COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA ADDENDUM For the Agenda of: July 22, 2015 Timed: 2:00 p.m. To: From: Subject: Supervisorial District(s): Board of Supervisors Department of Community Development PLNP Zoning Code Update, County-Wide Design Guidelines, And User Guide. Request To Adopt A Comprehensive Update To The Sacramento County Zoning Code, County-Wide Design Guidelines And User Guide; A General Plan Amendment To Amend The Zoning Consistency Matrix; An Amendment To Title 22 Of The County Code; An Amendment To Title IV Of The Zoning Code. Applicant: County Of Sacramento; APN: County-Wide; Environmental Document: Negative Declaration All Contact: Tricia Stevens, Principal Planner, Overview This addendum provides updates to the Board letter for the July 22, 2015, public hearing. New comments and responses are included, as well as clarifications on two other items. All documents are available on the County website at: Revised Recommendations: Conduct the public hearing, and take the actions found on Page Nos. 9 and 10 of the Board letter for final adoption, except for Item No. 6, County Code Title 22 amendments. Continue Title 22 amendments to August 11, 2015, for introduction. Measures/Evaluation Approval of the Development Code package 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 and Fiscal Year Recommended 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 DISCUSSION The following updates are provided: County Code Title 22 Amendments. Staff recommends that this item be continued to August 11, 2015, in order to finalize the ordinances. At that time, the Board action would be to introduce and waive reading of amendments to Title 22, and continue to a subsequent date for second reading. A continuance to August 11, 2015, will not have a major effect on the overall Development Code package. Strategies for addressing sober living facilities. On Page No. 6 of the Board letter two strategies for addressing nuisances associated with dwellings with multiple rental agreements are discussed. Staff would like to clarify that the first bullet regarding a business license for the rental of properties is for future consideration pending outreach to stakeholders and consultation with County Counsel. Staff does not recommend that the Board consider such an amendment as part of the Zoning Code update at this time. Marwick Way and Shawnee Avenue. On the top of Page No. 6 of the Board letter, the sober living homes on these streets were inadvertently switched. The Shawnee Avenue home is operated by Clean and Sober Transitional Living and the Marwick Way home is operated by Steps to Freedom. New comments. Three new comments have been received: Comments from the Sacramento County Farm Bureau (Attachment 1). Response to comments relating to electric and barbed wire fencing are discussed below. Two comments on crowing fowl (Attachments 2 and 3). Staff has no additional responses on this issue beyond the discussion in the Board letter. Electric and barbed wire fencing in agricultural-residential zones. The Farm Bureau commented that the allowance for electric and barbed wire fencing in agricultural zones should be extended to agricultural-residential (AR) zones. Section A currently requires a minor use permit for barbed wire, concertina wire or electric fencing in zones other than Agricultural, M-1 or M-2. The Farm Bureau, in particular, wants to ensure that low voltage strand wiring be allowed for the keeping of animals in AR zones. Barbed wire, concertina, and electric fences cover a broad range of applications from industrial security fencing to more benign fencing for the keeping of animals. Staff has concerns about extending the allowance for barbed, concertina and electric fencing to all AR zones because of safety and aesthetic concerns. Concertina wire is of particular concern because it is unsightly and not typically used for the keeping of animals, according to the Farm Bureau. Thus, staff recommends that Sections X and A be amended to allow barbed wire and electric fences in the AR-2, AR-5 and AR-10 zones if used for the keeping of animals..

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 Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: BRADLEY J. HUDSON County Executive LORI A. MOSS, Director Department of Community Development Attachments: 1. Comment letter from the Sacramento County Farm Bureau 2. Comment letter from Vivien Spicer Johnson crowing fowl 3. Comment letter from Herb Ripley crowing fowl BY: ROBERT B. LEONARD Chief Deputy County Executive

4

5 SACRAMENTO COUNTY FARM BUREAU 8970 Elk Grove Boulevard Elk Grove, California (916) Fax (916) ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 1 July 10, 2015 Lori Moss, Director Department of Community Development 827 th Street, Room 225 Sacramento, CA RE: Comments on the Sacramento County Zoning Code Third Public Review Draft June 2015 Dear Ms. Moss, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the June 2015 Third Public Review Draft. We appreciate the time and consideration of the County staff to review previous comments and adjust the Code so that agriculture (AG) and agricultural-residential (AR) zones are maintained for their intended purpose. Many of our previous comments have been addressed and pleased they have been incorporated in the revised zoning code. We remain concerned over allowing nonagriculture related projects like places of worship, social halls, college/university, etc. in AG and AR zones. Although pleased that section 3.6. [page 3-76 Third Public Review Draft June 2015] was added to allow the Ag Commissioner and the Agricultural Advisory Committee to review and comment on projects. The Ag Commissioner and Ag Advisory Committee comments shall be used in the permitting decision. Farm Bureau supports the following additions to sections relating to fencing: 1. Section X. Electric Fencing. Add agricultural-residential zone to the allowed use of electric fencing. 2. Section 5.2.5A. #8 General Standards Add agricultural-residential zone to the allowed use of barbed wire, concertina wire or electric fencing. To Represent and Promote Agriculture in Sacramento County

6 The intent of the Proposed Crowing Fowl on Urban Residential Properties is to provide guidance to large parcel residential properties for noise concerns over male fowl. The proposed ordinance does not affect any of the agricultural and agricultural-residential zones. Farm Bureau would support a crowing fowl ordinance on urban residential properties provided the proposed urban agriculture ordinance will provide youth to own and maintain male fowl for the purpose of competition in residential zones. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Charlotte Mitchell Executive Director cc Supervisor Don Nottoli Tricia Stevens Ag Commissioner Juli Jensen 2

7 ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 2 Cooksey. Gloria From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: NCNews328@aol.com Thursday, July 09, :23 PM MacGlashan. Roberta; Stevens. Tricia NCNews328@aol.com Proposed crowing fowl ordinance Tricia Stevens Attention: Tricia Stevens of stevenst@saccounty.net I am opposed to the code revisions, as suggested, concerning crowing fowl in the County of Sacramento. I wish my comments to be included in the staff report to be heard on July 22, 2015 at the Board of Supervisors meeting. My reasons, suggestions and examples are listed below. Regardless of zoning the lot size should be the criteria for usage. It would be easier to enforce, just look at the plat maps. I agree that subdivisions with their small lot size, sometimes less than 5,000 sq. ft., may not have enough distance between houses for farm animals. Most of Elverta is rural even though a small part is zoned residential. In the Elverta area residential zoning was not applied until the mid 70 s. Many of those lots, designated residential, are at least 11,000 sq. ft or slightly larger than a quarter acre or even larger. Many have been continually used for agricultural purposes long before the seventies. As an example: In Elverta, within a two block area somewhat over 30 acres, bounded by Delano, Electric Avenue, Elverta Rd. and Elmont there are only 16 houses. In the last thirty years only one new house has been built. Several of these 16 houses are over fifty years old and some are still occupied by the original owners. There are chickens, goats, geese, emus and lots of wild ducks living in this area. There have been horses and cattle as well. This agricultural use has been continual since before the sixties. This new ordinance, as proposed, would create an extreme and emotional hardship for many senior residents. You know, dogs and children make more noise than a few quacking or crowing fowls. Each area should be review before a blanket ordinance is applied. Life styles should be considered as well as lot sizes. Please take more time to review and allow for more public input. Thank you for your time. Vivien Spicer Johnson Elverta resident since

8

9 Cooksey. Gloria ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Herb Ripley <Herb@HerbRipley.com> Saturday, July 18, :55 AM Stevens. Tricia; Clerk of the Board Crowing fowl I just received notice of this proposed change to the zoning code, even though I have complained in the past about the nuisance roosters that are kept across the street from us. I applaud the effort to reign in this noise nuisance but I would like to suggest that the Board consider including AR-1. Most of the properties in my neighborhood are primarily residential, not agricultural. We don t mind the hens that the neighbor keeps but their 3-4 roosters create a lot of racket and it can go on at all hours of the day or night. I understand that a permit is required to keep chickens but I doubt that these neighbors even have a permit. Our address is 7263 Hickory Avenue, Orangevale and the chicken coop is located at 8701 Bunting Court which is directly across the street from us. Thank you Herb Ripley Herb Ripley Realtor BRE# Lyon Real Estate Fair Oaks, CA Herb@HerbRipley.com efax 1