COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA #60 For the Agenda of: March 24, 2015 Timed: 3:00 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. 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 April 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 provided direction on the following topics at the November 12, 2014, and February 11, 2015 workshops. 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 non-discretionary 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 Nov. 12, 2014 Noise Ordinance tie-in to Zoning Code commercial development standards Reconsider Convenience Centers and Secondary Service Stations in Residential Zones Board agreed with new language. Board agreed to delete secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit.

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 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Nov. 12, 2014 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Topics 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 nonhabitable 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? Cargo Containers: Cargo containers in public parks and schools permitted without screening as long as the container is painted and graffiti-free? Board Direction 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. 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 agriculturalresidential or agricultural zones must be painted in a neutral color and kept graffiti free.

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 Accessory Structures and Accessory Dwellings Feb. 11, 2015 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.) Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 Feb. 11, 2015 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. Transportation System Management (TSM) Plans. Yard Parking 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. 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. Defer until after Zoning Code is adopted. 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.

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 Changes from the August 2014 Second Public Review Draft. Comments have been received requesting that changes from the August 2014 Second Public Review Draft of the Zoning Code need to be provided. 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 March 11, Includes staff recommended changes based on comments marked with an asterisk. See Attachment 3. Board direction from November 12, 2014 and February 11, 2015 Board workshops. A summary is included in this report on pages 2-4. Self-Governance Comments. The Sacramento Self-Governance Group commented that the February 11, 2015 Board staff report inaccurately reflected comments by the Group. Specifically the Group states: I am requesting an official correction of the record concerning your statement made about the Sacramento Self-Governance Group on page 4 of the Memorandum from the Department of Community Development to the Board of Supervisors dated February 11, On page 4, paragraph 2, line 7, you state In their presentations (referring to the Sacramento Self-Governance Group), they have asserted that all the CPACs have requested such a document (referring to a side-by-side of present versus proposed code and design regulations). At no time have we made that assertion as the official position of our group, as demonstrated by our letters that are attached to these Board materials. We would not have made that claim, as we had not attended every single CPAC meeting on this issue. I am requesting that you send out an official document to all recipients of these Board materials retracting your above statement. I would also request that you post this retraction on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors web site. The comment that all CPACs requested a side-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed Zoning Code is attributed to one person at a CPAC meeting. Staff acknowledges that the comment was not officially made by the Sacramento Self-Governance Group in any written correspondence. Responses to the Group s January 15, 2015 letter can be found in Attachment 5. Comments from Karen Klinger. At the February 11, 2015 workshop, the Board requested that Karen Klinger provide a written set of questions and requests. A written document has not been received.

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 DISCUSSION Staff proposes a format for providing direction on various sections of the Zoning Code Update. The following two tables provide the questions for Board direction. Table 1 includes carry-over items from February 11, 2014 and Table 2 has additional items. Consent topics are marked with a. Staff recommends that the Board provide direction on these items as a group. The shaded items are the focus of this hearing. Items that have further analysis and/or clarification in this report are marked with an A. Staff is not repeating analysis from prior reports. Questions A. Hearing Authority Levels A-1 Lower service stations in commercial zones from Board to PC? A-2 Lower convenience markets with extended hours in commercial zones from Board to PC? A-3 Lower driving ranges in agricultural zones from Board to PC? = Consent Topics A = Analysis Table 1 Carry-over items from February 11, Staff Recommendations = Discussion items Staff recommends that service stations be lowered from the Board to the PC. Staff recommends that convenience stores be lowered from the Board to the PC. Staff recommends that driving ranges be lowered from the Board to the PC. A-4 Lower agricultural supplies and services in AG zones from PC to ZA? A-5 Lower outdoor recreation in the RD, AR and AG zones from PC to ZA for facilities less than 150 persons? Staff recommends that agricultural supplies and services be lowered from PC to ZA. Staff recommends that outdoor recreation in the RD, AR and AG zones be lowered from PC to ZA for facilities less than 150 persons.

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 Questions A-6 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? A-7 Should private schools in RD, AR, and AG zones require a PC use permit for over 100 students (revised recommendation)? A-8 Maintain hearing authority for private social centers at Planning Commission? A-9 Lower kennels in AR and AG zones from PC to ZA? A-10 Maintain Zoning Administrator as hearing authority for gas/oil wells in agricultural-residential zones? A-11 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? A-12 Lower drive-thru restaurants from PC to ZA? A-13 Should Special Development Permits (SDPs) be heard by the Zoning Administrator, except for multifamily deviations? Staff Recommendations Staff recommends 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. Staff recommends that PC use permit be required for private schools over 100 students, with schools under 100 students requiring a ZA use permit. Staff recommends that private social centers in RD, AR and AG zones be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that kennels in AR and AG zones be heard by the ZA. Staff recommends that gas/oil wells in AR zones be heard by the Zoning Administrator. Staff recommends that thrift zones require a minor use permit and be subject to the distant separation requirements, with definition on page 11. Staff recommends drive-thru restaurants be lowered from the PC to the ZA (page 11). Staff recommends 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. A sample list of SDPs can be found in Attachment 4. A A

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-14 Should Bed and Breakfast Inns remain at Planning Commission? A-15 Should borrow pits remain at Planning Commission? A-16 Should major recycling be allowed with a conditional use permit in the Interim Agricultural Reserve (IR) zone? A-17 Should personal service uses in the BP and MP zone remain at the Planning Commission? B. Room Rentals: 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? C. Rural Institutional Findings: 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? D. Definition of Residential Care Homes. 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? Staff Recommendations Staff recommends that Bed and Breakfast Inns remain at the Planning Commission (revised recommendation). Staff recommends that borrow pits be heard by the Zoning Administrator (page 11). Staff recommends that major recycling be allowed with a PC conditional use permit in the IR (Interim Agricultural Reserve) zone. Staff recommends that personal service uses in the BP and MP zones be lowered to the Zoning Administrator. Staff recommends that a minor use permit be required for conversion of existing homes to more than four bedrooms with findings, and that four on-site parking spaces and no garage conversions be required for all homes with more than four bedrooms, and that the definition of dwelling unit and boardinghouse be amended (page 12). Staff recommends that the rural institutional finding apply to the uses in the February 11 staff report and add residential care homes over six persons that require a ZA use permit (page 13). Staff recommends that the definition of residential care home be modified as found on page 13. A A A A

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 Questions E. Fencing E-1 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? E-2 Are the provisions for nonconforming fences acceptable? F. Landscaping: 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? G. Billboards and Signage G-1 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? G-2 Are the other modified signage changes acceptable, including Gateway signage, master sign program, and promotional multifamily signage? Staff Recommendations Staff recommends that the maximum 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. See page 14. Staff recommends the provisions for nonconforming fences which allow nonconforming fences to remain as long as they are maintained. See page 15. Staff recommends 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 (pages 15 16). Staff recommends a modified standard with language found on page 16. Staff recommends that the removal ratio apply to conversion to digital billboards, regardless of size. Staff recommends inclusion of changes on Gateway signage, master sign program and promotional multifamily signage. A A A A A

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 Questions H. Design Guidelines: Are the County-wide Design Guidelines acceptable with changes noted, including use of the Active Design icon? Staff Recommendations Staff recommends the Design Guidelines with changes, including use of the Active Design icon. See page 17 for key points. A Topics I. Distance Separation Standards: Are the distance separation requirements and definitions in the attached chart acceptable? Are the findings for issuance of a minor use permit acceptable? J. Hookah/Smoking/Vape Lounges. Should hookah/smoking/vape lounges require a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator? K. Design Review Appeals. 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? Table 2 Additional Items for March 24, 2015 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the distance separation standards and definitions, and the findings for issuance of a minor use permit as found on page 18. Staff recommends that lounges require a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. See page 20. Staff recommends that staff level design reviews be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. See page 20. Staff recommends that the threshold for design review of multifamily projects be 150 units, instead of 80 units. A A A ANALYSIS Hearing Authority Levels. Tables 1 and 2 outline several items that Board members requested for discussion. The following items have been analyzed in prior reports: service stations, convenience stores with extended hours, outdoor recreation with less than 150 capacity, and kennels. Other items are discussed below. Staff would like to emphasize the role of the CPACs on controversial items. If the CPAC recommends denial of a Zoning Administrator level entitlement, then the project automatically triggers a Planning Commission hearing, with a possible appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Lowering the application to the Zoning Administrator on non-controversial projects has the advantage of saving time and costs. Supervisor Nottoli expressed a concern that an increased

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 reliance on CPAC denials may trigger more denials, and may fuel criticism of the CPAC process. In staff s view, the CPAC will recommend denial if they do not feel the project is compatible with the community regardless of the hearing body, and lowering the hearing body will likely not exacerbate the number of appeals. Staff will propose, at a later time, a strategy for memorializing the Board s deliberate intent to rely upon CPAC denials and appeals as a reasonable mechanism for separating noncontroversial items from controversial items. Thrift Stores (A-11). At the February 11, 2015 workshop, the Board discussed whether thrift shops should require a minor use permit and be subject to the distance separation requirements, and if so, what is the appropriate definition of a thrift shop. Some of the Board members were reluctant to place additional requirements on thrift stores as they are not known to generate nuisances and are an integral part of many communities, while other Board members felt that an overconcentration of thrift stores decreases the quality of a community. The request for a minor use permit for thrift shops and distance separation was addressed at Planning Commission and earlier Board meetings by members of the Foothill Farms community. The Board members felt that if thrift stores are included, then antique and consignment stores should be excluded. Staff recommends the following definition: Thrift store means a retail establishment selling donated secondhand goods, either donated to the organization or obtained in bulk from an organization collecting donations, and does not include an antique or consignment store that sells secondhand items either on behalf of the original owner, who receives a percentage of the selling price, or that have been purchased elsewhere. The Board asked whether the sale of vintage items would be excluded. The term vintage is used to describe clothing between 20 and 100 years old which is clearly representative of the era in which it was produced. Vintage clothing can be used, new (from dead stock), manufactured, and handmade. It would be difficult to separate out the sale of vintage clothing from thrift stores, so staff does not recommend adding an exclusion for vintage shops. Question: Should thrift shops require a minor use permit and be subject to the distance separation requirements? Should thrift stores be defined as described above? Drive-Thru Restaurants (A-12). One Board member requested more discussion on lowering the hearing authority of drive-thru restaurants with speaker boxes within 300 feet of a residential zone from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Administrator. Staff s experience with drive-thru restaurants is that most requests for speaker boxes within 300 feet of residential are not controversial since acoustical studies are conducted up-front to insure the location of the speaker boxes conforms to noise standards. Most requests are remodels of existing restaurants where the technology is new and less noise is experienced. If a project becomes controversial, the CPAC many recommend denial and the hearing body would be the Planning Commission. Borrow Pits (A-15). Borrow pits are short-term projects up to 200,000 cubic yards annually, typically specific to a construction project. The number of truck trips may

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 range from truck trips per day which would normally not trigger a traffic study or an EIR, dependent on the location. Borrow pits tend to be located in industrial or agricultural areas where impacts can be minimized. Borrow pits can be proposed in areas with significant environmental impacts, such as a recent proposal in Elverta with impacts on the levee system (withdrawn), but such impacts can be analyzed at the Zoning Administrator level. Room Rentals. The Board requested more information on whether the minor use permit should apply to both new and converted homes, and whether the minor use permit applies to homes with over four or five bedrooms. Staff recommends that the minor use permit only applies to the conversion of an existing single-family home to more than four bedrooms. Staff is not seeking to regulate new homes because we have not experienced any problems. County Counsel has indicated that any regulation that affects how people live together in a single-family residence has some legal vulnerability, and differentiating between conversions and new construction is legal although it may be open to challenge. Staff proposes to add two requirements for both conversions and new homes with more than four bedrooms: 1. Two additional off-street parking spaces (total of four). 2. Garage conversions not permitted. The Board had questions about the definitions of a single-family dwelling and a boardinghouse. The findings for the minor use permit would insure that 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 would not substantially change the floor plan in a manner that consists of predominately bedrooms with minimal common usable interior spaces. Staff proposes the following amendment to the definitions to support these findings: Dwelling Unit A dwelling unit shall mean one or more rooms in a dwelling, apartment house or apartment hotel designed for or occupied by one family or persons residing together as a single household for living and sleeping purposes, and having only one kitchen and separate toilet facilities. Boardinghouse A building containing not more than five guest rooms where lodging or meals are provided for three or more guests for compensation and with the intent of the operation being a profit-making business. Shall not include a residential care facility providing care to six or fewer persons, exclusive of the operator's family or persons employed as facility staff. Further, the term does not include a residential dwelling being shared by individuals who constitute a family or persons residing together as a single household. A boardinghouse would typically have predominately bedrooms with minimal common usable interior spaces. Boardinghouses are only permitted in the multi-family residential and commercial zones.

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 Question: 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 above? Rural Institutional Uses/Definition of Residential Care Homes. Board members directed that the rural institutional findings apply to the following uses, adding residential care homes to the list of uses. The findings would apply to: o Places of worship o Private social centers/fraternal Hall/Lodge o Adult day care over 36 persons o Private schools (all sizes) o Residential Care Homes for more than six persons, as these facilities are residential in nature. o Congregate care facilities o Hospitals o Social rehabilitation facilities o Colleges and universities o Bed and Breakfast Inns The findings would not apply to: o Child care centers, as they serve the local community. o Parks and Open Space. o Adult Day Care Centers fewer than 36 persons. o Family Day Care Homes (including Large Family Day Care Homes up to 14 children) o Government buildings other than State or Federal o Utility and Public Service Facility Uses, as they have their own list of criteria. The remaining discussion item is the definition of residential care home. Staff recommends the following revised definition of Residential Care Home. The existing definition is outdated with respect to terminology and the following language reflects State licensing categories. Residential Care Home A family home that is non-institutional in character and that provides 24-hour care, with or without compensation, to persons in need of personal services and

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 training essential for the protection of the individual. Includes the following types of facilities licensed by the State of California: Foster Family Homes Group Homes Small Family Homes Adult Residential Facilities for adults who are unable to provide for their own needs, including disabled persons. Care homes for the chronically ill Care homes for the elderly Transitional housing as defined by the Housing and Urban Development Department; Supportive housing as defined by the Housing and Urban Development Department, unless by nature of the facilities provided and as determined by the Director, such housing more closely meets the definition of a congregate care facility. The existing Zoning Code allows Residential Care Homes in agricultural, agriculturalresidential, and single-family residential zones by right for six or fewer persons (as required by State Law), and a Zoning Administrator Use Permit for more than six persons. Although there is currently no upper limit on the number of beds in a residential care home, the facility must be a family home and non-institutional in character. Thus, if a facility is institutional in character, then it is considered a congregate care facility or a skilled nursing facility. Use permits have been granted for up to beds in residential zones in homes that are very large but still residential in character. In the multifamily zones, residential care homes are permitted by right for up to 20 beds. Staff could not find any examples of an upper limit on the number of beds in the State Law or in other jurisdictions. Residential Care Homes with over six persons require a conditional use permit in all other surveyed jurisdictions. Staff recommends that the definition be modified with no upper limit on number of beds, and allow the hearing process to determine what is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The rural institutional findings would apply in agricultural and agricultural-residential zones. Questions: Should the definition of residential care home be modified, without specifying the number of beds, but with the finding that the home must be residential in character? Fencing. The Board requested more information on the enforceability of new fence requirements, in particular how property owners/residents would be informed of the three foot limitation when a building permit is not required. The Board expressed concerns over the three foot limitation on chain link fences since there are many chain link fences over three feet in some neighborhoods, and suggested that four feet may be more appropriate. The Board was concerned

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 15 about too many fences becoming non-conforming. Staff reviewed in more detail existing fencing, in particular the Rio Linda/Elverta and South Oak Park/Avenues area. There are many chain link fences in these areas, with a common height of four feet. There are a number of sixfoot chain link fences, especially surrounding vacant and boarded up properties, and Code Enforcement indicates that the County requires a six foot chain link fence when enforcing the Nuisance Ordinance on such properties. Staff revised the recommendation to require a maximum of three feet for solid fencing, four feet for chain link, and six feet for other open fencing such as wrought iron. The Planning Director may authorize the use of six-foot chain link fencing on a temporary basis when used to protect boarded, vacant or dangerous properties. The Building Code does not require a building permit for fences seven feet or under in height because they are not considered structures; however, staff is recommending that the height limit be six feet in the front yard. The Board inquired whether there should be a one or two foot setback from the property line to prevent a fence from encroaching on the public sidewalks. Staff recommends that fences be allowed on the property line so as not to create nonconforming fences. A setback behind the property line or sidewalk may lead to unmaintained areas. One Board member also inquired about whether chain link fences in the front yard, particularly ones over three feet in height, should be constructed with upgraded vinyl materials. Such a requirement is an option for Board consideration and would be more attractive; however, such an upgrade comes with an increased cost. Staff believes that the new fencing requirements are enforceable. The Zoning Code applies to a number of uses and activities where a building permit is not required, such as yard parking, small sheds, storage of dismantled vehicles and the keeping of animals. It is generally incumbent on individuals to check zoning requirements. If a complaint is received about a new solid fence over three feet, Code Enforcement staff would investigate using Google Street View, and request receipts as to when the fence was constructed to determine if it has non-conforming status. Most likely, complaints would be received shortly after construction so it should not be difficult to determine the date of construction. A non-conforming fence could remain indefinitely if properly maintained. If a major damage or deterioration occurs, the fence would need to be reconstructed to the new standard. Questions: Should the maximum height of fencing in residential front yards be three feet for solid fencing and six feet for open fencing (including chain link) in residential zones, and not apply to agricultural and agricultural- residential zones? Are the provisions for non-conforming fences acceptable? Landscaping: The Board expressed concerns about the requirement for tree planting in front yards for new construction depending on size of lot, in particular whether property owners are required to replant a tree if removed after initial planting. Tree planting and landscaping of residential lots applies to lots 10,000 square feet or less in size. Staff recommends that the single-family tree planting be required at the time of initial construction with language revised as follows: Front Yard Trees for Single Family Housing. At the time of initial construction of a new home, a minimum of one (1) tree shall be planted in the front yard for all single family lots.

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 For lots of 7,500 square feet or more that meet or exceed the minimum street frontage requirements measured at the public rights-of way line, a minimum of two (2) street trees shall be planted in the front yard. A related item is overall landscaping requirements for single-family residential properties. This issue has been discussed in prior Board staff reports, but staff wants to highlight here. Currently, the Zoning Code does not address front yard and side street yard landscaping, except to limit the amount of paved parking area. The Nuisance Ordinance addresses weeds and unkempt premises but does not speak to the landscaping of the yards. The draft Code ( C.4) requires: The remaining unpaved or uncovered portion of the required setback area shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained. The landscaping may consist of a combination of grass, annuals, perennials, groundcover, shrubs, trees, edible gardens, and any other recognized landscape material as approved by the Planning Director. Landscape design elements such as rocks, planters, and mulch may be used, provided that living vegetation is the primary groundcover. Irrigation may be waived in the event of mandatory water conservation measures by the water purveyor for the community in which the property is located. This provision is written so that it would apply to existing and new front and side street yards. The goal of this provision is to help beautify residential neighborhoods and minimize blight, while allowing drought tolerant and hardscape features. Billboards: The Board requested more information about proposed modifications to the ratio of existing signage to be removed with the construction of new digital billboards. The draft Code language requires that at least 25 percent of the removed signage be located in the same community. Supervisors Nottoli and Peters expressed a desire to increase that amount. Staff proposes language that both increases the percentage and provides an incentive for more of the removed signage to be from the same community or within a mile of the proposed sign (noting that a proposed sign may be at the edge of a community). The following modification is proposed: 1. Removal of Existing Billboards. For any billboard sign, the applicant must propose, as part of the application for a Conditional Use Permit, the removal of a sum total of at least four (4) square feet of legally existing billboard display surface, excluding the billboard support structure and frame, for each square foot of display surface proposed. The computation of display surface for an existing back-to-back billboard sign shall be limited to one display surface, and must result in the removal of the entire advertising display, including the support structure itself. The billboard signs proposed for removal may be located along any arterial, thoroughfare, highway or freeway within the County jurisdiction. At least percent of removed signage shall be from the same community or within one mile of the new billboard sign. Alternatively, if 100 percent of the removed signage is within the same community or within one mile of the new billboard sign, then the ratio of removed signage may be reduced to three (3) square feet of existing billboard display. In addition, at least 25 percent of removed signage shall be from a site located within a Special Sign Corridor.

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 Supervisor Nottoli expressed concerns about the required Development Agreement and that revenues should go to that community and not to the General Fund. This item should be addressed in conjunction with each Development Agreement and should not be included in the Zoning Code. Representatives of Viscom commented that the removal of existing signage should not be required with the conversion of static billboards to digital, especially for small billboard companies who may not own other signage. Staff believes that the conversion to a digital billboard is similar to a new digital billboard and that removal of existing signage will benefit communities, and that it would be unfair and of questionable legality to exclude small companies. The other changes to the sign regulations involve gateway signs, master sign programs and promotional multifamily signage. Staff will review all of the sign provisions with PBID representatives prior to the Board hearing. Questions: 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 provisions for Gateway signage, master sign programs and promotional multifamily signage acceptable? Design Guidelines: Prior staff reports have summarized proposed changes to the Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Board provide direction that the Design Guidelines are acceptable with changes outlined in prior reports and in the Master List of Comments. Below is a brief summary of comments and changes: Applicability of single-family design guidelines to various sizes of projects. The February 11, 2014, Board staff report explains which projects would be subject to design review and indicates that changes will be made to more clearly articulate the difference between Site Design and Building Design Guidelines. Multifamily privacy design guidelines. The November 12, 2014 Board staff report provided more robust language to insure privacy when multifamily projects are located adjacent to single-family residences. The multifamily setback requirement from singlefamily residential would apply to either the rear or side yard of the single-family homes. Single-family parking. A guideline will be added to insure that single-family neighborhoods do not have excessive parking side-by-side. Applicability to custom lots. Staff recommends that subdivisions over 20 lots may be exempted from Building Design Review if the entire subdivision is custom lots. Applicability to infill lots. The guidelines will be amended to clarify that construction of new homes and remodels in infill areas do not trigger design review unless the project is over 20 units or design review is required by condition of approval.

18 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 18 Operational guidelines. A number of guidelines address operational topics, such as hours of operation, waste haulers, access to healthy foods, and security. While they are not technically design guidelines, staff prefers keeping them in the Guidelines and identifying them as operational guidelines. They state objectives that could enhance the overall quality of projects and provide guidance to the hearing authority for possible conditions of approval. Question: Are the County-wide Design Guidelines acceptable with changes noted, including use of the Active Design icon? Distance Separation Requirements: The Board requested that distance separation requirements be developed for certain commercial uses where an overconcentration of such uses should be avoided. These uses include: o Hookah/Smoking/Vape Lounges (note: At the recommendation of the Sheriff, staff is recommending that this use be elevated to a Zoning Administrator Use Permit) o Pawn Shops o Tobacco Shops and Smoking Paraphernalia Shops (Smoke Shops) o Tattoo Shops o Check Cashing/Payday Loan Establishments o Thrift Stores o Adult Novelty Stores Distance separation requirements can be from a) residential zones, b) sensitive uses, c) the same use, and d) other uses in this category. Attachment 1 provides proposed distance requirements for these uses and definitions. Because each use has different characteristics, the distance separation varies. Below are key points: A provision will be added that these distance separation requirements would prevail over any provision in a Special Planning Area (SPA) unless the SPA is more restrictive. Many of these uses are located in aging commercial corridors with a SPA in place, such as North Watt Avenue, Fulton Avenue, Fair Oaks Boulevard/Carmichael, Greenback Lane, Stockton Boulevard and Auburn Boulevard. Adds vape lounges to the definition of hookah/smoking lounges. Please note that the appropriate hearing authority (minor use permit vs. Zoning Administrator level) is discussed on page 20. Combines tobacco shops and smoking paraphernalia shops into a single category smoke shop and includes a definition that the use does not include stores with less than 15 percent of the shelf life devoted to tobacco or any smoking paraphernalia and products.

19 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 19 The separation from sensitive uses includes: child day care center, library, public parks, church, community center, public or private school, designated school bus stop, or indoor or outdoor recreation facilities that are primarily designed to serve persons under the age of 18. The County Code and Zoning Code currently have distance requirements from these sensitive uses for adult uses and the sale of sex devices. This provision would extend the separation from sensitive uses to hookah/smoking lounges and smoke shops. Board and CPAC members commented that the following uses also be subject to the distance separation requirements: hydroponic shops, wholesale auto dealers, and some discount stores (e.g. 99 cent stores). In checking with Code Enforcement staff, the County does not receive complaints about these businesses so staff does not recommend adding them to the regulated uses. This provision would result in many existing establishments becoming nonconforming. Existing establishments within 1,000 feet of the same use must obtain a Certificate of Non-Conforming Use at the time of business license renewal. Attachment 2 includes maps of the current locations of these uses. Currently there are: 38 Hookah/Smoking/Vape Lounges and Smoke Shops 12 Pawn Shops 23 Tattoo Shops 72 Check Cashing/Pay Day Loan Establishments 61 Thrift Stores 8 Adult Novelty Stores and Adult Uses Board members asked whether the distance separation requirements should be from other uses on this list (e.g. 1,000 feet between check cashing and pawn shops). This is legally possible, but the administration of keeping track of all the uses has challenges. Staff is proposing that the following findings be included in the criteria for issuance of a minor use permit, in order to address this concern. These findings are revised to address comments about uses in adjacent cities. a. Commercial uses, including Massage, Hookah/Smoking Lounges, Pawn Shops, Smoke Shops, On-sale Alcohol in Restaurants, Tattoo Shops, Thrift Shops, Adult Novelty Stores and Check Cashing Establishments. Findings shall be made that: i. The property or business does not have a history of crime-related issues, and the property and business are kept in good repair and upkeep. ii. iii. Adequate measures are taken to reduce any negative impacts on residents or sensitive uses if located adjacent to a residential use or other sensitive uses, such as a day care center, school or park. The distance separation requirements of are met, including separation from residential, sensitive uses, and the same use.

20 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 20 iv. There is not an overconcentration of the following uses within 1,000 feet: massage, hookah/smoking lounges, pawn shops, smoke shops, tattoo shops, thrift shops, adult novelty stores, check cashing/pay day loan establishments, and adult uses. Overconcentration is defined as more than three of these uses within a 1,000 foot radius. The reviewing authority may approve exceptions based on physical characteristics of the neighborhood, such as the major arterials, freeways, railroads or other facilities that separate neighborhoods. The reviewing authority may also take into account the same uses located within an adjacent jurisdiction. This finding does not apply to on-sale alcohol in restaurants. These findings would also apply if any of these uses require a conditional use permit by a hearing authority. A Zoning Administrator Special Development Permit (SDP) is required if an applicant is not able to meet the separation standards. The SDP will be reviewed by the CPAC, and if the CPAC recommends denial, then the project automatically goes to the Planning Commission with appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Zoning Code amendments for massage establishments and off-sale of alcohol (liquor stores) are on a separate hearing schedule. Staff will address distance separation requirements for these uses as part of the amendment process. Questions: Are the distance separation requirements and definitions in the attached chart acceptable? Are the findings for issuance of a minor use permit acceptable? Hookah/Smoking/Vape Lounges. The Sheriff s Department reports an excessive amount of service calls to these lounges, with complaints of public drunkenness, loud music, fighting, and late hour noise. Thus, staff recommends that the hearing authority be elevated to the Zoning Administrator use permit, instead of a minor use permit. The overconcentration findings would still apply. This change will trigger CPAC review and a public hearing. If the CPAC recommends denial, the hearing authority is elevated to the Planning Commission. Question: Should hookah/smoking lounges require a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator? Design Review Appeals: Members of the Board have commented on the appeal process for design review projects, especially when the scope of the review is limited to whether the project is consistent with development standards and design guidelines. There are two aspects to consider: 1. For nondiscretionary commercial, industrial, and multi-family residential projects less than 80 units, design review is conducted by the Design Review Administrator at the staff level. Such projects are not referred to the CPACs for a recommendation and notices to surrounding property owners are not sent. A typical staff level approval has one appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. At the time of program adoption, the Board of Supervisors decided to allow for two appeals so that design review projects appealed to the Planning Commission could also have a second appeal to the Board of Supervisors. No one has appealed a staff-level design review project since the design review program began in Staff recommends a more typical process such that staff level design review has one appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

21 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 Multifamily projects over 80 units require development plan/design review by the Planning Commission with the express requirement that the review shall be strictly limited to review of compliance with the development standards set forth in this Code. Concern has been expressed that appeals of Planning Commission actions on non-discretionary projects results in unrealistic expectations for more discretion. The alternative perspective is that the Board is an appropriate level to hear community concerns even if limited discretion can be applied. In order to reduce unrealistic expectations of the process itself, staff proposes that the threshold for review by the Planning Commission be increased to 150 units on projects that do not request any deviations to the Code. This issue has been included in prior reports and discussions. Projects with less than 150 units would receive staff level approval if all development standards and design guidelines are met, and such projects could be referred to CPACs for informational purposes. Appeals of the design review would then be heard by Board of Zoning Appeals. Questions: Should staff level design review be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals? Should the threshold for Planning Commission review of non-discretionary multifamily design review projects be increased to 150 units, with appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals? Next Steps. For the next Board hearing, staff proposes to discuss agriculture and incidental agriculture (not urban agriculture) and any other items as directed by the Board. These are the last items for Board discussion based on comments received to date. After the April hearing, staff will prepare the Third Public Review Draft incorporating all changes to date shown in strikeout and bold. The Third Public Review Draft will be available two weeks prior to the final hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS Conduct the meeting as a public hearing, provide direction and continue the item to a date in April 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.

22 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 22 Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: BRADLEY J. HUDSON County Executive LORI A. MOSS, Director Department of Community Development Attachments: BY: ROBERT B. LEONARD Chief Deputy County Executive 1. Distance Separation Requirements proposed distances and definitions 2. Maps of Commercial Uses 3. Updated Master List of Comments March 11, Sample List of Special Development Permits 5. Response to Self Governance Group January 15, 2015 Letter

23 ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Distance Separation Requirements March 11, 2015 Use Separation from Residential and/or Ag-res Zones Hookah/Smoking/Vape Lounges Pawn Shops Smoke Shops Separation from Sensitive Use* Separation between the same use Definition 100 feet 1,000 feet 1,000 feet In draft Code with addition: A place of business that offers smoking from a communal pipe device known as a hookah that is typically located at each table, and is used to smoke flavored tobacco or herbal products. Also includes businesses known as vape lounges for the smoking of e-cigarettes ,000 In draft Code: An establishment wherein the business of a pawnbroker is conducted. A pawnbroker shall be any person who lends or advances money or other things for profit on the pledge and possession of personal property, or other valuable things, other than securities or written or printed evidences of indebtedness; or, who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable things on condition of selling the same back to the seller at a stipulated price ,000 1,000 New definition: Establishment selling smoking, drug, and/or traditional or electronic tobacco paraphernalia or products where 15 percent or more of the shelf space is devoted to selling tobacco or any smoking-related paraphernalia and products. Limited sales of tobacco products that commonly occur within convenience stores or service stations are not included in this definition. 1

24 ATTACHMENT 1 Tattoo Shops Use Separation from Residential and/or Ag-res Zones Check Cashing/Payday loans Thrift Stores Separation from Sensitive Use* Separation between the same use Definition 100 placing designs, letters, figures, symbols or other marks upon or under the skin of any person, using ink or other substances that result in the permanent coloration of skin by means of the use of needles or other instrument designed to contact or 100 1,000 feet In draft Code: A place of business whose principal activity is puncture the skin. 100 deposit transaction services (short term loans intended to cover a borrower s expenses until his or her next payday) and check cashing services that charge a percentage fee for 100 1,000 In draft Code: A place of business that offers deferred cashing a check. None None 1,000 New definition: Thrift store means a retail establishment selling donated secondhand goods, either donated to the organization or obtained in bulk from an organization collecting donations, and does not include an antique or consignment store that sells secondhand items either on behalf of the original owner, who receives a percentage of the selling price, or that have been purchased elsewhere. Adult Novelty Stores 100 1,000 (repeats County Code 9.50) 1,000 New definition: Establishment that, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration Instruments, devices or paraphernalia that are designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for anything of pecuniary value.. 2

25 *Sensitive uses include: child day care center, library, public park, church, community center, public or private school, designated school bus stop, or indoor or outdoor recreation facilities that are primarily designed to serve persons under the age of eighteen (18), ATTACHMENT 1 3

26

27 99 DAVIS 65TH STREET WRIGHT STREET M ORSE AVENU E TRUXEL TAVERNOR FLORIN PERKINS R OAD EASTER N NORTH AVENUE WEST 6T H STREET FAIR WEST 2ND STREET 2N D STR EET EL MODENA AVENUE NORWOOD AVENUE MARIPOSA AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE PALLADAY DRY CREEK 16TH STREET 16TH STREET 20TH ST REET 28TH STR EET 32ND STREET WATT AVENUE WALERGA GARFIELD AVENUE VAN MAREN LANE KASSER ELVERTA P L A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BWAY CAPITOL CITY 80 STATE HWY FWY BWAY 160 U.S. HIGHWAY50 INTERSTATE 80 ROSEMONT D R FOLSOM IVE S. P. R. R. OLD ROUTIER PLACERVILLE SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2a Hookah & S oking D U N T Y PASO SAN JUAN WEST RICHARDS DRIVE 80 BO U L EVARD 12TH CAMINO STREET 16TH STREET E VAR D BOUL NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' ST REET 'Q' STREET 'M' ST REET RIO LINDA AVENUE DEL PASO 160 'H' STREET 'J' STREET FOLSOM 'I' ST REET 'E' STREET ASC OT AVENUE BELL AVENUE GRAND AVEN UE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AVE BELL STREET COTTAGE WAY ARDEN ALTA EDISON AVENUE HURLEY WAY SIERRA 'U' STREET FULTON AVENUE NORT HROP AVENUE B L VD. AM ER AUBURN WHITNEY AVENUE MARCONI AVENUE EL CAMINO AVENUE EXP R E SSWAY ICAN LAR I V IERA WATT AVENUE EL K HORN MARYA L DRIV E COTTAGE WAY ARDEN WAY LA SIERRA FAIR RIVER DRI V E DON D R IV E OAKS BOULEVAR D DRI VE JULIO HILLS D A L E BOULE V A R D PALM AVENU E WALN UT AVENUE NORTH AVENUE 50 MANZANITA AVENUE 80 ANTELOPE WIND ING WAY CALIFORNIA AVEN UE DEWEY DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE FAIR OAKS SU TTER AVENUE GR ANT AVENUE LANDIS AVENUE STAN LEY WAT SON WAY GREENBACK LANE MADISON AVENUE AVEN UE AMB AS SAD OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFANDEL DRIVE OLDAUBURN OAKS WINDIN G GO LD SUNRISE CO U N T R Y KENNETH AVENUE OAK AVENUE PERSHING WAY ILLIN OIS AVENUE BEECH AVENUE BOULE VAR D HAZEL AVENUE MAIN AVENUE WHITEROCK DOUGLAS CHESTNUT AVENUEGRANITE AVENUE ELM AVENUE AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE SANTA JUANITA AVENUE AUBURN 50 RO KIEFER PA RK 14TH AVE LA N D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE LEMON HILL AVE ELDER CREEK JACKSON HIGHWAY INTERSTATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/5/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK 99 Business Type Hookah/Smoke Incorporated Areas B I G HORN BOULE VARD ELK GROVE ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN BRADSHAW EXCELSIOR GRANT COSUMNES EAGLES NEST LINE GREEN ALTA M ESA SLOUGHHOUSE DILLARD KEATING BLAKE R OAD PEACH LANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR PLUM LANE QUINCE LANE FIG CHERRY LANE ORANGE A

28 99 DAVIS 65TH STREET WRIGHT STREET M ORSE AVENU E TRUXEL TAVERNOR FLORIN PERKINS R OAD EASTER N NORTH AVENUE WEST 6T H STREET FAIR WEST 2ND STREET 2N D STR EET EL MODENA AVENUE NORWOOD AVENUE MARIPOSA AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE PALLADAY DRY CREEK 16TH STREET 16TH STREET 20TH ST REET 28TH STR EET 32ND STREET WATT AVENUE WALERGA GARFIELD AVENUE VAN MAREN LANE KASSER ELVERTA P L A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BWAY CAPITOL CITY 80 STATE HWY FWY BWAY 160 U.S. HIGHWAY50 INTERSTATE 80 ROSEMONT D R FOLSOM IVE S. P. R. R. OLD ROUTIER PLACERVILLE SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2b Pawn Shops D U N T Y PASO SAN JUAN WEST RICHARDS DRIVE 80 BO U L EVARD 12TH CAMINO STREET 16TH STREET E VAR D BOUL NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' ST REET 'Q' STREET 'M' ST REET RIO LINDA AVENUE DEL PASO 160 'H' STREET 'J' STREET FOLSOM 'I' ST REET 'E' STREET ASC OT AVENUE BELL AVENUE GRAND AVEN UE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AVE BELL STREET COTTAGE WAY ARDEN ALTA EDISON AVENUE HURLEY WAY SIERRA 'U' STREET FULTON AVENUE NORT HROP AVENUE B L VD. AM ER AUBURN WHITNEY AVENUE MARCONI AVENUE EL CAMINO AVENUE EXP R E SSWAY ICAN LAR I V IERA WATT AVENUE EL K HORN MARYA L DRIV E COTTAGE WAY ARDEN WAY LA SIERRA FAIR RIVER DRI V E DON D R IV E OAKS BOULEVAR D DRI VE JULIO HILLS D A L E BOULE V A R D PALM AVENU E WALN UT AVENUE NORTH AVENUE 50 MANZANITA AVENUE 80 ANTELOPE WIND ING WAY CALIFORNIA AVEN UE DEWEY DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE FAIR OAKS SU TTER AVENUE GR ANT AVENUE LANDIS AVENUE STAN LEY WAT SON WAY GREENBACK LANE MADISON AVENUE AVEN UE AMB AS SAD OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFANDEL DRIVE OLDAUBURN OAKS WINDIN G GO LD SUNRISE CO U N T R Y KENNETH AVENUE OAK AVENUE PERSHING WAY ILLIN OIS AVENUE BEECH AVENUE BOULE VAR D HAZEL AVENUE MAIN AVENUE WHITEROCK DOUGLAS CHESTNUT AVENUEGRANITE AVENUE ELM AVENUE AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE SANTA JUANITA AVENUE AUBURN 50 RO KIEFER PA RK 14TH AVE LA N D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE LEMON HILL AVE ELDER CREEK JACKSON HIGHWAY INTERSTATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/5/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK 99 Business Type Pawn Incorporated Areas B I G HORN BOULE VARD ELK GROVE ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN BRADSHAW EXCELSIOR GRANT COSUMNES EAGLES NEST LINE GREEN ALTA M ESA SLOUGHHOUSE DILLARD KEATING BLAKE R OAD PEACH LANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR PLUM LANE QUINCE LANE FIG CHERRY LANE ORANGE A

29 99 DAVIS 65TH STREET WRIGHT STREET M ORSE AVENU E TRUXEL TAVERNOR FLORIN PERKINS R OAD EASTER N NORTH AVENUE WEST 6T H STREET FAIR WEST 2ND STREET 2N D STR EET EL MODENA AVENUE NORWOOD AVENUE MARIPOSA AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE PALLADAY DRY CREEK 16TH STREET 16TH STREET 20TH ST REET 28TH STR EET 32ND STREET WATT AVENUE WALERGA GARFIELD AVENUE VAN MAREN LANE KASSER ELVERTA P L A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BWAY CAPITOL CITY 80 STATE HWY FWY BWAY 160 U.S. HIGHWAY50 INTERSTATE 80 ROSEMONT D R FOLSOM IVE S. P. R. R. OLD ROUTIER PLACERVILLE SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2c Tattoo Shops D U N T Y PASO SAN JUAN WEST RICHARDS DRIVE 80 BO U L EVARD 12TH CAMINO STREET 16TH STREET E VAR D BOUL NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' ST REET 'Q' STREET 'M' ST REET RIO LINDA AVENUE DEL PASO 160 'H' STREET 'J' STREET FOLSOM 'I' ST REET 'E' STREET ASC OT AVENUE BELL AVENUE GRAND AVEN UE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AVE BELL STREET COTTAGE WAY ARDEN ALTA EDISON AVENUE HURLEY WAY SIERRA 'U' STREET FULTON AVENUE NORT HROP AVENUE B L VD. AM ER AUBURN WHITNEY AVENUE MARCONI AVENUE EL CAMINO AVENUE EXP R E SSWAY ICAN LAR I V IERA WATT AVENUE EL K HORN MARYA L DRIV E COTTAGE WAY ARDEN WAY LA SIERRA FAIR RIVER DRI V E DON D R IV E OAKS BOULEVAR D DRI VE JULIO HILLS D A L E BOULE V A R D PALM AVENU E WALN UT AVENUE NORTH AVENUE 50 MANZANITA AVENUE 80 ANTELOPE WIND ING WAY CALIFORNIA AVEN UE DEWEY DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE FAIR OAKS SU TTER AVENUE GR ANT AVENUE LANDIS AVENUE STAN LEY WAT SON WAY GREENBACK LANE MADISON AVENUE AVEN UE AMB AS SAD OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFANDEL DRIVE OLDAUBURN OAKS WINDIN G GO LD SUNRISE CO U N T R Y KENNETH AVENUE OAK AVENUE PERSHING WAY ILLIN OIS AVENUE BEECH AVENUE BOULE VAR D HAZEL AVENUE MAIN AVENUE WHITEROCK DOUGLAS CHESTNUT AVENUEGRANITE AVENUE ELM AVENUE AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE SANTA JUANITA AVENUE AUBURN 50 RO KIEFER PA RK 14TH AVE LA N D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE LEMON HILL AVE ELDER CREEK JACKSON HIGHWAY INTERSTATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/5/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK 99 Business Type Tatoo Incorporated Areas B I G HORN BOULE VARD ELK GROVE ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN BRADSHAW EXCELSIOR GRANT COSUMNES EAGLES NEST LINE GREEN ALTA M ESA SLOUGHHOUSE DILLARD KEATING BLAKE R OAD PEACH LANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR PLUM LANE QUINCE LANE FIG CHERRY LANE ORANGE A

30 99 DAVIS 65TH STREET WRIGHT STREET M ORSE AVENU E TRUXEL TAVERNOR FLORIN PERKINS R OAD EASTER N NORTH AVENUE WEST 6T H STREET FAIR WEST 2ND STREET 2N D STR EET EL MODENA AVENUE NORWOOD AVENUE MARIPOSA AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE PALLADAY DRY CREEK 16TH STREET 16TH STREET 20TH ST REET 28TH STR EET 32ND STREET WATT AVENUE WALERGA GARFIELD AVENUE VAN MAREN LANE KASSER ELVERTA P L A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BWAY CAPITOL CITY 80 STATE HWY FWY BWAY 160 U.S. HIGHWAY50 INTERSTATE 80 ROSEMONT D R FOLSOM IVE S. P. R. R. OLD ROUTIER PLACERVILLE SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2d Check Cashing D U N T Y PASO SAN JUAN WEST RICHARDS DRIVE 80 BO U L EVARD 12TH CAMINO STREET 16TH STREET E VAR D BOUL NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' ST REET 'Q' STREET 'M' ST REET RIO LINDA AVENUE DEL PASO 160 'H' STREET 'J' STREET FOLSOM 'I' ST REET 'E' STREET ASC OT AVENUE BELL AVENUE GRAND AVEN UE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AVE BELL STREET COTTAGE WAY ARDEN ALTA EDISON AVENUE HURLEY WAY SIERRA 'U' STREET FULTON AVENUE NORT HROP AVENUE B L VD. AM ER AUBURN WHITNEY AVENUE MARCONI AVENUE EL CAMINO AVENUE EXP R E SSWAY ICAN LAR I V IERA WATT AVENUE EL K HORN MARYA L DRIV E COTTAGE WAY ARDEN WAY LA SIERRA FAIR RIVER DRI V E DON D R IV E OAKS BOULEVAR D DRI VE JULIO HILLS D A L E BOULE V A R D PALM AVENU E WALN UT AVENUE NORTH AVENUE 50 MANZANITA AVENUE 80 ANTELOPE WIND ING WAY CALIFORNIA AVEN UE DEWEY DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE FAIR OAKS SU TTER AVENUE GR ANT AVENUE LANDIS AVENUE STAN LEY WAT SON WAY GREENBACK LANE MADISON AVENUE AVEN UE AMB AS SAD OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFANDEL DRIVE OLDAUBURN OAKS WINDIN G GO LD SUNRISE CO U N T R Y KENNETH AVENUE OAK AVENUE PERSHING WAY ILLIN OIS AVENUE BEECH AVENUE BOULE VAR D HAZEL AVENUE MAIN AVENUE WHITEROCK DOUGLAS CHESTNUT AVENUEGRANITE AVENUE ELM AVENUE AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE SANTA JUANITA AVENUE AUBURN 50 RO KIEFER PA RK 14TH AVE LA N D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE LEMON HILL AVE ELDER CREEK JACKSON HIGHWAY INTERSTATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/5/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK 99 Business Type Check Cashing Incorporated Areas B I G HORN BOULE VARD ELK GROVE ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN BRADSHAW EXCELSIOR GRANT COSUMNES EAGLES NEST LINE GREEN ALTA M ESA SLOUGHHOUSE DILLARD KEATING BLAKE R OAD PEACH LANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR PLUM LANE QUINCE LANE FIG CHERRY LANE ORANGE A

31 99 DAVIS RO AD 65TH STREET M ORSE AVENUE TRUXEL RO AD TAVERNOR BRADSHAW FLORIN PERKINS EASTER N N O RT H AVEN UE WEST 6T H ST REET RO UTIER FAIR WEST 2ND STREET KENNETH AVENUE EL MO DENA AVENU E NORWOOD AV ENUE M ARIPOSA AVENUE EL VER ANO AVENUE PALL AD AY DRY CREEK 1 6T H STREET 16TH STREET 20 TH ST REET 28 TH STREET 32ND ST REET WATT AVE NUE WALERGA GARF IELD AVENUE VAN M AREN LANE KASSER ELV ERTA PL A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BRO AD WAY B OULEVARD CAPITOL CIT Y 80 STATE HWY FWY BRO ADWAY 160 U.S. HIG HWAY 50 INTERS TATE 80 ROSEM ONT D R F OLSOM I VE S. P. R. R. OL D PLAC ER VILL E SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2e Thrift Stores D U NT Y PA SO SA N JUAN W ES T R ICHARDS DRI VE 80 BO U L EVARD 12 TH STR EE T 16 TH STREET BOUL EVAR D C AM IN O NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' STREET 'Q' ST REET 'M ' STREET 2 ND STREET ROA D RIO LINDA B OULEVARD AVE NUE DEL PASO 160 'H' ST REET 'J' ST REET F OLSOM B OULEVARD 'I' ST REET 'E' ST REET ASCOT AVENUE BEL L AVENUE G RAND AVENUE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AV E BELL STREET WRIGHT ST REET CO T T AG E WAY ARDEN ALTA EDI SO N AVE NU E H UR L EY WAY NORT HROP AVENUE SIERRA 'U' STREET F ULT ON AVENUE B L V D. A M ER AUBURN W HITNE Y AV ENUE M ARCONI AV ENUE E L CAM INO AV ENUE EX P R E SSWAY ICAN L AR I V IE RA WATT AV ENUE ELK HORN M ARYA L DRI V E CO TTA GE WAY ARDEN WAY L A SIER RA F AIR RIV E R D R I V E D ON D RI VE O AKS B OULE VAR D D RI V E J UL IO H ILLS D A L E B OUL E V A RD B OUL EVAR D PA LM AV ENU E WAL NUT AVENUE M ANZANITA AVENUE NO RT H AVEN UE STANLEY ANTELOPE W IND IN G WAY CAL IFO RNIA AVENU E L IN CO L N AV ENU E D EWE Y DR IV E FAIR OAKS SU TT ER AVENUE GRANT AVENUE L ANDIS AVEN UE WAT SO N WAY GREENBACK LANE M ADISON AVENUE AVENUE A MB ASSA D OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFAN DEL DRIVE OLD AUBURN OAKS W IN DI N G GOL D SUNRIS E COU N T R Y OAK AV ENUE PER SHI NG WAY IL LINO IS AVEN UE BOU LEV ARD B EEC H AV ENU E HAZEL AV ENUE WHITE M AIN AVENUE DOUGLAS C HES T NU T AVE NU EGRANIT E AVENUE EL M AV EN UE AVEN UE C EN T RAL AVEN U E SANTA JUANIT A AVENUE ROCK AUBURN 50 ROA KIEFER PARK 14 T H AV E L AN D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE L EM O N HI LL AVE ELDER CRE EK JACKSON HIGHWAY BOULEVA RD IN TER STATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/2/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK BOUL EVARD 99 Business Type Thrift Incorporated Areas BI G BOULEVA RD H ORN B O ULEVAR D ELK GROVE BOULEVA RD ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN EXCELSIOR ROA D GRANT COSUMNES RO AD EAG L ES NES T R O AD LINE G R EEN RO AD ALTA M ESA S LOU G H H OUS E R OA D DILLARD KEATI NG BL AKE R O AD PEACH L ANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR RO AD PLUM LANE FIG QUINCE L AN E R OAD CHERRY LANE ORANGE RO AD AP

32 99 DAVIS 65TH STREET WRIGHT STREET M ORSE AVENU E TRUXEL TAVERNOR FLORIN PERKINS R OAD EASTER N NORTH AVENUE WEST 6T H STREET FAIR WEST 2ND STREET 2N D STR EET EL MODENA AVENUE NORWOOD AVENUE MARIPOSA AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE PALLADAY DRY CREEK 16TH STREET 16TH STREET 20TH ST REET 28TH STR EET 32ND STREET WATT AVENUE WALERGA GARFIELD AVENUE VAN MAREN LANE KASSER ELVERTA P L A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BWAY CAPITOL CITY 80 STATE HWY FWY BWAY 160 U.S. HIGHWAY50 INTERSTATE 80 ROSEMONT D R FOLSOM IVE S. P. R. R. OLD ROUTIER PLACERVILLE SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2f Adult Novelty Stores D U N T Y PASO SAN JUAN WEST RICHARDS DRIVE 80 BO U L EVARD 12TH CAMINO STREET 16TH STREET E VAR D BOUL NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' ST REET 'Q' STREET 'M' ST REET RIO LINDA AVENUE DEL PASO 160 'H' STREET 'J' STREET FOLSOM 'I' ST REET 'E' STREET ASC OT AVENUE BELL AVENUE GRAND AVEN UE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AVE BELL STREET COTTAGE WAY ARDEN ALTA EDISON AVENUE HURLEY WAY SIERRA 'U' STREET FULTON AVENUE NORT HROP AVENUE B L VD. AM ER AUBURN WHITNEY AVENUE MARCONI AVENUE EL CAMINO AVENUE EXP R E SSWAY ICAN LAR I V IERA WATT AVENUE EL K HORN MARYA L DRIV E COTTAGE WAY ARDEN WAY LA SIERRA FAIR RIVER DRI V E DON D R IV E OAKS BOULEVAR D DRI VE JULIO HILLS D A L E BOULE V A R D PALM AVENU E WALN UT AVENUE NORTH AVENUE 50 MANZANITA AVENUE 80 ANTELOPE WIND ING WAY CALIFORNIA AVEN UE DEWEY DRIVE LINCOLN AVENUE FAIR OAKS SU TTER AVENUE GR ANT AVENUE LANDIS AVENUE STAN LEY WAT SON WAY GREENBACK LANE MADISON AVENUE AVEN UE AMB AS SAD OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFANDEL DRIVE OLDAUBURN OAKS WINDIN G GO LD SUNRISE CO U N T R Y KENNETH AVENUE OAK AVENUE PERSHING WAY ILLIN OIS AVENUE BEECH AVENUE BOULE VAR D HAZEL AVENUE MAIN AVENUE WHITEROCK DOUGLAS CHESTNUT AVENUEGRANITE AVENUE ELM AVENUE AVENUE CENTRAL AVENUE SANTA JUANITA AVENUE AUBURN 50 RO KIEFER PA RK 14TH AVE LA N D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE LEMON HILL AVE ELDER CREEK JACKSON HIGHWAY INTERSTATE POWER INN FLORIN 3/5/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_Thrift_0215.mxd C O U N T Y LAGUNA U.P.R.R. FRANKLIN GERBER MACK 99 Business Type Adult Incorporated Areas B I G HORN BOULE VARD ELK GROVE ELK GROVE FLORIN C.C.T.R.R. CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN BRADSHAW EXCELSIOR GRANT COSUMNES EAGLES NEST LINE GREEN ALTA M ESA SLOUGHHOUSE DILLARD KEATING BLAKE R OAD PEACH LANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR PLUM LANE QUINCE LANE FIG CHERRY LANE ORANGE A

33 99 DAVIS RO AD 65TH STREET M ORSE AVENUE TRUXEL RO AD C.C.T.R.R. TAVERNOR BRADSHAW FLORIN PERKINS EASTER N N O RT H AVEN UE WEST 6T H ST REET RO UTIER FAIR WEST 2ND STREET KENNETH AVENUE EL MO DENA AVENU E NORWOOD AV ENUE M ARIPOSA AVENUE EL VER ANO AVENUE PALL AD AY DRY CREEK 1 6T H STREET 16TH STREET 20 TH ST REET 28 TH STREET 32ND ST REET WATT AVE NUE WALERGA GARF IELD AVENUE VAN M AREN LANE KASSER ELV ERTA PL A C E R C O U N T Y INTERSTATE BRO AD WAY B OULEVARD CAPITOL CIT Y 80 STATE HWY FWY BRO ADWAY 160 U.S. HIG HWAY 50 INTERS TATE 80 ROSEM ONT D R F OLSOM I VE S. P. R. R. OL D PLAC ER VILL E SAN JUAN AVENUE AUBURN TWIN OAKS DRIVE ATTACHMENT 2g Consolidated Map D U NT Y PA SO SA N JUAN W ES T R ICHARDS DRI VE 80 BO U L EVARD 12 TH STR EE T 16 TH STREET BOUL EVAR D C AM IN O NORTHGATE MAR YSVILLE 'U' STREET 'Q' ST REET 'M ' STREET 2 ND STREET ROA D RIO LINDA B OULEVARD AVE NUE DEL PASO 160 'H' ST REET 'J' ST REET F OLSOM B OULEVARD 'I' ST REET 'E' ST REET ASCOT AVENUE BEL L AVENUE G RAND AVENUE U.P.R.R. 80 HOWE AV E BELL STREET WRIGHT ST REET CO T T AG E WAY ARDEN ALTA EDI SO N AVE NU E H UR L EY WAY NORT HROP AVENUE SIERRA 'U' STREET F ULT ON AVENUE B L V D. A M ER AUBURN W HITNE Y AV ENUE M ARCONI AV ENUE E L CAM INO AV ENUE EX P R E SSWAY ICAN L AR I V IE RA WATT AV ENUE ELK HORN M ARYA L DRI V E CO TTA GE WAY ARDEN WAY L A SIER RA F AIR RIV E R D R I V E D ON D RI VE O AKS B OULE VAR D D RI V E J UL IO H ILLS D A L E B OUL E V A RD B OUL EVAR D PA LM AV ENU E WAL NUT AVENUE M ANZANITA AVENUE NO RT H AVEN UE STANLEY ANTELOPE W IND IN G WAY CAL IFO RNIA AVENU E L IN CO L N AV ENU E D EWE Y DR IV E FAIR OAKS SU TT ER AVENUE GRANT AVENUE L ANDIS AVEN UE WAT SO N WAY GREENBACK LANE M ADISON AVENUE AVENUE A MB ASSA D OR COLOMA DR SUNRISE SUNSET AVENUE BOUL E VARD IVE ZINFAN DEL DRIVE OLD AUBURN OAKS W IN DI N G GOL D SUNRIS E COU N T R Y OAK AV ENUE PER SHI NG WAY IL LINO IS AVEN UE BOU LEV ARD B EEC H AV ENU E HAZEL AV ENUE WHITE M AIN AVENUE DOUGLAS C HES T NU T AVE NU EGRANIT E AVENUE EL M AV EN UE AVEN UE C EN T RAL AVEN U E SANTA JUANIT A AVENUE ROCK AUBURN 50 ROA KIEFER PARK 14 T H AV E L AN D FREEPORT 24TH STREET STATE HWY FRUITRIDGE 47TH AVE L EM O N HI LL AVE POWER INN ELDER CRE EK JACKSON HIGHWAY BOULEVA RD FLORIN FRANKLIN C O U N T Y U.P.R.R. 99 MACK GERBER EAG L ES NES T R O AD IN TER STATE BOUL EVARD ELK GROVE FLORIN EXCELSIOR ROA D LINE S LOU G H H OUS E R OA D 3/2/2015S:\GIS-Data\Fringe Permits\Fringe_Permits_0215.mxd Business Type Adult Check Cashing Hookah/Smoke LAGUNA Pawn Tatoo Thrift Incorporated Areas BI G BOULEVA RD H ORN B O ULEVAR D ELK GROVE BOULEVA RD CALVINE SHELDON BOND WATERMAN GRANT COSUMNES RO AD G R EEN RO AD ALTA M ESA DILLARD KEATI NG BL AKE R O AD PEACH L ANE LA VIDA LANE PEAR RO AD PLUM LANE FIG QUINCE L AN E R OAD CHERRY LANE ORANGE RO AD AP

34

35 * Involves change to Second Public Review Draft ATTACHMENT 3 MASTER LIST March 11, 2015 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 1. What are the Amendments to Title 22 MacGlashan Design Guidelines 2. Dance Clubs vs. Dance Halls Peters Use Tables Table 3.1 Com Use C Board members want to see all CPAC comments = complete = in progress Amendments to Title 22 that remove lot design standards and move them, as necessary, to the Single Family Design Guidelines Dance Halls and Clubs are each defined on Page 7-14 but are regulated the same. * Staff recommends combining the definitions to Dance Club. All and BOS on Oct. 10; back to CPACs in Oct./Nov.; reported back to Board on Nov. CPAC Summary table sent via to CPACs criteria. Feb 11 Board agreed with revised recommendations. Are lot size exceptions still allowed? Nottoli Procedures Yes on page Minor Use Permit Fees what is it All Procedures Board letter for Oct. 21 addressed costs. based on, number of hours? 6. Clarify reduced parking for adjacency to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Serna Parking Nov. 12 Board generally supportive of concept; need to report back on specific * 7. How can you tell if a yard is unkempt or brown because of drought? Peters Landscapin g CED will need to make that determination based on each case. 8. Why reduce medical parking so much? Need more evidence. Nottoli Parking Nov.12 Board supportive of reduced requirement.

36 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 9. Why reduce the setback between multifamily and single-family; explain how the privacy design guidelines work. 10. Concern about potential projects with no height limit. Should they be heard by Board? What are the criteria? 11. Threshold for review by Planning Commission 12. Need more discussion on solid fencing height limit in AG and AR zones. Clarify setbacks for fencing in front yard. 13. Massage Establishments: two Supervisors indicated no support for MUP; two supervisors like that property owner (not just business owner) bear responsibility for the use via a MUP. Explore how to reduce costs. Can other physical features be inspected? Nottoli Peters Multifamily Standards Nottoli Multifamily Standards Hearing Level 11/12/14 Multifamily Standards = complete = in progress Nov. 12 Staff presented revised recommendation for 25/50/75 with privacy guidelines. Board generally agreed (3-2). Need to bring back discussion on * guidelines addressing whether it is side or rear of adjacent homes. Feb. 11 Board agreed with revisions. Applies to sideor rear of adjacent homes.. Nov. 12 Board agreed with staff recommendation as long as Special Development Permit is heard by Planning * Commission with appeal to Board. Nov. 12 Board directed that Planning Commission review remain at projects over 80 units. Nottoli 11/12/14 Fencing Discussion for Feb. 11. Discussion for March 24. * All 11/12/14 Use Tables Table 3.1 Com A.3.g * Discussion for Feb. 11 Meeting with massage industry representatives March ongoing discussions with industry. * 14. portable to other properties (per County Can Use Permits be portable? Nottoli 11/12/14 Procedures Use Permits run with the land and are not Counsel). 2

37 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 15. CPAC appeal procedures revised procedures need to be reviewed by CPAC s. 3 = complete = in progress All recommendation to keep preauthorization. Revised definition of community-wide interest. Board in agreement at Nov. 12 meeting. generally supportive of some regulation. 11/12/14 Procedures Reviewed by CPACs. Staff revised MacGlashan 11/12/14 Use Tables K Discussion item for Feb. 11 Board 16. * administrative permit for vacation rentals. * More discussion on room rental permits. 17. Vacation Rentals 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board supportive of 18. More discussion on yard parking and Peters 11/12/14 Parking Discussion for Feb. 11. need diagram Feb. 11 Board agreed with revisions. 19. Need design guidelines to avoid massive Serna 11/12/14 Design Staff will revise design guidelines and parking areas side-by-side in Guidelines report back on Feb. 11. * subdivisions 20. Need diagram on accessory structures All 11/12/14 Accessory Structures Discussion for Feb. 11. Feb. 11 Board agreed with revisions. 21. Service stations and golf driving ranges Nottoli 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Staff will report should be BOS level use permits. back on all hearing authority levels. March 24 discussion. 22. Reconsider 20/40/60 setback for Nottoli 11/12/14 See above. commercial, industrial and multi-family adjacent to single family 23. Address noise ordinance and ZC Nottoli 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed with new provisions language. 24. Private social centers should remain at PC 25. Massage establishments should not have MUP 26. More information on room rental permits Peters back on all hearing authority levels. 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Staff will report March 24 discussion MacGlashan 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11. All 11/12/14 See above. * * * * * *

38 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 27. Need definition of Convenience Centers and reconsider CUP in residential zones 28. Revise chart to reflect that limitations on institutional uses are intended to protect ag uses 29. Address dairies and poultry farms as compared to hog farms and feedlots. 30. Further research on congregate care in Ovale; don t want to preclude in other areas 31. Make sure allowance for craft breweries and microbreweries support farm-tofork initiatives = complete = in progress MacGlashan secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit. 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed to delete MacGlashan 11/12/14 Will revise chart. MacGlashan under the definition of general agriculture on pg 7.4, the same as the existing Code and are permitted in the AR-5 and above zones, and in the AR-1 and AR-2 zones with a ZA UP. Hog farms are permitted in the AR-5 and above zones, and up to three hogs are permitted in the AR-1 and AR-2 from Feb. 11 for rural institutiaonal for craft breweries and distilleries similar 11/12/14 Dairy and poultry farms are included zones. MacGlashan 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11. See discsuuion findings. Serna 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Draft Code allows to small wineries. 32. Massage: All 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11. * 33. All outdoor recreation should stay PC Use Permit 34. Agricultural services should stay PC Use Permit Nottoli back on all hearing authority levels. Discussion for March 24. back on all hearing authority levels. Discussion for March /12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Staff will report Nottoli 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Staff will report 4

39 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 35. Solar facilities should possibly go to Board; concern about enforcement; need to clarify between large and small solar facilities 36. Gas/Oil facilities should have hearing instead of MUP 37. More research on room rentals; lots of issues 38. Can fraternity houses be restricted to campus/ 39. Be careful about ethnic groups and room rentals; many groups share homes because they cannot afford = complete = in progress Nottoli 11/12/14 Nov.12 Solar facilities over 10 acres to be heard by Board. Minor Use permit for facilities under 10 acres. Nottoli back on all hearing authority levels. Staff recommends stay at ZA use permit. 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11 Staff will report All 11/12/14 See above. Peters and require a conditional use permit, so nuisances can be addressed. 11/12/14 Fraternity houses are typically off-campus Yee 11/12/14 Discussion for Feb. 11. Discussion for March 24. * 40. included in definition of place of Change church to place of worship All 11/12/14 Changes will be made. Short-term shelters worship. 41. Need for outreach to business interests and current shopping centers, especially on noise standards. 42. Clarify 20 minute transit service for multi-family projects 43. 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. MacGlashan 11/12/14 Outreach occurred with Grocer s Association. No opposition. Nottoli necessary to qualify for density increases. Requires 20 minute headway (each way). 11/12/ C defines the transit service All 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed with revised recommendation. * * * * * 5

40 No. Comments made by Board members at public hearing: 44. Modification of non-conforming structures. Revised recommendation to add language to prohibit conversion of non-habitable space to habitable space for portions of structures that are non-conforming. 45. Comments made by Board members on February 11 are summarized in the March 24 Board staff report. = complete = in progress 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed with revised recommendation. 2/11/15 See March 24 Board staff report. * 6

41 * ATTACHMENT 3 No. Comments made by the public at Board public hearing: = complete = in progress 1. Need copies at the Library. Julie Linderman Outreach Delivered to libraries. 2. Don t require MUP for massage. Rely Massage Use Tables See Board letter for February 11 on AB 1147 and law enforcement. industry reps Too costly for sole practitioners. 3. Overall, the Zoning Code allows for Karen Klinger Development Comment noted. too much density. Standards 4. Support for revision on winter sanctuaries to allow as incidental to churches with no parameters. 5. Massage: Continue industry meetings; do not take action until fully vetted. Sacramento Steps Forward and others Massage industry rep Changes made. 11/12/14 See Board letter for February 11 * 6. Need more information on what is changing, especially on hearing level authorities. Consider reduced parking and reduced MF setbacks. Justify 20/40/60 setback for MF. 7. Protect residential neighborhoods. Don t bump down Commercial / industrial / MF setback standards. 8. Have standards for room rentals; concern about conversion of homes to rentals with many bedrooms; owner should live there. 9. Not enough notification too much to digest. MUP penalizes small businesses. MF setbacks too close; do not override CCRs. 10. Don t rush. Why are we changing rules? Need more public input. Julie Lindemann 11/12/14 See responses elsewhere. Karen Klinger 11/12/14 See responses elsewhere. Rosemont resident Public comment Public comment 11/12/14 See Board letter for February 11. Discussion for March /12/14 See responses elsewhere. 11/12/14 See responses elsewhere. 7

42 No. Comments made by the public at Board public hearing: 11. Concern about high density housing in Arden-Arcade. William Douglass 11/12/ Opposed to modification language for Eric Stiff, non-conforming structures in Arden Arden Oaks Oaks NPA. 13. Clarify grandfathered fencing in front setback. 14. Clarify screening for cargo containers in public uses. 15. Support for modification language for non-conforming structures. 16. Small companies can t compete on a 4:1 ratio, don t have existing billboards to remove. 17. Wants to convert Highway 50 sign to digital 18. Should be more proactive on Alex Ragan 2/11/15 Connectivity connectivity standards include as a ECOS Standards default requirement 19. Negative impacts of digital billboards Alex Raganeven with offsetting revenue, etc. ECOS 20. Don t eliminate TSM plans, AQMP s Alex Raganalone are insufficient ECOS 21. ZC should support the larger vision of Alex Raganthe General Plan. ECOS 22. Correction about Sac Self Gov. Group: Pam Pinkston 2/11/15 Sac Self Governance Group = complete = in progress 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed with revised recommendation. Charlea Moore 11/12/14 See Board letter for February 11. Charlea Moore 11/12/14 See Board letter for February 11. Greg Thatch 11/12/14 Nov. 12 Board agreed with revised recommendation. Bob Townsend 2/11/15 Billboards See March 24 Board report. Dave Moran 2/11/15 Billboards See March 24 Board report 2/11/15 Billboards Comment noted. 2/11/15 TSM plans Comment noted. 2/11/15 General Plan Comment noted. Strong connectivity standards in Design Guidelines. Correction in March 24 Board Staff Report. * * 8

43 No. Comments made by the public at Board public hearing: 23. Only voice of single family homes; concern about deferred items, especially urban ag and RV parking. Does not want to park RV behind fence. 24. Too much confusion; examine chapter by chapter; clearly define what is going to affect single-family homes. 25. Need copy of flowchart. Need workshop on accessory structures 26. Need update on on-line version; allow chain link fence up to four feet; don t require trees in front yard; do not reduce parking for medical offices; be clear about hardscape and yard parking; be clear about what is grandfathered; how are flag lots addressed? 27. Supports lower hearing body for all the uses. CPAC s will appeal regardless. Pam Pinkston 2/11/15 Single-family standards Jim Baker 2/11/15 Single-family standards Karen Klinger 2/11/15 Single-family standards Debra 2/11/15 Single-family Desrosiers standards Nick Avdis 2/11/15 Hearing Bodies = complete = in progress Response forthcoming. Response forthcoming. Response forthcoming. Response forthcoming. Comment noted. 9

44 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 1. Massage tell story of what we re trying to solve. 2. Explain who would not need a MUP on massage. 3. Clarify eight units/acre design review requirement; address Bruce Walters comments 4. Would like to see Service Stations Driving Ranges to stay at Board. 5. Questioned whether the following should go from PC to ZA: ag services, kennels, drive-throughs, outdoor rec in ag zones, 6. Explain what regulations are existing versus new for massage 7. Need clarifying language for room rental permits 8. Do room rental permits apply to Clean and Sober homes? 9. Can minor use permits be nontransferrable? 10 = complete = in progress Serna Use Tables See Board letter for October 7. Nottoli Use Tables Table 3.1 Com A.3.g Nottoli Design SF Design Review Guidelines Nottoli Use Tables Table 3.1 Com H.3 pg Nottoli Use Tables Table 3.1 various sections See Board letter for October 7. Discussion for November 4. Language modified for conceptual plans. See Board letter for October 21. Discussion for March 24. See Board letter for October 21. Discussion for March 24. Peters Use Tables Table 3.1 Com A.3.g See Board letter for October 7. Serna Use K See Board letter for October 21. Standards Yee Use K Yes, the room rental permit would apply Standards to Clean and Sober homes if they involve 24. Peters Procedures Courts have held that we cannot limit the owner. 10. Are jewelers in BP zone addressed? Peters Use Tables Table 3.1. Com A.3 Would fall under Personal Services and permitted with a finding that the use is compatible with the office uses in the area. *

45 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 11. Would like to see crowing fowl/roosters addressed sooner rather than later. 12. Need stronger findings for rural institutional uses 13. Non-conforming provisions internally inconsistent. 14. Define discontinued use for nonconforming use 15. Why are we allowing non-conforming duplex lots to have duplexes? 16. Why allow mobile home as use on non-conforming lots in residential zones? 17. Rewrite last bullet to indicate that State Law requires that licensed family care homes be authorized. 18. Take out beekeeping in Table 2.5 RD- 1 zone. Peters Incidental Ag Developmen t Standards MacGlashan Use Standards A C Pg 3-59 and 3.61 Staff Response = complete = in progress Being addressed as part of Urban Status: Agriculture. Will report back on Feb. 11 with proposal for how to treat congregate in area north of Oak Ave. and to which institutional uses the findings should apply. Board gave direction on Feb. 11. MacGlashan Pg 1-11, A Amend A. to reference exceptions to when non-conforming uses can be enlarged or continued. MacGlashan Non- Conforming Uses MacGlashan Pg H MacGlashan Pg B Pg 1-11, 1.9. Add definition of discontinued use: The use shall be considered discontinued if the building space is unoccupied or if land area is vacant. Use loses its non-conforming status if discontinued for more than 90 days. MacGlashan * Pg Will delete beekeeping as beekeeping is permitted in RD * * * This is a clarification that duplexes can be built on non-conforming lots. Will add clarification that a mobile home is allowed only if certain architectural standards are met and it is thus treated as a single-family home. MacGlashan Pg 2-11, Will add clarification. * *

46 No. = in progress Comments made by Board members at briefings: = complete 19. No table numbers MacGlashan Pg 2-19 Will add table numbers. * 20. Need reference to definitions of dairy and poultry farms. MacGlashan under the definition of general agriculture on pg 7.4, the same as the existing Code. They are not called out separately like feedlots and hog farms. Permitted subject to CUP; ZA CUP for Pg 3-4 Dairy and poultry farms are included Pg 3-24 private landing strips on AG zones. 21. Airports MacGlashan Table 3.1 D use that is not permitted by State or Federal Law. This provision is not in the correct chapter and will be moved to except to delete Bee Advisory Committee. Allowed in the RD-1, RD-2, AR-1 and AR-2 zones. Larger issue will be handled under urban agriculture. Medical Marijuana- not allowed? MacGlashan 1.7 Carries forward prohibition against any Beekeeping, what is new? MacGlashan Pg 3-4 No changes to existing requirements * 12

47 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: AGRICULTURAL USES 24. Kill Floor vs. Slaughterhouse MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Pg 3-5 Pg 7-26 Pg 3-23 Table 3.1 Ag I. and Ind B Hog Farms Should they be permitted in Ag-Res (10, 5 and 2 acre zones) or Rec Reserve Zones? 26. Are restaurants permitted in conjunction with wineries via a Use Permit MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Page 3-5 Table 3.1 Ag H. MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Page = complete = in progress Kill Floor is a small-scale operation and licensed by State, and is defined in Chapter 7. Neither prior nor draft ZC included definition of slaughterhouse which includes any facility where animals are slaughtered that is more extensive than that defined as a Kill Floor. Slaughterhouse is permitted in M-1 and M-2 with Board CUP. Staff recommends continuing to allow the small scale Kill Floor facilities with a ZA permit in the Ag zones and AR-5 and AR-10 zones. Will add definition of Animal Slaughter, Tannery, and Rendering. The proposal continues the limitation for up to 3 adult hogs in the AR-2 zone and no limit in the other zones, as a normal part of an agricultural area. Rec Reserve areas are typically ag areas. Staff is not aware of problems or complaints. There are no restrictions on the number of hogs in the AR-5 and AR-10 zone. Not in agricultural areas, except that food (e.g. deli items) may be sold as an incidental use. Permitted in industrial if incidental to a business center, otherwise a ZA CUP. * 13

48 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 27. Food Processing Industry overlay zone and Canneries in the AG, UR and IR zones RESIDENTIAL USES 28. Family Day Care Home should this be permitted in an Apartment? 29. Residential Care Home in Ag-Res - is this an institutional use subject to Rural Institutional Findings? MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Page 3-5; Table 3.1 Ag N MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Page 3-7 Table 3.1 Res A.5. MacGlashan 10/6/14 Pg 3-7 Table 3.1 Res A.8 = complete = in progress This category was developed many years ago to attract a user in an ag area but was ultimately never used. Staff chose to continue to allow the ability to consider via a Board use permit and overlay zone in the event that a new food processing activity could be appropriate in the Ag zones, given food and farm focus. Otherwise, canneries are permitted in the industrial zones with a Board CUP because canneries tend to have regional impacts. The standards, F on page 3-51, require that both the small and large categories be in a lawfully occupied single family dwelling. Because we have single family homes on properties zoned for multi-family, staff recommends the use tables remain showing as a permitted use given that the standards do not allow in an apartment. Under the staff proposal, Care Homes are different than other institutional uses and residential in nature, and not subject to Findings. ZA use permit required for facilities over six homes. See discussion for Feb. 11 and March 24. * 14

49 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 30. Add footnote referencing State Law requirement that residential care homes under six persons be permitted Why are Boarding houses allowed via a use permit to the ZA in the Industrial zones? 32. Why are Fraternity/Sorority houses allowed via a use permit to the Planning Commission in the AG zones? 33. Concern regarding continued applications for urban institutional uses in Ag-res zones, particularly in Orangevale, north of Oak Avenue MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Pg 3-7, Footnote 12 MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Pg 3-7 Table 3.1 Res B.1 MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Pg 3-7 Table 3.1 Res B.4 MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Page 3-8 thru 3-11 = complete = in progress Yes; staff will reference the fact that the County is required by State law to permit * Residential Care Homes for six or fewer persons. This is a change from the existing code; staff agrees that Boarding Houses are not appropriate in the industrial zones and recommends the CZ be deleted in those * categories. Boarding Houses are defined in the Definition section. See discussion from March 24. Despite the fact that this is a carry-over from the existing code, staff agrees that fraternity/sorority houses are not appropriate in the agricultural zones and * recommends the CP be deleted in those categories. Definition will include sorority houses. Will report back on Feb. 11 with proposal for how to treat congregate in area north of Oak Ave. and to which institutional * uses the findings should apply. Board gave direction on Feb

50 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 34. Should colleges/universities be allowed in Ag-Res zones with a Planning Commission use permit? MacGlashan 10/6/14 Use Tables Pg 3-8 Table 3.1 Pub B.2. = complete = in progress Not a change from the current ZC. Because the definition is fairly broad and could include small trade or even agriculturally related schools, staff recommends allowing some flexibility with a use permit in the ag-res zones. * Staff recommends that colleges be subject to the rural institutional findings. Any dormitories would need to comply with findings (e.g. ag-oriented bunkhouses). 35. related to colleges, school or congregate Can we do a ZA UP for Ind and C-O MacGlashan Need to clarify the comment. Not sure if care. 36. Do we want more small psychiatric facilities? Why in industrial zones? 37. Only ZA use permit for wireless in Residential, not PC? 38. Ban or discourage the mono-pines and mono-palms. MacGlashan Use Tables Pg 3-10 Table 3.1 Pub E.7 MacGlashan Use Tables Pg 3-11 Table 3.1 Pub G.1 MacGlashan Use Standards This provision is a carryover from the current and allows a facility to apply for a PC CUP in industrial and C-O zones. Recommend to keep as it offers options. Per use standards in A, this is only a ZA use permit for co-locations while new monopoles (3.6.7.A (4) (ii) require a PC use permit A Add design standards that mono-pines and mono-palms need to fit in with existing vegetation in the area and are maintained. * 16

51 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: COMMERCIAL USES 39. Why only a ZA use permit for animal grooming? 40. A cattery requires a UP in Ag Zones but not a hog farm 41. Number of dogs & cats per house, show definition MacGlashan Pg a Table 3.1 Com A.1.a MacGlashan Table 3.1 Com A.1.b. = complete = in progress These uses tend to be small scale operations, and are limited to small animals and up to five days short-term boarding for domestic animals. Catteries tend to be commercial operations with traffic and parking issues. Hog farms are a customary agricultural use. MacGlashan 7.3 Add definition of pets back into definition section: Any domesticated animal which is kept for pleasure, rather than utility or sale, in a cage, terrarium, aquarium, or other confinement within a primary dwelling; or, any fish or amphibian which is kept in a pond for pleasure, rather than utility or sale; or, any domestic dog (canis familiaris) or domestic cat (felis catus) kept or generally housed on property. Up to four dogs and four cats are permitted; otherwise the premises are considered a kennel or cattery. There is no limit on the number of pets in cages or aquariums, but does not include wild animals, which are defined and regulated in the County Code. This is similar to the City of Sacramento, except they allow up to seven cats in a dwelling. * 17

52 * ATTACHMENT 3 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 42. Why is tanning called out separately from beauty shop/spa? 43. Adult uses, what is the difference between a and b? 44. Racetrack: Animal or vehicular? Or both? 45. General Financial Institutions why a ZA UP in CMZ zone? MacGlashan Pg 3-14 Table 3.1 Com A.3.b. and j. MacGlashan Pg MacGlashan Pg MacGlashan Pg 3-17 Table 3.1 Com D.1 Staff Response = complete = in progress Tanning salons are called out separately because they have at times been a front for illicit activities. A minor use permit is required in LC and GC zones. Tanning beds may be included in a spa as an Adult uses are sexually-oriented businesses such as theaters and bookstores; adult-related uses are bathhouses, escort bureaus, modeling studios, both are defined in Chapter 7. Definition includes animals, vehicles or * Change to permitted use in CMZ zone. Status: incidental use. athletes. 46. Why allow secondary auto service stations in Res zones? 47. Convenience centers need definition in RD-4 MacGlashan Pg 3-20 Table 3.1 Com H.3 Nov. 12 Board agreed to delete secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit. MacGlashan Pg 2-12 Nov. 12 Board agreed to delete secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit. 48. and oil facilities should be considered. Why gas or oil in RR & O? MacGlashan Pg 3-22 RR and O are largely ag zones and gas 49. What is moved building storage and MacGlashan Pg 3-24 This is an industrial yard where moved why not allowed as accessory use in Table 3.1 Ind C.3 buildings are stored. Appropriate for ind AG or AR? zones only. * 18

53 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 50. No mention of barns as accessory structures 51. Why are cargo containers not allowed in RD zones as accessory structures? 52. Why are remote tellers not allowed in RD zones as accessory uses? MacGlashan Pg 3-28 Table 3.2 G G MacGlashan Pg 3-30 Table 3.2 T. MacGlashan Pg 3-30 Table 3.2 U. 19 = complete = in progress Barns are included as General Ag uses on pg 3-4 or incidental ag on Table 3.2.I. For clarification, amend G. to General * Accessory Structures and reference barns in G. Per PC recommendation shown on revision sheet, cargo containers are permitted in RD zones with design * review. Must meet standards for accessory structures relating to size and lot coverage. Remote tellers are associated with commercial and should not be allowed in RD zones. 53. Definition of short-term shelters? MacGlashan Pg 3-33 Change definition of church to place of worship and include short-term shelters in definition with no parameters. 54. Beekeeping- Define nuisance behavior 55. Number of events & frequency for Farm Stands MacGlashan discussed under B., including aggressive behavior by bees defending their hive beyond the property lines. of attendees based on property size. There are no limits on the number of events or frequency, as long as the events are accessory to the agricultural use of the property. This topic was discussed at length with stakeholders as part of the agtourism Code amendment, and we do not know of abuses to date. Pg 3-35, A3 Nuisance behavior by bees is further MacGlashan Pg 3-42, H This chart has a sliding scale for number *

54 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 56. For field stands, permitting requirements items 5 and 6 are too detailed, more like project mitigation measure 57. Number of events & frequency at small wineries 58. Residential Care Homes- Is there public notice? 59. Room Rental: Difficult to enforce including payment of TOT. Don t combine. How is this difference from fraternal/sorority or boarding house? 60. What is difference between 2 a. and b. for Government Uses Other than Federal and State? 61. Should child care centers over 15 and adult day care over 36 in ag zones be subject to rural institutional findings? 62. Add 6: Proposed development is not located north of Oak Ave in Oval Plan area OR does not exceed underlying res density north of Oak Ave MacGlashan Pg I.5 and 6 MacGlashan Pg 3-44 Same as above. = complete = in progress These requirements were mitigation measures for the Code amendments. The Zoning Code was the only place to * capture them. Will examine wording to insure they are worded as standards. MacGlashan use permit is required. Pg 3-52, I Public notice is required when a minor MacGlashan Pg 3-53 Report back on Feb. 11. See discussion for March 24. MacGlashan Pg A.2.a. and b. Need to clarify 2.a. to allow Government Uses in all districts with a PC CUP. 2.b. allows Governments Uses in commercial districts the same as other allowed uses in that district. MacGlashan staff is recommending that adult day care over 36 be subject to the findings, but child care centers not be subject to Report back on Feb. 11. Board gave Pg 3-60, A Pursuant to the October 21 Board letter, findings. MacGlashan C Concern is for congregate care facilities. direction on Feb Dependent park districts MacGlashan Pg 3-63, 3.6.6B Will add dependent. * * * * * 20

55 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 64. Small wind turbines -why permitted in all zoning districts? 65. Why landscaping requirement for large wind turbines? 66. Prohibit monopoles guised as fake trees 67. Question regarding whether existing outdoor displays become nonconforming; e.g. business in Sheldon, MacGlashan Pg 3-69, D(2)(a) Definition on page 7-50 MacGlashan Pg 3-72, D(3)(g) = complete = in progress Small wind turbines are defined as wind turbines rated 20KW or less, and designed to produce no more than what is necessary to meet on-site energy demand. Standards on height, setbacks and aesthetics are included. The purpose is to encourage renewable energy production as a sustainable practice. The purpose is to soften the ground level view of turbines as seen from the street or adjacent properties. MacGlashan and mono-palms need to fit in with existing vegetation in the area and are the current requirement. Existing businesses with outdoor display are either non-conforming or illegal. Staff will check on Sheldon business. Pg 3-73 Add design standards that mono-pines maintained.. MacGlashan Pg 3-78, A This outdoor display provision repeats MacGlashan Pg 3-79, Staff recommends that existing C(a & b) separation standards be deferred. 68. that indoor recreation over 300 person capacity needs a ZA UP. These larger facilities tend to have tournaments and potential parking and noise issues. Crematory-is a 500 foot separation from residential zone enough? 69. Why a UP for Indoor Rec facility? MacGlashan Pg 3-80 The Revision Sheet includes a provision * * 21

56 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 70. Adult uses- sex devices, incorporate in ZC where you can rent or sell 71. Add location of school bus stops to distance requirements for adult uses. 72. Why are requirements for convenience stores less restrictive in residential zones than CMU? Secondary service stations should not be allowed in residential zones. 73. Does the prohibition of merchandise in conjunction with new and used auto sales apply to existing operations? 74. Define overconcentration of service stations. 75. Is the required canopy structure height too low since all new stations request a deviation? 76. Mini Storage - is CUP to PC new? Is CUP for entire operation or per container? = complete = in progress MacGlashan establishments that sell sex devices have certain distance requirements similar to * adult business (but not the same). Staff will incorporate these distance requirements into the Zoning Code. * secondary service stations but keep in convenience stores with PC Use Permit. * Pg 3-80, C County Code Chapter 9.50 requires that MacGlashan Pg 3-81 Staff will add in, and also consult with C.2. County Counsel. MacGlashan Pg 3-85, A. Nov. 12 Board agreed to delete MacGlashan Pg 3-87, B Yes. MacGlashan Pg 3-88, C.2.a.iii Determining if there is an overconcentration of service stations, especially if there are vacant ones in the vicinity, is a judgment call by the Planning Commission in conjunction with a discretionary use permit. MacGlashan * Board direction to modify on Feb. 11. storage operation and is for new projects. Individual containers are permitted if incidental to industrial use. Pg 3-91, Staff will research common canopy C.2.l heights and modify Code as appropriate. MacGlashan Pg 3-96, B The CUP applies to the entire ministorage 22

57 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: = complete = in progress 77. in GC, M-1 and M-2 zones. separation standards be deferred. Bus Depots clarify allowed zones MacGlashan Pg 3-98, Will clarify that bus depots only allowed 78. Hazardous Waste Facilities is 500 ft. MacGlashan Pg 3-98, A Staff recommends that existing separation too close? separation standards be deferred. 79. Junk tires how is 30 day removal MacGlashan Pg 3-99 Monitoring of 30 day removal would be monitored and is 500 ft. separation B.2. b and done as part of enforcement action. enough? g. Staff recommends that existing 80. Why is there a 1,000 foot distance requirement for major recycling inconsistent with other uses 81. Define convenience zone for recycling facilities 82. (5)(a) Why this ordinance? Why phrased that way? Needs a date. 83. Accessory structures - If over 14 ft. height limit needs an entitlement 84. Home occupations - (4)(c) Phone answering etc. obsolete 85. Home occupations what about Uber or Lyft? 86. House cleaning, swimming pool cleaning, locksmith - why only part time? 87. (6)(c)How is a boarding house different from room rental? MacGlashan Pg D.1.c MacGlashan Pg D.3.a MacGlashan Pg D.5.a MacGlashan Pg F.1 MacGlashan Pg F.4. MacGlashan Pg F.5.h MacGlashan Pg MacGlashan Pg F.6.c. 23 * Staff recommends that existing separation standards be deferred. Convenience zones are defined by the State as areas within ½ mile of grocery stores. We now have this information on GIS. Will be clarified with update of Recycling Ordinance separate process. Clarify that two story accessory structures need entitlement and * reference exceptions for AR and AG zones. Recommend keeping in as there are still similar operations. Uber and Lyft would be subject to F.4 as office only. The part-time only should be changed to office only. * This section will be modified to reflect new provisions on room rental. *

58 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 88. (6)(f) Home occupation what about bible study? Does it mean charging a fee? 89. Bus Shelters need to reference other transit providers 90. Cargo Containers in AR zones - why 2 acres and why not AR-1? 91. Temporary uses - list includes very different uses, then says or similar. How would that work? 92. Mobile homes for persons in need of care -define mental handicap MacGlashan Pg F.6.f MacGlashan Pg N.1 MacGlashan Pg T.1 MacGlashan Pg L MacGlashan Pg H.2.a = complete = in progress This section prohibits someone from operating a church in their home. Will change to place of worship and delete * religious instruction to clarify that private bible study would not be affected. This section will be revised to reference * other transit providers. Allowed in AR-2 and AR-1 if the parcel size is at least two acres. Cargo Containers on parcels less than two acres * in any zone are allowed per the Planning Commission s recommendation with design review to insure compatibility. This is existing language and gives Zoning Administrator some latitude in determining similar uses. This section needs to be changed to reference disabled in lieu of handicapped. Disability for physical or * mental reasons is determined by the physician. 93. Food Processing combining zone -why a UP for change of ownership? MacGlashan Pg 4-6, Reference to change of ownership should be deleted. 94. Air Pollution Control -should you just MacGlashan Pg 4-7 Should be changed to refer to AQMD refer to AQMD permits? A.6 permitting. 95. Define or spell out BOD MacGlashan Pg 4-9 BOD changed to Biochemical Oxygen B.1.b.i Demand. * * * 24

59 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 96. Food processing -action by Board of Supervisors - how does this section compare to other Ag counties? 97. Mobile Home Parks- why allow in a higher density res zone? 98. Update the list of Natural Streamssome are in Citrus Heights, and add a map 99. Aggregate mining -add truck mgt plan to D Aggregate mining -Is 24-hour covered by this? 101. Aggregate mining on appeal -can the Board override? 102. Acc structure- complaints and fire hazard when on property lines 103. What is difference between subsection 3 and 1? = complete = in progress MacGlashan Sacramento County. We recommend keeping as there may be opportunity for unique uses. Yolo County allows with conditional use permit. or RD-30 zone would need to comply with Housing Element and not affect the Pg 4-10, E. The FP overlay zone has not been used in MacGlashan Pg 4-11, A Any proposal for a MHP overlay in RD-20 Housing Inventory. MacGlashan Pg 4-15 & A Will update to delete Natural Streams not in County. NS overlay zones are shown on zoning maps. MacGlashan Pg 4-40 Will add truck management plan to this section. MacGlashan Pg 4-42 Yes A.3,4 MacGlashan Pg 4-61 Change to allow for overrides D.3 MacGlashan Pg 5-8 Uniform Building Code allows structures hazard. MacGlashan Pg 5-9, F3 Subsection 3 intends to clarify that if the standards. * * * 25

60 ATTACHMENT 3 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 104. Is 150 feet the maximum for any commercial building? MacGlashan Pg C Do we have a list of approved trees? MacGlashan Pg C Is approval required for landscaping for every new SF dwelling? If yes, Roberta is not Ok MacGlashan Pg C.4 = complete = in progress This provision includes a maximum of 150 feet for commercial buildings. Similar to multi-family, staff will include a * mechanism to exceed 150 feet in urban areas. The County Improvement Standards contains a list of approved trees in the public right-of-way. The list of landscape * trees for private property will be an appendix in the Design Guidelines. Each home does not need prior approval. This provision will be complaint driven Clarify any tree. May be overkill. MacGlashan Pg 5-21, 2A This applies to any tree that was required as part of a landscaping plan If a building permit is not required, how do we enforce visibility requirements? 109. If a building permit is not required, how do we enforce the requirement for permitted materials? 110. If a building permit is not required, how do we enforce the requirement for three foot fences? MacGlashan Pg A.1 MacGlashan Pg A.6 Enforced on a complaint basis. Enforced on a complaint basis. MacGlashan Pg 5-24, B1 Enforced on a complaint basis Fences in MF projects adjacent to MacGlashan Pg 5-24, ROW. How does this work with a C.1.a grade or noise mitigation? 112. What about outdoor kitchens? MacGlashan Pg G 26 Sound walls have setback and height standards per E. Some projects have received exceptions. Need to clarify this section that outdoor kitchens are exempt. *

61 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: = complete 113. First sentence typo MacGlashan Pg 5-50, Will be corrected. * 114. (ii) Height of 8 ft. fence MacGlashan Pg 5-62 Typo should be width. * B4.a.ii 115. Shopping carts why included under institutional uses MacGlashan Pg 5-69, E Will delete. Not applicable. * 116. What is combination of principal uses for parking requirements? 117. Parking of inoperable vehicles - can they be in backyard? MacGlashan Pg C.2 MacGlashan Pg G Pg P. This section requires that parking requirements be additive unless a shared parking reduction is approve per C. Standards for outdoor parking of inoperable vehicles found in Chapter 3. One vehicle behind a fence on lots greater than 10,000 square feet, and 15,000 square feet for two Table MacGlashan Pg 5-76 Need to clarify the comment Tandem parking for day-care homes MacGlashan Pg 5-86 Need to manage tandem parking for nonresidential and non-residential -why full-time attendant? D uses Parking area lighting may not be business-friendly; is this complaint based 121. How are trip reduction requirements business friendly, esp. showers and lockers, and onsite and fulltime transportation coordinator? MacGlashan Pg G.1 MacGlashan Pg 5-94 thru Yes, complaint driven. New lighting provisions were discussed at Nov. 12 Board workshop. These are long-standing requirements and important to reducing reliance on auto trips. Supervisor Serna has requested of review of TSM measures. Staff recommends that any reconsideration of TSM Plans be a deferred item. 27

62 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 122. Who decides what a generally acceptable religious symbol on church signs is? 123. Why can t gas station price signs be horizontal? MacGlashan Pg G MacGlashan Pg A.5/ 124. CPAC Appeal process what happens if pre-authorization is in the pipeline? MacGlashan Pg A 125. For automatic extensions -why Dec. MacGlashan Pg th vs Dec. 31 st? C 126. Add feet MacGlashan Pg C (2)(a) 127. What is the adequate measures MacGlashan Pg 6-19, C relating to findings for minor use (2)(b)(ii) permits? 128. Define convenience center MacGlashan Pg E.2.b Relocation of eligible tenants in condominium conversions why use complex, what if moving to a house? MacGlashan Pg I.3 28 = complete = in progress This decision would be under the purview of the Planning Director with appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals if a dispute occurs. We know of only one dispute which was part of a use permit request. They can be horizontal but they need to be state-mandated visibility requirements. Many locations have difficulty meeting visibility with horizontal signs. The Board directed to keep preauthorization. * If the project expires on Dec. 31, then an extension is irrelevant. Done. * Determination by the Zoning Administrator of measures to protect sensitive uses, such as fencing, landscaping, and operating hours. Will be based on comments received as a result of public notice. Same thing as convenience stores per Table 3.1 Com G.4. Will change this reference to store. Will change to residence. * *

63 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 130. Relocation assistance for elderly with 59 year lease? What is definition of elderly? MacGlashan Pg I.4.d. = complete = in progress Elderly is generally defined as 55 years or older. This relocation assistance also applies to disabled persons so it is conceivable that a younger disabled person may need a 59-year lease Appliance warranties -covered elsewhere MacGlashan Pg 6-27, L Did not see where the one-year warranty was covered elsewhere Are inspections legal? MacGlashan Pg 6-54, B Long-standing practice. Inspection 133. Abatement costs - process changed to MacGlashan Pg 6-58 Yes, will revise. admin Hearing? B Is the authority to arrest supposed MacGlashan Pg 6-59, G Changed to Director the Dept. of to be deleted? Community Development TSM requirements Serna and MacGlashan Design Guidelines 136. This is not full track changes version. There are changes in this version that are not strikethrough/redline Design Guidelines Chapter 1: Clarify which projects with Building Permits require non-discretionary design review. Staff will review requirements and report back. Staff recommends that any reconsideration of TSM Plans be a deferred item. MacGlashan 1.0 Need to check on versions. MacGlashan are outlined in A. We will 1.2 The projects that require design review cross-reference. * * * * 29

64 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 138. DG Chapter 2: Need to clarify which developments are subject to singlefamily review. What about custom lots? How do DGs interface with CCRs that have architectural review? Do they apply to parcel maps? 139. Need to acknowledge that street connections to adjacent neighborhoods are not always acceptable to neighbors Bullet about health benefits is not a guideline Is grading restrictions retroactive if project approved but not yet developed Why orient homes toward public streets if existing homes don t orient this way Under the Design Principle, define which infill homes are subject to design review Does the guideline for new two-story residential buildings adjacent to existing single story apply to all? = complete = in progress MacGlashan project it does not apply to. Need to evaluate whether this applies to custom lots in subdivisions over 20 units, and how to coordinate with a HOA if one exists (e.g. Rancho Murieta). Site Design applies to parcel map; Building Design 2.0 Amend this section to clarify which does not. MacGlashan st bullet This is a design objective and not mandatory. Staff would like to keep in as written so that the hearing body would need to acknowledge special circumstances if street connections are not made. This bullet is redundant of and will be deleted. MacGlashan Last bullet MacGlashan No, as long as approval doesn t expire. MacGlashan th bullet MacGlashan This is a design objective. Hearing body may approve something different for unusual cases. Amend to clarify On projects that are subject to design review per Would not apply to all infill homes. MacGlashan We will clarify this only applies to projects subject to design review, not all new two-story structures. * * * * 30

65 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 145. Will design guidelines require approval of colors? 146. Will we review roof forms of additions? 147. Does six foot depth for entry features apply on small lots? 148. Landscaping adjacent to sound wallwould this apply to Antelope Condos? MacGlashan a 5 th bullet MacGlashan b 5 th bullet MacGlashan c 2 nd bullet MacGlashan th bullet 149. Not worded as guidelines MacGlashan th bullet 10 th bullet 150. What is the definition of hierarchical landscaping treatment? 151. Doors, porches stoops security concerns? 152. Does the requirement for open space apply to high-rises? MacGlashan Connectivity 9 th bullet MacGlashan Street elevation 2 nd bullet MacGlashan nd bullet 9 th and 10 th 31 bullet = complete = in progress Review of colors would only apply to projects that are subject to Building * Design review (over 20 units). We will clarify this section. No, this guideline should be deleted as * the guidelines do not apply to additions. Yes, this would apply to small lots; guideline provides for shallower depths with justification. This would apply to all new projects. Antelope Condos was unique because Antelope Road was to be converted to a parkway. Bullet to be reworded. * This term refers to the need to provide more substantial landscaping at major entries, with lesser treatment at minor * entries. We will reword to clarify this term. Doors and porches visible to street should provide eyes on the street. We will add clarification that individual private open space can be substituted by common facilities, esp. for higher density projects. Will combine the three bullets to clarify. *

66 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 153. What about no height limit and no upper limit on density, and need for private open spaces Disagree with lower standard for affordable housing, such as 90% and no covered parking 155. Parking for affordable housing- should lowering to 90% be in Zoning Code. Car share programs not a design guideline Installation of required landscaping not a design guideline Putting HVAC on roofs with solid fence doesn t make sense. MacGlashan Height Limits 2 nd bullet Density 1 st bullet MacGlashan th bullet MacGlashan Parking 14 th bullet MacGlashan Landscaping 15 th bullet MacGlashan Services and utilities 2 nd bullet = complete = in progress See above. The guideline that allows parking for affordable housing to be lowered to 90% is inconsistent with Zoning Code and we will delete. The Zoning Code allows for a waiver to the requirement for covered parking for affordable projects. Staff recommends that the waiver be maintained. The sentence about car share programs is an operational guideline; see discussion about operational guidelines. Yes, should be added to Zoning Code. This guideline supplements required landscaping by recommending certain types of trees in high traffic areas. Will clarify that screening with wall or landscaping applies if HVAC can t be located on the roof. * * * 32

67 ATTACHMENT 3 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 158. Use of waste haulers not a design guideline Add: Issues: 5. Lack of landscaping Design Opportunities 6. Add landscaping 160. What is commercial project? Is it one building or a center? MacGlashan Trash and Recycling 4 th bullet MacGlashan Aerial in 4.1 Good additions. MacGlashan rd bullet And throughout this Chapter. = complete = in progress This guideline is intended to encourage use by MF developers of haulers that use green practices. Will move to operational guidelines. See discussion about operational guidelines. A project can be one building or multiple buildings in a center. * 161. Loehmann s is not facing a street. MacGlashan Photo of Loehmann s under Is the wording consistent with Zoning Code? 163. Change Regional Transit to transit provider 164. Provide transit information not a guideline Use of certain waste haulers not a design guidelines MacGlashan th bullet MacGlashan nd bullet MacGlashan th bullet MacGlashan h bullet We will clarify. Delete reference to one tree per eight parking spaces and say consistent with Zoning Code. Will do. See discussion about operational guidelines. See discussion about operational guidelines. * * * 33

68 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 166. Define cabinet sign MacGlashan th bullet 167. Operational Elements - not design guidelines 168. Reference to utilizing existing neighborhood businesses not a design guidelines 169. Change Regional Transit to transit provider within a 10 minute walk what is there is no transit. = complete = in progress A cabinet sign is a lighted sign with lighting internal in a cabinet structure, as differentiated from channel signs where each letter is individual. MacGlashan number of guidelines that address operational topics, such as hours of operational, waste haulers, access to healthy foods, and security. While they are not technically design guidelines, staff prefers keeping them in and identifying them as operational guidelines. They state objectives that could enhance the overall quality of projects and provide some guidance to the hearing authority for possible conditions of approval. Throughout the guidelines, there are a MacGlashan Agreed: this sentence will be deleted. 2 nd bullet, second sentence MacGlashan Will do. 1 st and 3 rd bullet MacGlashan nd bullet The guideline makes more sense if the 10-minute walk is deleted. * * * 34

69 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 171. What are River Friendly Landscape Designs? MacGlashan th bullet 172. The wording is not a guideline. MacGlashan th bullet 173. What about safety of rear parking? MacGlashan Diagram 35 = complete = in progress The River Friendly Landscape Design Guidelines were developed by the Sacramento Storm water Quality Partnership to provide guidance on the protection of Sacramento s waterways, with a focus on reducing waste and minimize chemical use. They * supplement the Stormwater Quality Control Manuel. This sentence will be reworded to say Use of the River Friendly Landscape Design Guidelines... : and these guidelines will be referenced in the appendix. Will be reworded to reference * requirement in Zoning Code. Parking in the rear with a street-forward building design can be designed to be safe with proper lighting and visibility. See discussion on operational guidelines Use of certain waste haulers not a The track edit version in the folder is MacGlashan design guidelines 3 rd bullet 175. What about signage for corner MacGlashan Will clarify by indicating two elevations if buildings? 1 st bullet corner building Wrong version of track edit Chapter 6 MacGlashan Need to check which version she has. correct Add to description of aerial: Issues: 4. Lack of landscaping Design Opportunities: 4. Add landscaping MacGlashan Aerial after 6.1 Good additions. * *

70 No. Comments made by Board members at briefings: 178. Reference to fresh food and colocation of resident services not a guideline 179. Provide transit information not a guideline Use of certain waste haulers and providing recycling 181. Questionable whether this is a guideline and if so, should reference affordable housing instead of housing for lower income households. MacGlashan Last 2 bullets MacGlashan rd bullet MacGlashan th and 6 th bullets MacGlashan th bullet 182. Redundant wording MacGlashan st bullet = complete = in progress See discussion on operational guidelines. See discussion on operational guidelines. See discussion on operational guidelines. Staff believes this should be kept in as a cross-reference to the Housing Element. Will change to affordable housing. Change to... shall support the community master plan goals. * * 36

71 No. Other Comments: 1. Delete requirement that attached accessory units have interconnection to primary dwelling. 2. Amend New Communities Design Guidelines. 3. Amend allowance for reduced lot size and setbacks of 15% with future ROW 4. Clarify that that CPAC denial on ZA items triggers PC hearing on both residential and non-residential projects. 5. Clarify that SF Design Guidelines do not apply to existing residences 6. Reorganize Density Bonus provisions so that they are in one place. 7. Amend Landscaping provisions with minor edit per Landscape Architect. 8. Revise multi-family design guidelines on privacy. 9. Add Primary Processing of Agricultural Products to Use Tables Clarify the definition of Incidental ag regarding personal use. 11. Clarify to allow for refund of fees based on unspent funds. 12. Provide the resource used for the new standard language. Paul Menard 37 = complete = in progress Staff agrees this requirement * serves no useful purpose and recommends deletion. Jim Wiley * new communities will substantially conform to Amend Chapter 7 to clarify that guidelines Brian Change to be made. * Holloway Staff Clarification will be made. * Jim Baker Amend Design Guidelines to clarify. * Staff Reorganization will be made in * Final Draft. Staff Changes to be made. * Staff with new language. Amend language consistent with Farm Bureau comments. See Board letter for Nov. 12 * Staff Line item inadvertently left out. * Staff Item for April. Staff Existing Code not consistent with current practice and needs to be amended. Farm Bureau Feedlots Pg 3-40 This section will be deleted as there is no basis for new requirements. * *

72 No. Other Comments: 13. Add to this section on wineries, language to allow distilleries and breweries in AG and AR zones by right based on provisions in section E.Specialty/Craft Brewery. 14. Provide the background at arriving to the number of beds in group quarters (36 beds) or single-family, household units or spaces (12). 15. Non-agricultural uses in AG and AR is problematic. We thank County staff for identifying findings for which the Planning Commission must make before issuing a Conditional Use Permit. We request as an additional finding that the Agricultural Commissioner review the development and identify potential impacts to surrounding agricultural operations. The development should not impact agricultural business. Farm Bureau Farm Bureau Farm Bureau 3.4.8, Small and Large Wineries Pg B. Farm Worker Housing Pg Assembly Uses Pg = complete = in progress Breweries and distilleries will be * added to agtourism regulations. Research in progress. * See Board letter for clarification on uses that rural institutional apply to. Staff will revise distribution procedures to include Agricultural Commissioner. * 38

73 No. Other Comments: 16. a. We agree with the new language on standards for solar facilities. b. We would request that Accessory II (ground mounted solar panels) be permitted by the planning director as a building permit. These facilities directly relate to improving the agricultural operation. c. Commercial 1 (less than 10 acres) projects require a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. These facilities will continue to convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, which impacts the overall agricultural economy. d. To support and enhance agriculture in Sacramento County, we request the permitting process be streamlined for Accessory Solar Facilities that are used to enhance agricultural operations. Current level of approving requirements for Commercial 1 should be maintained at requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Doing this will lessen the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses which closely aligns with the General Plan. Farm Bureau C. Solar Energy Facilities. = complete = in progress a. Comment noted. b. Staff agrees and will amend accordingly. c. In the draft Code, Commercial I require a minor use permit, and will trigger CEQA review along with evaluation of impacts to agricultural lands. This provision allows farmers to construct a small scale facility for both their own use and also sell to the grid. d. Staff will amend to allow ground mounted accessory facilities by right. * 39

74 No. Other Comments: 17. Bed and Breakfast Inns are incompatible with agriculture, thus the reason why Farm Stay Operations were developed to expand the understanding of agriculture. Bed and Breakfast Inns should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in AG and AR zones. 18. Borrow mining is incompatible with agriculture and can cause impacts to neighboring agricultural operations. Borrow mining should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission due to the potential adverse impacts to surrounding land owners. 19. We support the complementary agricultural activity of crafting beer from crops in AG and AR zones. 20. a. Major Recycling Facilities should be located solely in Industrial Zones. Placing them in AG Zones, even if the potential future use might be industrial in the future, is incompatible with agriculture. Major Recycling Facilities should not be allowed in IR. b. There is greater compatibility with Greenwaste Facilities and agriculture and would agree to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission in the AG zones. Farm Bureau Farm Bureau Farm Bureau Farm Bureau A Bed and Breakfast Inn Pg A Borrow Mining, Shortterm 3.8.2E. Specialty/Craft Brewery D. Recycling Facilities = complete = in progress Staff agrees and will amend * accordingly. In the draft Code, borrow mining would require a Zoning Administrator Use Permit, which still involves a public hearing, CPAC review and environmental document. If CPAC recommends denial, project is heard by Planning Commission. Staff will amend accordingly. * a. In the draft Code, major recycling facilities would only be allowed in the IR zone with a CUP. This reflects the current allowance for asphalt and concrete recycling in the IR zone. Impacts to agriculture will be evaluated through the CEQA process. Discussion items for March 24. b. Comment noted. 40

75 No. Other Comments: 21. AG and AR zones should be exempt from being required to show a certificate of occupancy. 22. a. We support the allowance by right primary processing of agricultural products up to five-acre footprint in the AG zones, and up to one-acre footprint in the AR 5 and AR 10 zones. b. We oppose fencing requirements of any kind in the AG and AR zones. Specifically, the on-going discussion of requiring solid fencing to be limited to three feet. c. In addition, Rural Institutional Findings should apply to colleges and private schools of any size. When Rural Institutional Findings are required for any development, the Ag Commissioner should be provided the opportunity to comment. The Ag Commissioner comments should be used in the permitting decision. d. Moreover, developments in AG and AR zones that convert agricultural land to nonagricultural uses should either be Not Permitted or require a Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the specific referenced sections above, those activities like RV Parks, rehabilitation centers, schools, lodges/fraternal halls should not be Farm Bureau Farm Bureau C. Dwelling, Agriculture Accessory = complete = in progress Staff agrees and will amend * accordingly. a. Staff agrees and will amend accordingly. b. Staff agrees and will amend accordingly. See February 11 Board letter. c. Staff agrees and will amend accordingly. See February 11 Board letter. We will modify distribution to include the Ag Commissioner. d. Staff believes there are some instances where these uses may be appropriate where they do not impact ag lands, and should be allowed with a CUP. Discussion for April. * * *

76 No. Other Comments: permitted. They are incompatible with agriculture and foster future development. If Sacramento County was a remote area of California, where driving to such facilities would take hours, it could be understood that such services should be brought to rural areas. But this is not the case, and driving to town is an acceptable practice for rural residents; conversely, urban residents will not drive to rural areas of the County to access such services. This philosophy directly relates to the County General Plan and the purpose of the Agriculture Element. 23. Tobacco Retailers Breathe California = complete = in progress Staff will add distance requirements for tobacco retailers. See Board letter for February 11. Discussion for March 24. * 42

77 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 1. The Rio Linda CPAC had some concerns about not allowing preauthorization. However, after much consideration they don t oppose if the timeframe is longer (15 days) to give enough time to meet and possibly notice neighbors. As a side note, they strongly support projects going to the CPACs early for early input. 2. Rural Institutional Findings shouldn t apply to churches since the use permit process allows issues to be addressed. They support trying the new findings with a suggestion to check back in after some period of time to Board with an evaluation of their success and need for tweaks. 3. Discussed whether Kennel CUPs should remain at the PC instead of ZA. After some discussion, concluded that the CPAC denial automatically elevating to the PC would work. 4. Spent some time discussing the residential MF 20/40/60 setback issue. Some concerns but listened to the staff perspective on design. Might be ok with some change from 100-feet if privacy issues are stringently met. Rio Linda / Elverta CPAC Rio Linda / Elverta CPAC Rio Linda / Elverta CPAC Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 = complete = in progress * CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. Rural Institutional Findings See Board letter for February 11. * Kennels See Board letter for February 11. MF Development Standards On November 12, The Board directed a 25/50/75 foot standard. * 43

78 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 5. Limit of 36 inches particularly in AR and AG zones, but also Residential zones. Understand the intent of improving the appearance of neighborhoods and support that intent. However, strongly want grandfathering of existing fences because of so many non-conforming situations in their community. Also, the provisions should recognize unique circumstances such as existing older homes built close to busy streets where noise and headlight impacts within the home without fence screening. 6. Discussed the status of the current proposal. One new idea consider a pass/fail placard like for restaurants as a mechanism to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate operations. Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 = complete = in progress Fencing See Board letter for February 11. See discussion for March 24. Massage establishments See Board letter for February 11. Massage became a separate item. 44

79 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 7. Noted that there are hundreds of cargo containers existing in their community so enforcement will be a challenge. Three favored limit at 2 acres; one opposed. Significant concern about an existing container long used in a park site, that screening will not be feasible due to other site conflicts. Discussed with staff instead of strict screening requirements in parks and schools, instead a lower cost ($166) design review process to address aesthetics balanced against site specific situations. 8. Room and vacation rentals discussed but no specific comment. 9. Desire a larger notification area than 500-feet for rural areas and also possibly for very large projects (relationship between project size and notification size). 10. Group supports moving forward with the code amendments but also favors a check-in with Board after some short period to address unintended consequences or missing items. Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC Rio Linda /Elverta CPAC 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 = complete = in progress Cargo containers See Board letter for February 11. Room and vacation rental See Board letter for February 11. Notification require that the mailing list include a minimum of 30 names if the 500 foot radius does not have 30 names, to aid adequate notification in rural occur within six months of Code adoption to address unintended Staff has modified procedures to areas. Follow-up Staff agrees that a check-in should consequences. * 45

80 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 11. Eliminating pre-authorization raises concerns about meeting venue availability and achieving a quorum. Who would be responsible for getting room? Can appeal period be extended? 12. Do yard parking restrictions apply to courtyard areas and mowing strips? 13. Retroactive yard parking requirements are too restrictive (Public comment) 14. Parking requirement for MF is not enough; 20 feet too close; need to better define Category III (Public comment) 15. How do we monitor minor use permit conditions if one-time approval? 16. Acoustical study - clarify if required or not and how notification occurs. 17. Concern about Clean and Sober homes how do they fit in with room rental permits 18. Need to be clear about what requirements apply to existing neighborhoods (Public comment) 19. Need more information on Master Tree Plan, acquisition of planter areas, and overall more publicity on Zoning Code (Public comment) South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova South Sac and Cordova 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 10/15/1 4 = complete = in progress CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. Yard Parking Yes. Yard Parking apply to paving after the adoption of The yard parking requirements would the new Zoning Code. MF Development Comment noted. Standards Minor Use Permits complaints and in conjunction with business license renewal. complaints are received and verified. Monitoring would occur based on Noise Acoustical study required if Room rentals See Board letter for February 11. Existing Neighborhoods Comment noted. Various Comment noted. * * 46

81 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 20. Does not support change in MF threshold for Planning Commission review (80 vs 150). Does not support reduced setbacks for MF adjacent to single-family. 21. Keep pre-authorized appeal ability with enhanced finding for communitywide interest. If not, consider longer appeal period (e.g. 15 days) 22. Thrift stores need separation requirement to avoid overconcentration 23. Agree that certain businesses need extra review 24. Board should make separation requirements between certain businesses a top priority as follow-on to adoption of Zoning Code (consensus between both CPACs) 25. Opposed to change to 150 units as threshold for Planning Commission/CPAC review of MF projects 26. Not convinced that reduction in MF setbacks from SF (20/40/60) is warranted 27. Not convinced that elimination of variances in favor of special development permit is warranted South Sac and Cordova Arden Arcade /Carmichael -Old Foothill Farms CPAC (AA/COFF) 10/15/1 4 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 MF Development Standards = complete = in progress On November 12, Board directed a 24/50/75 foot standard for setback from single-family and maintaining * existing 80 unit threshold for PC review of multi-family projects. CPAC appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. Use Tables See Board letter for February 11. Use Tables See Board letter for February 11. Separation Requirements MF Development Standards MF Development Standards See Board letter for February 11. On November 12, Board directed to maintain existing 80 unit threshold for PC review of multi-family projects. On November 12, Board directed a 24/50/75 foot standard for setback from single-family. Variances deviations be considered as special Staff continues to propose that development permits. * * * 47

82 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 28. Opposed to any diminishment of opportunity for public input 29. Need more detail on what is changed from current Zoning Code; opposes lowering hearing authority; minor use permits targets small businesses; clarify that design guidelines do not apply to existing homes (Public comment) 30. Zoning Code must be consistent with General Plan; too much reliance on staff for new appeal procedures-won t work; keep variances special development permit too open-ended; opposed to reduction in MF setbacks; concerned about concentrations of alcohol sales and recycling centers; bad recycling center behind Valero at El Camino and Watt; AA has fabulous neighborhoods but poor commercial areas (Public comment) 31. $1000 for minor use permit for massage is too much (Public comment) 32. Clarify wording for community wide interest add or ; alcohol sales should still be reviewed by CPAC (Public comment) AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 = complete = in progress Public input at change in threshold for PC review of multi-family. Board maintained provide more information on Design Guidelines do not apply to This comment was directed primarily existing threshold. Various A comparison chart was prepared to changes. existing homes. Various Comments addressed in other responses. Staff is pursuing enforcement action on the recycling center Minor Use Permit See Board letter for February 11. CPAC appeal Change is being made to communitywide interest. Alcohol sales are a separate Code amendment and will still include CPAC review. * * 48

83 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 33. Opposed to reduction of MF setback; opposed to no upper limit on density in Category III urban areas (Public comment) 34. Questions on NPA CCRs; AA shouldn t be considered urban; lowering of hearing authority contrary to good transparency (Public comment) 35. Doesn t understand rural institutional findings; Code update being rushed (Public comment) 36. Concerned about changing threshold for PC review of apartments to 150 units (Public comment) 37. Concern about reduced parking for MF and medical offices (Public comment) 38. Need to meet with the Farm Bureau on use tables and meet again with CPACs. Second joint meeting scheduled for January 8, On the hearing authorities table, Cosumnes wants a definition for Processing of Agricultural Products in the definition section. We told them this means on the actual site where the product is grown not bought from somewhere else. Pending definition they want moved to a minor use permit. AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 AA/COFF 10/23/1 4 Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 = complete = in progress MF Standards 25/50/75 foot standard for setbacks, and agreed to density bonus in On November 12, Board directed a Category III areas. Various See response on other items. Various Code updates hearings in February, See Board letter for February 11. March and April. MF Standards See above. Parking On November 12, Board provided direction on parking. Various second meeting held on January 8, See Farm Bureau comments and Hearing Authorities See Board letter for February 11. * * * 49

84 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 40. Private schools left at PC in any Ag zone. Farm Bureau concern about Ag impact on students. 41. CPAC wants to have wood in Ag zones over three feet and not have to get a MUP. 42. Make sure we always call solar facilities and not solar farms 43. Private boat dock make sure this is on navigable waters. Private ponds would be exempt. 44. Make sure paving in front yard is residential not Ag. Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 45. Gas wells should be ZA use permit. Cosumnes/ Southeast 46. Zoning tables why CZ in AR-1 and Cosumnes/ AR-2 for general Ag, what about Southeast strawberry farmers? 47. Don t allow colleges and universities Cosumnes/ in Ag on use tables. This is ok in AR. Southeast 48. Ten day appeal period too short. What are abuses? Not fair to convene CPAC meetings within 10 days. Need training at CPAC meetings. 49. Rural institutional findings - concern about incremental encroachment to ag-res areas; need findings for compatibility. North Highlands North Highlands 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/22/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 = complete = in progress Schools See Board letter for February 11. Discussion for March 24. Fencing See Board letter for February 11. See March 24 discussion. * Solar Noted. Boat Dock In progress. Yard Parking applies to residential and ag-res ½ Staff recommendation is yard parking acre or less. Gas Wells See February 11 Board Letter. Use Tables New standards for urban agriculture are a separate Code amendment. that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. Draft Code reflects existing Code. Colleges and See discussion for rural institutional Universities findings. CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed Rural Institution Findings See Board letter for February 11. * * * 50

85 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 50. Concern about accountability to Board of Supervisors on controversial items; agrees with streamlining of noncontroversial items. 51. Multi-family standards: landscaping takes time to grow- not always a solution, make sure standards do not devalue property values, and need robust Design Guidelines. Noted complaints about noise in parking lot adjacent to Norden Apartments 52. Need public input on apartments over 80 units concern about changing MF threshold 53. Need greater requirements on bars and liquor stores; want to make sure businesses are family-friendly 54. Massage establishments- need restrictions on windows and signage 55. Room and vacation rentals uncontrolled room rental in North Highlands is big problem; don t allow subletting; need to go after property owner for causing blight North Highlands North Highlands North Highlands North Highlands North Highlands North Highlands 56. Agree with yard parking change North Highlands 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 10/28/1 4 Hearing Authority Levels MF Development Standards MF Development Standards = complete = in progress Comment noted. See November 12 summary for MF Development Standards. On November 12, Board directed to maintain existing 80 unit threshold for PC review of multi-family projects. Alcohol sales pending separately from larger Code amendments for massage. February 11 Board Letter. On November 12, 2014, the Board directed that a special permit be required for vacation rentals. CUP for bars and liquor stores is package. Massage Will address as part of Code Room Rentals Room rentals are addressed in the Yard Parking Comment noted. * * 51

86 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 57. Keep pre-authorized appeal ability with enhanced finding for communitywide interest. Eliminating preauthorized appeal squelches community voice/purpose of CPAC 58. Rural Institutional Findings are reasonable as long as projects still come before the CPACs 59. The following should remain at the BOS level and not at the Planning Commission level as recommended: Service Stations in Commercial Zones Convenience Markets with Extended Hours in Commercial Zones Driving Ranges in Agricultural Zones Structures in Commercial and Industrial Zones over 24 Feet within 100 Feet of Single- Family Residential Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC = complete = in progress 11/4/14 CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. * 11/4/14 Rural Institutional Findings 11/4/14 BOS Hearing Authority See Board letter for February 11 See Board letter for February 11. See March 24 discussion. 52

87 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 60. The following should remain at the Planning Commission level and not at the Zoning Administrator level as recommended: Private Social Centers in Residential, Agricultural, and Agricultural/Residential Zones Lodge/Fraternal Halls in Residential, Agricultural and Agricultural/Residential Zones Drive-up Windows in Commercial Zones if Located Within 300 Feet of Residential Personal Uses in the BP and MP Zones Special Development Permits as Standalone Vineyard CPAC 11/4/14 Planning Commission Hearing Authority = complete = in progress See Board letter for February The following should remain at the Zoning Administrator level and not at the Minor Use Permit as recommended: Farmworker Housing (in Excess of State Allowance) in Agricultural Zones Gas/Oil Wells in AG Zones Vineyard CPAC 11/4/14 Zoning Administrator Hearing Authority See Board letter for February 11 53

88 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 62. Supportive of allowing Retail uses within RD-20 and above developments (mixed-use) 63. Supportive of new Landscaping recommendations for both residential and commercial- Focus on drought tolerant plantings for Residential 64. Opposition to the residential MF 20/40/60 setback issue. Should either remain at 100-feet or increased to 40/80/100 setback increments to address privacy impacts on existing adjacent owners. Supportive of design being used to address potential loss of privacy 65.. Supportive of change in MF threshold for Planning Commission review from 80 units to 150 units) as long as CPAC review remains to allow community input on design when reviewed at staff level 66. Opposition to no upper limit on density with Special Development Permit in urban areas near transit. Maximum densities should remain 67. Supportive of Fencing Recommendations 68. Supportive of Massage Establishment Recommendations 69. Supportive of Billboard Recommendations Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC 11/4/14 Retail in RD-20 and Above 11/4/14 Landscaping Comment noted. 11/4/14 MF Development Standards 11/4/14 MF Staff Level Review Threshold ~ Design 11/4/14 Urban Area Density Relief 11/4/14 Fencing Comment noted. = complete = in progress Comment noted. On November 12, Board directed a 25/50/75 foot standard for setbacks. On November 12, Board directed to maintain existing 80 unit threshold for PC review of multi-family projects. Includes CPAC review. On November 12, agreed to density bonus in Category III areas. 11/4/14 Massage See Board letter for February /4/14 Billboards Comment noted. * * * 54

89 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 70. Supportive of Lighting Recommendations 71. Supportive of Noise Recommendations as long as enforcement staffing is available 72. Supportive of Cargo Containers; Room Rental and Vacation Rental; Yard Parking; Accessory Structures in Agricultural Residential; and, Enlargement of Non-Conforming Building Recommendations 73. Vineyard CPAC supports moving forward with the code amendments with their recommended changes 74. CPACs would like to keep the automatic appeal option. They do not see frivolous use of the appeal option. Using it sends a strong message to the applicant that the community does not support the project. Removing the pre-authorized appeal would make it too difficult for the community to meet. CPAC members volunteer their time, should not have to hold a special meeting. 75. Orangevale CPAC supports the rural institutional finding requirement, stating that they have a group of residents that continuously oppose non-rural projects. Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Vineyard CPAC Fair Oaks/ Orangevale Fair Oaks/ Orangevale 11/4/14 Lighting Comment noted. 11/4/14 Noise Comment noted. 11/4/14 Misc. Zoning Code Update Items = complete = in progress Comment noted. 11/4/14 ZC Update Comment noted. 11/5/14 CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. 11/5/14 Rural Institutional Findings See February 11 Board letter. * * 55

90 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 76. No opposition to the changes to the hearing authority levels. Fair Oaks/ Orangevale 77. A developer opposed the finding Fair Oaks/ requirement stating that the Use Orangevale Permit process is sufficient. (Public comment) 78. Some CPAC members found the Fair Oaks/ fencing requirements confusing and Orangevale did not support them. CPAC members asked if existing non-conforming fences were grandfathered. Other members were in support stating that solid fences in front yards are unsightly. 79. No opposition to the minor use permit Fair Oaks/ process. One CPAC member pointed Orangevale out that thrift stores are permitted in the LC and GC zones and should be changed to a MUP. One suggested that hydroponic shops and wholesale auto dealers be added to the Minor Use Permit list. 80. No opposition to the billboard Fair Oaks/ changes. Orangevale 81. No opposition to the lighting changes. Fair Oaks/ Orangevale 82. No opposition to the noise changes. Fair Oaks/ Orangevale 83. No opposition to the vacation rental Fair Oaks/ changes. Orangevale 11/5/14 Hearing Authority Levels 11/5/14 Comment noted. Staff Response = complete = in progress Status: Comment noted. 11/5/14 Fencing See Board letter for February 11. See March 24 discussion. 11/5/14 Minor Use Permit 11/5/14 Billboards Comment noted. 11/5/14 Lighting Comment noted. 11/5/14 Noise Comment noted. 11/5/14 Vacation Rental Comment noted. * 56

91 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 84. CPAC questioned what the lot size to building size relationship was for accessory dwelling.. Staff confirmed that the allowable square footage was on a sliding scale depending on lot size. 85. Developer encouraged the CPAC to take a close look at the new multifamily setback requirements. He thought there was potential that the changes could affect the community. (Public comment) 86. CPAC member questioned if Design Review is required for commercial development. CPAC stated that they like the design guidelines, and would like to be able to hold applicants to those standards. 87. CPAC requested clarification of the role of the ZA in the ZC Update. 88. Opposition to change in CPAC appeal process. 10 days may be difficult to decide. Often, CPAC is the first place the community sees a project. Having this in the code may leave CPAC and community out of the process. 10 days is not a lot of time. Fair Oaks/ Orangevale Fair Oaks/ Orangevale Fair Oaks/ Orangevale 11/5/14 Accessory Dwellings Comment noted. 11/5/14 Community Comment = complete = in progress See responses to multi-family elsewhere. 11/5/14 Design Review Design Review is required for commercial projects. Antelope 11/6/14 Hearing Authority Levels The ZA has two main roles: hearing officer for ZA CUP s, and approving authority for minor use permits. Antelope 11/6/14 CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. * 57

92 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 89. For the multi-family standards with up to 150 units, would approval and denial be same for the decisions at staff level? This would be bad for Antelope, and CPAC would not feel comfortable increasing the threshold. 90. Recommend that County gets input from ECOS on lighting issue. County should give more consideration of lighting as an environmental issue (not just animals and air). (Public comment) 91. CPAC supports the idea of a lighting ordinance. 92. More consideration of spillover light and light levels. Would like to see ZC update include regulation of light temperature and blue light from LED many uses have too high of a light temperature and too much blue light. Should be maximum levels of light temperature, consistent with the recommendations of the International Dark Sky Association. (Public comment) Antelope 11/6/14 MF Staff Level Review Threshold = complete = in progress Nov. 12 Board directed that Planning Commission review remain at projects over 80 units. * Antelope 11/6/14 Lighting Meeting with ECOS on January 12. Antelope lighting standards between residential and commercial but does not propose a Dark Sky ordinance. 11/6/14 Lighting The draft Zoning Code enhances the Antelope 11/6/14 Lighting Billboard includes brightness standards. 58

93 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 93. This is a lot of information for people to consider, and there are long-term consequences. The community needs more time to consider this. (Public comment) 94. Would like to see more integration of landscaping and lighting requirements, similar to Citrus Heights General Plan. (Public comment) 95. Digital Billboards. Should be restrictions on how much light they emit, how often the text changes. Too many billboards. In general, the community does not support digital signs. 96. Address lighting levels at 2 and 3 story multi-family buildings. They have a lot of light spillover. (Public comment) 97. Concern over 20/40/60 setback requirements. This is too small and would make people uncomfortable. Antelope 11/6/14 Outreach and Public Review Antelope 11/6/14 Lighting and Landscaping = complete = in progress Comment noted. See above. Antelope 11/6/14 Billboards See above and February 11 Board letter. Antelope 11/6/14 Lighting Comment noted. Antelope 25/50/75 foot standard for setback 11/6/14 Setbacks On November 12, Board directed a from single-family. 59

94 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 98. Concern over 40 percent front yard coverage. Does this apply to existing properties? Properties should be grandfathered when Zoning Code is adopted. Does not take into consideration some yards, like at the end of cul-de-sacs and properties with circular driveways. Requirements for grandfathering should be specifically stated in the zoning code.(public comment) 99. Outreach efforts who are the external and internal stakeholders that the County has been working with on this update? More people in the community should be involved. Not enough people are here now, but this affects them long-term. There should be more time for the community to review the changes and make comments. (Public comment) 100. County should not be penalizing people for the illegal use of their property. There should be restriction that they cannot use their property for that use for five years instead. (Public comment) Antelope 11/6/14 Paving and Yard Parking Antelope 11/6/14 Outreach and Public Review Antelope 11/6/14 Misc. Zoning Code Update Items = complete = in progress Yard parking requirements not retroactive; will be clarified. See February 11 Board letter for diagrams for lots at the end of culdesacs. * Comment noted. Comment noted. 60

95 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 101. For changes in commercial and industrial landscaping requirements, is this for new or existing uses and who pays for the landscaping? The ZC should specifically state when requirements apply and who will pay for it Roosters this has been taken off the table for now, but we should consider it. Should give people time to figure out if a chick is a hen or a rooster The 10-day appeal period is too short. They would like to see public noticing with any appeal vote. They are okay without being able to preauthorize an appeal, but the short appeal period gives them grief. = complete = in progress Antelope to new developments and are not 11/6/14 Landscaping New landscaping requirements apply retroactive. Antelope 11/6/14 Misc. Zoning Code Update Items Staff is recommending that urban agriculture, including roosters and chickens be deferred as a separate item after adoption of the larger Zoning Code package. Natomas CPAC Appeal On November 12, The Board directed that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. * 104. Clarify if on the non-conforming use expansion allows improvements to buildings when that portion of expansion meets setbacks but another area of the house does not. Can the improvement be done under current code? Natomas Non-conforming Uses Staff is recommending that expansions to non-conforming building be allowed if the expansion conforms to current code. On Nov. 12, Board agreed. 61

96 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 105. Is all information being furnished regarding landscaping and design standards? 106. Have you considered the long term effect of tree roots growing into the sewer? (Tina Holt?) 107. Are there items that are not in the green Comparison Chart? What is missing? CPACs role is unclear. Need more information about the minor use permit Explain more about the minor use permit what still comes to the CPAC and what doesn t Conserve ag land from incompatible uses. Many ag businesses are compatible and don t hurt agriculture. Do not take away the rights of farms. Residents know what rural character means. Clarify that farmers can have solar as part of farm, even if they sell excess to SMUD. (Public Comment) Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Responses forthcoming. 1/8/15 Responses forthcoming. 1/8/15 Responses forthcoming. = complete = in progress 1/8/15 Everything marked in the Use Tables as CP, CZ & CB will go to CPACs. 1/8/15 Responses forthcoming. 62

97 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 110. Staff comments are too general and vague Can CPACs review each chapter individually? 112. Doesn t understand why redlined version wasn t done for the entire Zoning Code over the last nine months if it took 1½ months to do 2 chapters Wondering if all CPACs are upset based on the s CPAC s reviewed Farm Bureau comments. Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Comment noted. 1/8/15 Responses forthcoming. = complete = in progress 1/8/15 Response in February 11 Board report. 1/8/15 Comment noted. 1/8/15 Farm Bureau comments are provided on page with responses. * 115. This Code affects the entire County. Praised CPAC comments about lack of redlined version. Comments about Carmichael Water District, rural institutional findings and infrastructure extension, and increase in unites. (Public Comment) Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Comment noted. 63

98 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 116. Infill a big problem in Fair Oaks infill. Define rural, suburban and urban. Parking requirements are for urban areas. Criticized comments from developer/business External Stakeholder Group; Code benefits those with big funding. (Public Comment) 117. Post Chapter 3 and 7 with existing and proposed. (Public Comment). Why are items such as crowing fowl and urban farming deferred? Asked about staffing of the Zoning Code and transitions. (Public Comment) Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Comment noted. = complete = in progress Response forthcoming. 64

99 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 118. Be clear about differences between farmworker housing and ag accessory dwellings (3.5.2.b on P-359). Farmworker housing is important to State. For ag accessory dwellings, at least one person in home should be working on the farm. Questions about irrigation in medians; will it be prohibited? (Public Comment) 119. Haven t received good answers regarding inclusion of certain items. Arbitrary drafting of Zoning Code without trackable input creates loss of credibility Clarify about ag accessory dwellings: 1 per every 5 acres, as long as 51% of income from ag on property. Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 For April Board hearing. 1/8/15 Comment noted. 1/8/15 For April Board hearing. = complete = in progress 65

100 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 121. Cosumnes Chair comments: Liked Farm Bureau s comments (except borrow pits). Questions about easements on scenic corridor roads does 500 feet apply to onsite signs and farmstands? Need to be able to rent equipment at ag supply stores. Check definition of crops. Check definition of development as it relates to fees. Habitable floor needs definition. Non-conforming provisions are vague for ag uses. Social rehabilitation centers are not an ag business. Clarify whether ag businesses can operation out of accessory structures Requesting definition of scenic corridor. (Charlotte) Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 For April Board hearing. 1/8/15 For April Board hearing. 66 = complete = in progress

101 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 123. Questions about definition of outdoor recreation uses, e.g. club activities. Do they go to CPAC? 124. Focus on preservation of ag and ag productivity. Evan Winn provided written comments that will be addresses in April For uses that need to be setback from public schools, should not apply to private schools Should a bond be required for horse/dog rescue? R weight limit on trucks and trailers in ag zones may need to be increased Clarify revocation procedures to make sure non-compliant businesses are shut down Request for Ag Commissioner to attend next CPAC meeting to discuss Ag Advisory Committee. Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Response forthcoming. 1/8/15 For April Board hearing. 1/8/15 Response forthcoming = complete = in progress 1/8/15 Not related to the Zoning Code. 1/8/15 Not related to the Zoning Code 1/8/15 Response forthcoming. 1/8/15 Response forthcoming. 67

102 No. Comments made at CPAC meetings: 130. Table consideration of Zoning Code Update pending availability of a red-line version. (Both CPAC s). Cosumnes/ Southeast 1/8/15 Response forthcoming. = complete = in progress 68

103 No. Comments from External Stakeholders Nov 11: 1. Are there any maximums listed in the code? (Need to clarify to what) 2. Request for a graphic/photos displaying examples of reduced setbacks 3. Request for training of CPAC members. They often question or protest aspects of the project that are not relevant or are not in the planner s scope 4. How is the reception to the concept of changing the review process? (MF Complexes of will go to CPAC but not PC) 5. Where is our support most valuable? = complete = in progress Jim Gillum 11/7/14 Parking reductions Jim Gillum 11/7/14 MF setbacks/ development standards Jim Gillum 11/7/14 CPAC Appeals Staff conducts annual training and staff future training. Mike Winn 11/7/14 MF CPAC standards Brian Holloway On November 12, Board directed to maintain existing 80 unit threshold for PC review of multi-family projects. 11/7/14 General Board workshops and hearings scheduled for February 11, March 10 and April 14. * 6. Agrees with parking standards that suburban apartment complexes with 2-3 bedrooms need 2 parking spaces 7. CPAC Appeals should require a unanimous decision. Right now, the system is set up to be abused Royce Patch 11/7/14 Parking reductions Brian Holloway Change made. 11/7/14 that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. It is a vote of the CPAC Appeals On November 12, The Board directed majority of the CPAC. * * 69

104 No. Comments from External Stakeholders Nov 11: 8. Can we have County Counsel present at CPACs? 9. Is there a consideration to extend the CPAC appeal period of 10 days? 10. There should be a supermajority rather than a majority to get an appeal. And if a certain percentage of projects get appealed, there should be fees. 11. The acreage for developments that require compliance with the master plan community design guidelines is too small. 12. The idea seems to be that every new community needs to be highend and this doesn t make sense for Sacramento s population. 13. The wording change to repair and modification makes perfect sense and makes the code more clear. = complete = in progress Jim Gillum can include comments in the staff report from County Counsel if there that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals that pre-authorization of CPAC appeals be maintained. It is a vote of the 11/7/14 CPAC Appeals It is too expensive for the County. We are legal issues. Royce Patch 11/7/14 CPAC Appeals On November 12, The Board directed be maintained. Jim Gillum 11/7/14 CPAC Appeals On November 12, The Board directed majority of the CPAC. Jim Gillum 11/7/14 Design Guidelines Jim Gillum 11/7/14 Design Guidelines Greg Hatch 11/7/14 Design Guidelines There have been changes made to the document that address this. The Design Guidelines promote a diversity of housing types. Revised recommendation to add language to prohibit conversion of non-habitable space to habitable space for portions of structures that are nonconforming. * 70

105 Attachment 4 Sample List of Special Development Permits Special Development Permits Heard by the Zoning Administrator in the Draft Code: Deviations to development standards, such as setbacks, previously considered as variances and heard by the Zoning Administrator, except that variances in Neighborhood Preservation Areas would still be heard by the Board of Supervisors. This type of Special Development Permit would be the most common. Reductions to parking requirements, previously heard as a Special Review of Parking by the Planning Commission. Reductions to lot size, previously heard as a Lot Size Exception by the Planning Commission, typically in conjunction with a parcel map. Standalone Special Development Permits previously heard by the Planning Commission. These are very uncommon since typically Special Development Permits are bundled with other entitlements. Special Development Permits Heard by the Planning Commission in the Draft Code: Deviations from the multifamily development standards, previously considered as a Special Development Permit or Exception by the Planning Commission (no change). Deviations from the height standards for commercial buildings, previously heard as a use permit by the Board of Supervisors. Density bonus requests, previously heard as a Special Development Permit by the Planning Commission, except density bonus requests consistent with State Density Bonus Law and the County Housing Incentive Program would be considered in conjunction with the project without a separate entitlement. Special Development Permits bundled with other project entitlements would still be heard by the hearing authority for the bundled projects, such as with a rezone or conditional use permit.

106

107 ATTACHMENT 5 Department of Community Development Lori A. Moss, Director Divisions Administrative Services Building Permits & Inspection Code Enforcement County Engineering Economic Development & Marketing Planning & Environmental Review M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 11, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Sacramento Self-Governance Group Tricia Stevens Principal Planner Response to January 15, 2015, Letter Questions for Supervisor Serna Item No. 2, February 11, 2015, Board of Supervisors Agenda Zoning Code Update Attached are staff responses to your January 15 letter entitled Questions for Supervisor Serna. The original letter is included as Attachment 9 in the February 11, 2015, staff report to the Board of Supervisors, and is also attached to this memo for reference. The Board Letter indicated that a response would be included in the March Board Letter. We were able to complete the response in advance. This response has been transmitted to the Board of Supervisors, and will be also be included in the in the Board Letter for the March public hearing at the Board of Supervisors. Please do not hesitate to contact me at stevenst@saccounty.net or for questions. cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Robert Leonard Lori Moss Leighann Moffitt 827th Street, Room 225 Sacramento, California phone (916) fax (916) Page 1 of 9