o Agricultural uses and operations are protected from urban encroachment by being agriculturally zoned and by the County s Right to Farm Ordinance. Other items from Cosumnes and Southeast CPAC. Two CPAC members, one from each CPAC, remained concerned about the lack of a red-lined side-by-side version comparing the existing and proposed Zoning Code. Staff informed the CPACs that the Third Public Review Draft will show changes from the Second Public Review Draft in bold/strikeout. The Southeast CPAC commented on the definition of outdoor recreation and setbacks for feedlots. This item will be monitored over time and included in a future amendment if needed. Board Direction on Outdoor Merchandise Display, Utility Fixture Screening, and CCRs 10. Display of outdoor merchandise: The Zoning Code currently prohibits outdoor display of merchandise, except that merchandise normally used outdoors (patio furniture, barbeques) may be displayed outdoors with a setback of 50 feet. Some businesses have indicated a need for greater visibility. Staff recommends that the setback may be reduced with a minor use permit. Question: Should the setback for display of new merchandise normally used outdoors be decreased from 50 feet to 25 feet with issuance of a minor use permit, as long as required landscaping and parking is not affected? 11. Utility fixtures in landscape planters: Many utility fixtures such as electric boxes and fire backflow preventers are often located in commercial front planter areas, and detract from the aesthetic quality of business areas. Better coordination during site plan and design review is necessary to properly place fixtures and/or screen them. Staff recommends amending the Design Guidelines to address utility fixtures. Question: Should the Design Guidelines be amended to encourage the placement of utility fixtures outside of planters and/or to require screening.

15 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page Requirements for CCRs: Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) for larger projects help address nuisance issues such as parking, garage conversions, working on vehicles in the front yard, and trash container control. Many of these larger projects create CCRs anyway in order to maintain common areas. CCRs are not enforced by the County, but the County has and may require that projects have CCRs. The creation of CCRs gives property owns the ability to assure that property values are sustained, and gives neighbors a tool to help insure compliance. Staff recommends that Title 22 be amended to indicate that the County may require the submittal of CCRs for review and approval by the County for larger projects. A requirement for CCRs does not mandate that a Homeowners Association be established. Question: Should Title 22 be amended to clarify that the County may require the submittal of CCRs for review and approval, for larger projects. Report Back on Landscaping Requirements During Drought A number of questions have been asked about how the Zoning Code update addresses landscaping during drought periods. The proposed update to single-family residential landscaping standards has two aspects. First, the intent is to ensure that front yards be landscaped with live vegetation with a strong preference for drought tolerant landscaping. Turf is not required. Landscape design elements such as rocks, planters, and mulch may be used. A maximum of 40 percent of the front yard may be paved. The intent is also that some type of irrigation system, preferably drip irrigation, be provided for all newly constructed homes. Homeowners may request consideration of alternatives to the above standards, such as artificial turf and additional hardscape materials, through a staff level design review process. In terms of the maintenance of existing landscapes, irrigation use may be waived in the event of drought and associated requirements for conservation, although the County strongly encourages homeowners to keep mature trees and shrubs alive. The second aspect of the County s landscape requirements are described in the County s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. Sacramento County originally adopted the Landscape Ordinance in 1990 and is in the process of an update to ensure consistency with the State s Model Ordinance. The Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance limits the amount of water used in residential landscapes, and therefore limits the types of plants that can be used. Again, there is no requirement for the installation of turf; rather the ordinance places limits on landscape water use as well as the types of allowed irrigation equipment to minimize the amount of water used. Staff believes that updating both ordinances supports sound water conservation principles and County staff will assure the ordinances are consistent with the Governor s Executive Order on water conservation.

16 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 16 Next Steps The Third Public Review Draft will be available two weeks prior to the final hearing. This Draft will show changes from the Second Public Review Draft (August 2014) in bold and strikeout. If the Board provides direction on these final items in this Board staff report, it is anticipated that the June hearing will be final adoption. RECOMMENDATIONS Conduct the meeting as a public hearing, provide direction and continue the item to a date in June MEASURES/EVALUATION Approval of the Zoning Code update will streamline the development process by simplifying land use entitlements and reducing entitlement processing time; thereby promoting economic development. Approval will create a more user-friendly Zoning Code with clearer standards and greater flexibility, and will implement General Plan policies which promote mixed-use and sustainable development practices. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Costs for the Zoning Code Update have been included in the Fiscal Year Adopted Budget. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: BRADLEY J. HUDSON County Executive LORI A. MOSS, Director Department of Community Development BY: ROBERT B. LEONARD Chief Deputy County Executive

17 PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County- Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration Page 17 Attachments: 1. Board direction items 2. Drug, Alcohol and Clean and Sober licensing summary 3. Design Review appeal summary 4. Diagrams on accessory structures 5. Updated Master List of Comments April 20, 2015

18

19 ATTACHMENT 1 BOARD DIRECTION FROM NOVEMBER, 2014, AND FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2015, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Topics Reduction of Parking for Medical Offices Staff Level approval of parking reductions when adjacent to transit and other amenities Setback between multifamily and single-family Special Development Permit for projects with no upper limit on density and height. Threshold for review by Planning Commission of design review for multifamily projects. Board Direction Board agreed with reduction to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Board agreed with staff recommendations as revised. Staff presented revised recommendation for 25/50/75 setback standard and added privacy guidelines. Board generally agreed (3-2). Today s meeting includes details on Guidelines addressing whether it is side or rear yard of adjacent residential. Board agreed with staff recommendation as long as Special Development Permit is heard by Planning Commission with appeal to Board. Board directed that Planning Commission review remain at projects over 80 units. Allows for appeal of nondiscretionary design review to the Board of Supervisors. See page 21 for additional discussion of this topic related to appeals. Nov. 12, 2014 CPAC Appeals Staff revised recommendation to keep pre-authorization. Revised definition of community-wide interest. Board in agreement. Nov. 12, 2014 Vacation Rentals Board supportive of administrative permit for vacation rentals. Nov. 12, 2014 Noise Ordinance tie-in to Zoning Code commercial development standards Board agreed with new language. 1

20 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Topics Reconsider Convenience Centers and Secondary Service Stations in Residential Zones Solar Facilities in Agricultural Zones Setback for commercial and industrial structures adjacent to single-family. Staff revised recommendation to keep current setback of 100 feet with deviations allowed with a Special Development Permit by the Planning Commission. Allow modification of nonconforming structures with prohibition on conversion of non-habitable space to habitable space for portions of structures that are nonconforming. Adult Novelty Stores: Add the current requirements of County Code Chapter 9.50 to the Zoning Code by adding Adult Novelty Stores with 1,000-foot separation from certain uses. Service Station Canopy Height: Allow canopy heights for service stations to be increased to 16 feet? Board Direction Board agreed to delete secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit. Solar facilities over 10 acres to be heard by Board. Minor Use permit for facilities under 10 acres. No change to other standards. Board agreed with revised recommendation. Board agreed with revised recommendation. Board agreed to add adult novelty stores to the Zoning Code, and considering distance separation requirements as part of report back on March 24. Board agreed with change to 16 feet. 2

21 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Topics Cargo Containers: Cargo containers in public parks and schools permitted without screening as long as the container is painted and graffitifree? Allow the size of accessory structures in the AR and AG zones to be increased, with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet? (See diagrams.) Increase the size of accessory dwellings by right to 600 square feet (sliding scale based on parcel size)? Staff Level Parking Reductions: Allow staff level parking reductions with criteria and thresholds, with the recommended changes noted in the Board Letter? Distance Separation Standards: Require distance separation standards for the list of uses found in the staff report. Board Direction Board agreed with revised language that requires screening in residential zones but not in ag-res and agricultural zones: Cargo containers used on school or park sites located in residential zones must be screened from public view and located at least 25 feet from a property used for residential purposes. Cargo containers on school or park sites in agricultural-residential or agricultural zones must be painted in a neutral color and kept graffiti free. Board agreed with revised language for greater setbacks for larger accessory structures and directed that the Diagrams be included in the Zoning Code. Table 5.8 amended to require accessory structures in AR and AG zones greater than 16 feet in height and greater than 1,000 feet in size shall be setback 20 feet from rear property line and ten feet from side property line. Board agreed with this change. Board agreed with revised language to insure that alternative uses are consistent with parking reduction: If a parking reduction is based on specified uses, then those uses may not be replaced with an alternative use unless either additional parking is provided or a finding can be made that the alternative use has an equivalent or lower parking demand. Board directed that distance separation standards be required for the list of uses and staff prepare specifics, with definitions, for March 24. 3

22 Feb. 11, 2015 Topics Transportation System Management (TSM) Plans. Board Direction Defer until after Zoning Code is adopted. Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Apply yard parking requirement to entire front yard, with deviations requiring a minor use permit. Apply yard parking to Agricultural-residential zones, as well as residential zones. Lower service stations in commercial zones from Board to PC? Lower convenience markets with extended hours in commercial zones from Board to PC? Lower driving ranges in agricultural zones from Board to PC? Board agreed with this change. The Board agreed with revised language so yard parking would only apply to Ag- Res zoning if parcels are less than 20,000 square feet. Board directed that service stations be heard by the Board of Supervisors Board directed that convenience stores be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Board directed that driving ranges be heard by the Board of Supervisors. March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Lower agricultural supplies and services in AG zones from PC to ZA? Lower outdoor recreation in the RD, AR and AG zones from PC to ZA for facilities less than 150 persons? Allow up to five acres for processing of agricultural products in agricultural zones (existing) and up to one acre in AR-5 and AR-10 zones (new), and lower operations over the acreage thresholds from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Administrator? Board directed that agricultural supplies and services be lowered from PC to ZA. Board directed that outdoor recreation in the RD, AR and AG zones be heard by the Planning Commission. Board directed that up to five acres of processing of agricultural products in AG zones, and up to one acre in AR zones by right, and operations that exceed these thresholds to be heard by the ZA. 4

23 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Topics Should private schools in RD, AR, and AG zones require a PC use permit for over 100 students (revised recommendation)? Maintain hearing authority for private social centers at Planning Commission? Lower kennels in AR and AG zones from PC to ZA? Maintain Zoning Administrator as hearing authority for gas/oil wells in agricultural-residential zones? Should thrift shops require a minor use permit and be subject to the distance separation requirements? Should thrift stores be defined as shown on page 12? Lower drive-thru restaurants from PC to ZA? Should Special Development Permits (SDPs) be heard by the Zoning Administrator, except for multifamily deviations? Should Bed and Breakfast Inns remain at Planning Commission? Should borrow pits remain at Planning Commission? Board Direction Board directed that a PC use permit be required for private schools over 100 students, with schools under 100 students requiring a ZA use permit. Board directed that private social centers in RD, AR and AG zones be heard by the Planning Commission. Board directed that kennels in AR and AG zones be heard by the ZA. Board directed that gas/oil wells in AR zones be heard by the Zoning Administrator. Board directed that thrift zones require a minor use permit and be subject to the distant separation requirements, with revised definition on page 11 of the March 24 Board report. Board directed that drive-thru restaurants be lowered from the PC to the ZA. Board directed that SDPs be heard by the ZA, except for multi-family and height deviations described in the February 11, Board letter: a) deviations from the multifamily development standards, b) deviations from the height standards for commercial buildings, and c) density bonus requests. Board directed that Bed and Breakfast Inns remain at the Planning Commission. Board directed that borrow pits be heard by the Planning Commission. 5

24 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Topics Should major recycling be allowed with a conditional use permit in the Interim Agricultural Reserve (IR) zone? Should personal service uses in the BP and MP zone remain at the Planning Commission? Should a minor use permit be required for single-family conversions with more than four bedrooms? Should four parking spaces be required with no garage conversions for all homes with more than four bedrooms? Should the definition of dwelling unit and boardinghouse be amended as described on page 13? Are Rural Institutional Findings acceptable and should they apply to the uses outlined in the February 11 staff report, with the modification that they apply to residential care homes over six persons that require a ZA use permit? Should the definition of residential care homes be modified without specifying the number of beds, but with the finding that the home must be residential in character? Board Direction Board directed that major recycling be allowed with a PC conditional use permit in the IR (Interim Agricultural Reserve; formerly Industrial Reserve) zone. Board directed that personal service uses in the BP and MP zones be lowered to the Zoning Administrator. Board requested additional information to report back on May 6. Board directed that the rural institutional findings apply to the uses in the March 24 staff report, including residential care homes over six persons. Board directed that the definition of residential care home be modified as found on page 13 of the March 24 Board staff report. 6

25 March 24, 2015 Topics Should the maximum height of fencing in residential front yards be three feet for solid fences, four feet for chain link fences, and six feet for other open fences in residential zones, and not apply to AR and AG zones? Board Direction Board directed that the maximum fence height in residential front yards be three feet for solid fences, four feet for chain link fences, and six feet for other open fences, and not apply to AR and AG Zones. Board also directed that language be developed for exceptions adjacent to high-volume streets. March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Are the provisions for nonconforming fences acceptable? Should the requirement for tree planting (one tree on less than 7500 sq. ft. and two trees on lots over 7500 sq. ft.) in residential front yards only apply to the initial construction of a new home? Is the requirement for front yard landscaping of residential lots acceptable? Should the provision for 4:1 removal of existing billboards require 50 percent of removed signage to be within the same community or within one mile? Alternatively, if 100 percent of removed signage is within the same community or within one mile, should the ratio be decreased to 3:1? Should the removal ratio apply to conversion of static billboards to digital? Are the other modified signage changes acceptable, including Gateway signage, master sign program, and promotional multifamily signage? Board agreed with that the provisions for non-conforming fences which allow non-conforming fences to remain as long as they are maintained. Board directed that tree planting only apply to the initial construction of a new home, and that landscaping in the front yard of residential lots be required. Board requested that the signage provisions be called out separately and discussed on May 6. Board requested that the signage provisions be called out separately and discussed on May 6. 7

26 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 March 24, 2015 Topics Are the County-wide Design Guidelines acceptable with changes noted, including use of the Active Design icon? Are the distance separation requirements and definitions in the attached chart acceptable? Are the findings for issuance of a minor use permit acceptable? Should hookah/smoking/vape lounges require a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator? Should staff level design review be appealed to the Board of Supervisors? Should the threshold for Planning Commission review of nondiscretionary multifamily design review projects be increased to 150 units, with appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals? Board Direction Board agreed with the Design Guidelines as modified, including use of the Active Design icon. Board agreed with the distance separation standards and definitions, and the findings for issuance of a minor use permit. Board directed that lounges require a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. Board requested that the appeal of staff level design reviews be discussed at the May 6 Board hearing. Board agreed that the threshold for design review of multifamily projects be 150 units, instead of 80 units. 8

27 ATTACHMENT 2