A comprehensive update of the Yolo County Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July, 2014. To keep the Zoning Code current and relevant, staff intends to initiate Zoning Code Amendments each year. The amendments will include a series of relatively minor and non-controversial changes to the Zoning Code which are packaged in an "omnibus"-type text amendment every year. The amendments will include corrections to typographical and mapping errors, and updates of Code language that are required to comply with new State laws. Changes may also be required to retain consistency within the Zoning Code, and between zoning regulations and other County Codes Amendments, as well as with the General Plan.
On October 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public workshop to review and comment on the proposed 2015 Zoning Code Amendments. On November 12, 2015, the Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to hear comments from the public and to consider a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0-0) to recommend approval of the Zoning Amendments to the Board of Supervisors, with some minor changes that have been incorporated and with the additional caveat that the Commission had not been able to review any comments that may have been received by the end of the Initial Study review period (no substantive comments were received on the Initial Study).
BACKGROUND
The “project” is adoption of an omnibus ordinance updating certain land-use regulations within the County. The omnibus ordinance consists of a series of “clean-up” text amendments to fifteen separate sections of the Zoning Code (Title 8 of the Yolo County Code) involving subdivision and zoning regulations; one Zoning Map Amendment to add sand and gravel overlay zones to mining properties along Cache Creek; and one amendment is also proposed to Title 1, Chapter 5 (Administrative Citations) of the County Code.
Most of the text amendments are non-substantive in nature. The text changes are intended to correct typographic errors, clarify references, restore sections of the previous Zoning Code that were inadvertently left out when the updated Zoning Code was adopted in July, 2014, or to update text to comply with recent State law. The mining zoning map amendment would also restore overlay zones that were included in the previous zoning maps and were inadvertently not included with the updated maps that were approved last year. The one amendment to Title 1 clarifies the procedure for issuance of Administrative Citations.
The Code and Map Amendments are identified by section number and summarized in Table 1 (in Attachment A). The table also notes that portions of seven of the thirteen changes to the Zoning Code are considered substantive. The one amendment to the procedures in Title 1 is not considered substantive. The map amendment to restore the overlay district to the Cache Creek mining properties is also not considered substantive.
However there are at least two proposed changes to the Zoning Code that may be controversial.
The most significant proposed change to the agricultural zoning involves the addition of development standards and regulations related to bed and breakfasts and associated cottages (guest rooms not within or connected to the main house). The second possible controversial change is related to an update of zoning regulations around the county’s three airports (see below).
The complete text of each of the Zoning Code Amendments is included in Attachment A, along with the map amendment.
Since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has added two minor modifications to the Zoning Amendments package. The first modification differentiates between the approval process for small versus large bed and breakfast uses allowed in the commercial zones. The second added change require Major Use Permits for large bed and breakfasts, large special event facilities, and large regional agricultural processing facilities, if the the land is subject to a Williamson Act contract.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Zoning Code and other amendments are identified by section number and summarized in the table included as Attachment B to this staff report. The table also notes that portions of seven of the fifteen changes to the Zoning Code are considered substantive. The one amendment to Title 1 is not considered substantive. The map amendment to restore the overlay district to the Cache Creek mining properties is also not considered substantive.
The amendments considered substantive are described in more detail below. The map amendment is also discussed below, as well as the amendment to Title 1.
Amendments to Chapter 1: Subdivision and Related Regulations
The most extensive and lengthy text amendment being proposed affects Chapter 1: Subdivision and Related Regulations. The amendment would restore and update approximately two pages of regulatory text that were included in the previous Zoning Code and that were inadvertently left out when the updated Zoning Code was adopted in July, 2014. The proposed amendment text is included as Attachment A to the Code Amendments (also labeled Attachment A).
The regulations require certain dedications and improvements for development applications such as building permits and parcel (small subdivision) maps.
The ability for local agencies to impose requirements for land dedications and public improvements is outlined in State and federal law, and court decisions. The restored text includes standard requirements, for example, that a development project or permit be conditioned to dedicate and improve one-half of a street frontage along the project site, or agree to construct the improvements if and when the County Engineer determines they are needed in the future. The amendment also includes an appeal process for applicants to appeal decisions by the County Engineer to the Board of Supervisors.
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article 3: Agricultural Zones
A second substantive change is to modify the table and sections in the Agricultural Zones (Attachments C, D, and E in the main file, Attachment A) to:
• amend Table 8-2.304(d) to allow tasting and sales of “beer, spirits” and clarify the permit requirements for “regional-serving agricultural operations” in footnote 2;
• amend Sec. 8-2.306(l) regulations related to bed and breakfasts
• amend Sec. 8-2.306(j)(3) to reduce the size of wineries and other facilities that are allowed by right from 60,000 to 25,0000 square feet;
• amend Sec. 8-2.306(r) to require Major Use Permit for large regional agricultural processing facilities, at the Planning Director's discretion, if the the land is subject to a Williamson Act contract; and
• add a definition of ”cottage.”
The most significant change to the agricultural zoning involves the addition of development standards and regulations related to bed and breakfasts and associated cottages (guest rooms not within or connected to the main house). Cottages are defined as “Individual bungalows or cottages, attached or unattached, that are part of an approved bed and breakfast use, that are located within an agricultural area on agricultural-zoned lands, and that are appurtenant or incidental to permitted agri-tourism uses located on the parcel or in the immediate agricultural area. Cottages may be newly constructed structures or existing buildings that are renovated for habitable use. Cottages are not motel rooms and are not housing for permanent, year-round residents.” The definition of cottages is silent on whether small kitchens could be installed or not.
The proposed change would allow up to 15 guest rooms or cottages (the maximum is now 10) for large B&Bs subject to either a Minor or Major Use Permit. A Minor Use Permit would be required provided that there are no newly constructed cottages and no more than three (3) renovated cottages. A Major Use Permit would be required for the construction of any new cottages. At the discretion of the Planning Director, a Major Use Permit may be required for a project larger than six guest rooms or cottages, if there are any compatibility issues, or if any of the development standards are not met. A Major Use Permit would also be required for large bed and breakfasts if the the land is subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article 5: Residential Zones
A third substantive change is to modify Table 8-2.505 (Residential Development Standards, Attachment G in the Attachment A file) to:
• decrease the required side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in the Rural Residential - 1 acre (RR-1) zone; and
• require that projects within the Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density Residential (R-L, R-M, and R-H) zones must meet minimum densities; if not, Site Plan Review or Use Permit is required, excepting parcels without existing or planned public water and sewer service.
The proposed decrease of the required side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in the Rural Residential - 1 acre (RR-1) zone is needed to better accommodate the placement of new housing or mobile homes on existing one-acre lots, such as in the Hardwoods area of Dunnigan. Requiring relatively large side yard setbacks on both sides of a one acre lot seriously constrains the siting of a new home, especially when taking into account setback requirements that apply to leachfields and wells. This less restrictive side yard setback could affect adjacent neighboring homes and uses.
The second change to the Residential Development Standards table would explicitly require that projects within the Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density Residential (R-L, R-M, and R-H) zones must meet minimum densities. The table already lists a minimum and maximum density measured in housing units per acre for each zone. The added text requires that a proposed project that does not meet the minimum densities of one unit per acre in the R-L zone; 10 units per acre in the R-M zone; or 20 units per acre in the R-H zones; would be required to apply for a Site Plan Review or Use Permit.
This additional permit requirement would not apply to zoned parcels without a connection to existing or planned public water and sewer service.
Other minor changes to this section include rectifying an inconsistency between sections that allow roosters on large lots (over 5 acres) in the RR-1 and R-L zones.
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article 6: Commercial Zones
Several significant changes are proposed to the permit requirements for certain commercial uses in Table 8-2.604 (see table in Attachment H in the Attachment A file). The amendments would:
• allow auto service/gas stations in the C-L zone with a Minor Use Permit (now not allowed);
• allow “wineries, breweries, olive mills processing, storage, and distribution” in all of the commercial zones (now not allowed);
• allow “multiple family units (apartments)” in the C-L zone with either a Site Plan Review or Minor Use Permit (now not allowed); and
• differentiate between small and large bed and breakfast uses allowed in the commercial zones.
These changes would allow “wineries, breweries, olive mills processing, storage, and distribution” in all of the commercial zones (now not allowed). The changes would also cumulatively allow a greater range of commercial activities in the Local Commercial (C-L) zones, including gas stations; wine, beer, spirits, and olive tasting, sales, processing, storage and distribution; small and large bed and breakfasts; and apartments.
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article 7: Industrial Zones
These amendments would allow “wine, beer, spirits, and olive processing, storage, and distribution” in all the industrial zones. Currently, these uses are not specifically allowed.
The amendments would allow “agricultural processing” in the Heavy Industrial (I-H) by right if not over 50,000 square feet in size and no hazardous materials are involved. Otherwise, a Site Plan Review is required. The amendments would allow “trucking companies” by right in the H-I zone.
(See table in Attachment I in the Attachment A file.)
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article 8: Public and Open Space Zones and Article 9: Specific Plan and Overlay Zones
These amendments would apply to the three airports in the unincorporated area (the County Airport, Watts-Woodland, and Borges airport properties) and governs the uses on the airport properties. These amendments have been approved by the SACOG regional Airport Land Use Commission, as required by State law.
The proposed amendments delete the current Airport (AV) zone and rescind the original 2000 ordinance that established the zone. The three airports have already been rezoned to the new Public and Quasi-Public (PQP) zone.
The amendments also delete the existing Special Height Combining zone (the “–H” zone), while retaining and slightly revising the Airport Overlay (-AO) zone (now renamed the A-O zone). The amendments delete specific height limits for individual properties within the A-O zone and instead replace them with height limits based on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the County Airport and the FAA requirements.
In Article 9, the amendments add permit requirements for airport-related uses to Table 8-2.905-2. New Sections 8-2.906(f)(4) and(5) are also added, which require uses to be consistent with the CLUP and identify the types of uses that would be subject to a CLUP consistency analysis.
(See the complete text of the proposed amendments in Attachment J in the Attachment A file.)
Amendments to Chapter 3: Water Efficient Landscaping
Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (EO B-29-15) directed DWR to update the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised Ordinance on July 15, 2015. Local agencies have until December 1, 2015 to adopt the Ordinance or adopt their own ordinance, which must be at least as effective in conserving water as the State’s Ordinance.
(These text revisions are forthcoming. They are not yet included in this report.)
Amendments to Chapter 4: Flood Protection
This non-substantive amendment would add a new section to allow the issuance of minor flood variances for new construction or substantial improvement of a non-habitable structure on a lot one-half acre or less in size, that is surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, provided that the structure is floodproofed below the base flood level.
(See added text in Attachment L in in the Attachment A file.)
Amendments to the Zoning Maps to add the Sand and Gravel Overlay (SG-O) zone, and the Sand and Gravel Reserve Overlay (SGR-O) zone
These two mining overlay zones were included in the previous Zoning Code, but the properties were inadvertently not rezoned with overlay zones when the Updated Zoning Code was adopted in July, 2014.
The Sand and Gravel Overlay (SG-O) zoning is applied to all properties within the boundaries of the Cache Creek Off-Channel Mining Plan that are subject to existing mining operations. The Sand and Gravel Overlay zone (SG-O) is combined with (overlays) the base zoning of A-N and A-X within the boundaries of the Cache Creek Off-Channel Mining Plan, which is defined in Title 10, Chapter 4 of the County Code.
The Sand and Gravel Reserve Overlay (SGR-O) is applied to other properties within the boundaries of the Cache Creek Off-Channel Mining Plan that are State designated mineral resource zones (MRZ-2) and which could be considered for mining after 2026.
(See Attachment M in the Attachment A file.)
Amendment to Title 1, Chapter 5: Administrative Citations
This single amendment would clarify the procedure for issuance of Administrative Citations to delete the requirement that a “courtesy letter” must be sent if a similar notification has already been given to the property owner such as a ”stop work” order or “red tag.” The purpose of the “courtesy letter” is to notify a property owner that the County has received a complaint and/or has verified independently of a complaint that one or more zoning or building violations are present and must be rectified to avoid further action by the County. The requirement of sending a “courtesy letter” is redundant if a property owner has already been contacted and/or the property has already been posted with a ”stop work” order or “red tag” citation. |
As already noted above, the Planning Commission considered the Zoning Code Amendments at a workshop held on October 8, 2015 and a public hearing on November 12, 2015. Following discussion with staff and no public testimony at the hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0-0) to recommend approval of the Zoning Amendments to the Board of Supervisors, with the minor changes noted above.
The Zoning Code Amendments and the accompanying Initial Study/Negative Declaration were referred to all of the citizens advisory committees for their review. To date, formal votes and comments have been received from Esparto, Dunnigan, and West Plainfield committees.
The Esparto Citizens Advisory Committee met on October 20, 2015 and discussed the Zoning Code Amendments. One committee member had had a concern that Sec. 8-1.907(f) might impact the DMX zone, requiring buildings to be set back further from the street. (The section language would not add any requirements for setbacks along Yolo Avenue that are not already in place.) Following the discussion the committee voted to recommend the Planning Commission approve the amendments (4 AYE; 0 NO; no abstentions).
The Dunnigan Citizens Advisory Committee met on October 28, 2015 and considered the Zoning Code Amendments. One committee member had concerns about allowing tasting and sales of “spirits,” along with beer and wine, in the agricultural areas. The committee voted to recommend the Planning Commission approve the amendments (8 AYE; 0 NO; 1 abstention).
The Aviation Advisory Committee and West Plainfield Citizens Advisory Committee met jointly on November 4, 2015 and discussed the Zoning Code Amendments. Following the discussion the Aviation committee voted to recommend the Planning Commission approve the amendments (5 AYE;0 NO; 0 abstentions).
On November 4, the Capay Valley Citizens Advisory Committee also met. The CVCAC voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the Code updates with a recommendation to modify the definition of B&Bs as follows:
"A single-family dwelling, and accessory buildings, with an owner and/or manager in residence, ……. Food service, if provided, is restricted to breakfast or a similar early morning meal, with additional meals provided to guests, as desired, subject to applicable State and County Health Department regulations."
Staff agrees with these revisions, with the following caveat. Allowing more than one meal at a B&B will require an additional level of State review and permitting. Section 113893 of the California Health and Safety Code restricts farm stays and B&Bs to one meal and light snacks. If more meals are served at a B&B they must be considered a full food service facility under the Health and Safety Code and will be required to install a commercial kitchen (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=113001-114000&file=113728-113941).
The CVCAC also discussed the idea of allowing or being more flexible with rural restaurants. The committee is concerned about lodging and meal accommodation in the remote rural areas of the county where there are no other food services. The committee is appreciative of the distinction between “farm stays” and rural lodging.
. |