Attachment 2
Each Section in the proposed Ordinance is discussed in detail below.
SECTION 1
This amends the Zoning Ordinance Section on Residential Development Regulations. It is primarily a consistency change, updating the Section to reflect changes to Planned Unit Development Permits (see Section 18) and the elimination of the Minor Variance process (see Section 20).
SECTION 2
Currently exterior staircases on a residential structure require a Use Permit. This differs from most second story elements, such as second story additions and decks. Requiring a Use Permit for the staircase usually means that the applicant must apply for two separate permits. Staff believes that an exterior staircase can be considered through the Architectural Review process to avoid the need for multiple permits.
SECTION 3
As a condition of approval of the City’s Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development is requiring that the City adopt a ministerial process for the construction of residential projects to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Currently those accommodations require a Minor Use Permit. This new Section would clarify that reasonable accommodation projects may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. The findings noted are similar to the findings which presently exist (see Section 19 for the prior language).
SECTION 4
This Section provides that modifications to the design standards for the Automotive Regional Commercial (CA) Zoning District may be considered through the Architectural Review process, rather than the Minor Variance process, which has been eliminated (see Section 20)
SECTION 5
This Section provides that signs in the Automotive Regional Commercial (CA) Zoning District will be considered through the standard Master Sign Program process (see Section 10). Although there are proposed changes to the Master Sign Program process (see Section 10), exceptions to sign standards would still require Planning Commission review.
Packet Page 187
SECTION 6
This Section makes various amendments to requirements for Sign Permits and Master Sign Programs within the Automotive Regional Commercial (CA) Zoning District. It specifies that all signs require a Sign Permit, and removes the requirement for a Master Sign Program for uses other than Auto Sales/Rentals. It also makes a change in the Master Sign Program process to allow for administrative approvals of Master Sign Programs when signs comply with Code requirements. This change mirrors a change described in more detail in Section 10.
SECTION 7
The current Code states that all fences, regardless of height or location, require a Building Permit. The Building Code is designed to ensure that structures meet requirements for structural integrity and safety. The Building Code includes references for when fences and walls require a Building Permit. For example, fences under seven feet in height do not require a Building Permit, while those that are taller do. The City Council has adopted the International Building Code in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Since Title 15, by reference, states that certain fences are exempt from the need for a Building Permit, this portion of Code conflicts with Title 15. Staff believes that the best way to reconcile this is to remove the requirement for a Building Permit for fences except where required under the Building Code.
SECTION 8
Currently deviations from fencing requirements may be allowed upon approval of a “fence exception.” There is no defined process for a fence exception in the Code – additionally, it is not clear who the review authority is for a fence exception, as Subsection F.1 states both the Zoning Administrator and the Commission have approval responsibility. Staff recommends simplifying this review by having consideration of a fence exception be reviewed through the Variance process. Any fence exemption would need to meet the findings for a Variance in addition to the findings included in the Section.
SECTION 9
The Zoning Code specifies that second driveways may be considered subject to either a review of the Traffic Advisory Committee (followed by Council review) or through the Minor Use Permit process. These two processes are incompatible with each other. Staff proposes to remove the option for a Minor Use Permit and have second driveway applications be considered through the Traffic Advisory Committee with final review by Council (as is the current practice). The Section would also be amended to specify that process only applies to Single-Family Dwellings, as it is extremely common for parking lots associated with other uses to have more than one driveway entrance.
Packet Page 188
SECTION 10
Section 10 makes several changes to processing procedures for Sign Permits and Master Sign Programs:
Sign Permits would largely remain as-is, except it is clarified that they will be reviewed and approved through the Sign Permit process, as opposed to a Zoning Clearance.
Master Sign Programs are currently always reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment would allow for the administrative approval of Master Sign Programs which comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes this is appropriate because the Zoning Ordinance includes extensive direction regarding the allowed size, placement, and number of signs. These provisions can be applied in order to achieve the desired design for signs, and would significantly reduce application processing time by several weeks. Master Sign Programs which would not be in total compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would still be required to obtain Planning Commission approval.
As Sign Permits are administrative in nature, it is unnecessary to have separate findings, as compliance with the Zoning Ordinance is required for approval. The Section on findings has therefore been deleted.
SECTION 11
This Section specifies that changes to sign copy of an existing sign where there are no structural changes do not require a Sign Permit. Examples of this would be changing a placard on an existing cabinet sign, or replacing a hanging sign by reattaching an identically-sized sign to the existing supports. Since the sign is existing and no Building Permit will be required, staff does not believe it is necessary for the applicant to obtain a Sign Permit based solely on the change in content.
SECTION 12
This Section clarifies the method of calculating sign area when a mural is involved. It also clarifies that the process to be used is the Architectural Review process (currently the Planning Commission is the review authority but no process is defined) and also prohibits certain content in murals. It also clarifies that the Art and History Commission will provide recommendations regarding the murals as per Municipal Code Section
2.16.040.L.
SECTION 13
This Section makes some minor changes to Home Occupations. It allows for mail-order businesses to operate out of homes provided that all merchandise is stored within a building and the total number of vehicle trips (including clients, customers, visitor, and or Packet Page 189
service visits) remains below the currently allowable number of 8 trips per day. It also eliminates the requirement that Home Occupation Permits be renewed every two years.
SECTION 14
This Section updates a Section on Live-Work Units to remove references to the Minor Variance process (see Section 20).
SECTION 15
The Section deletes a requirement that Mixed Use buildings be a minimum of 8,000 square feet in size. This will eliminate one of the major barriers to adaptive reuse of existing buildings along Fremont Street to allow for the conversion of existing secondfloor space into residential use.
SECTION 16
This Section makes changes to Table 5-1 to reflect changes made elsewhere in the document and fix incorrect references. The details and rationale behind these changes may be found elsewhere in this document.
SECTION 17
This Section makes extensive changes to the procedures for Architectural Review, as follows:
1) The applicability of Architectural Review has been modified to remove the need for Architectural Review for the following:
a. Residential subdivisions (the maps are already subject to review as a Minor or Major Subdivision, and any buildings constructed would also be subject to Architectural Review, making this Section superfluous); b. Removal of publically financed projects (these projects are already reviewed and approved by the City Council); and
c. The requirement that signs that are not “professionally rendered” or do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance has been removed, as the first criteria is subjective and exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance for signs already requires that the Commission review a Master Sign Program (see Section 10).
2) The option has been added in for administrative review of some Architectural Review applications. In order for an application to be considered administratively, it must be exempt from CEQA. Further, the project must employ an architectural design, bulk, height, and scale consistent with existing structures on the neighboring block face. If these criteria are met, the applicant would be required to place staking and flagging (or an alternative – see below) for at least 14 days prior to the approval. Additionally, within 10 days of the proposed date of approval, the City will mail a Notice of Intent to Approve to all Packet Page 190
real property owners within 300 feet of the property. Any member of the public shall have the option of requesting a public hearing on the project. If a hearing is requested, staff will immediately schedule the project for a hearing. If no protest is received, the Zoning Administrator would then approve the project. 3) The staking and flagging section has been modified in two ways. First, it clarifies that the applicability of staking and flagging applies only to new structures or additions over 18 feet in height (currently all commercial buildings arguably require Architectural Review). Second, it allows for an alternative to staking and flagging in certain circumstances (ie structures over 25 feet in height and facing verified logistical or safety concerns). If the alternative is selected, then public hearing notices must be sent to every physical address within 300 feet, the applicant must have a licensed professional create architectural renderings of the project, and a sign (minimum 3 x 5 feet) that includes an architectural rendering and the public hearing information must be placed along each adjacent street frontage at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
SECTION 18
The main change to this Section, which regulates temporary uses, would be to reduce permitting requirements on non-profits (such as churches) performing fundraising events on their property. There are other minor changes which would reduce some constraints regarding temporary offices or classrooms that may be in place during construction of a permanent facility.
SECTION 19
Planned Development Permits are intended to provide flexibility in Zoning regulations in order to provide for more innovative design. Essentially, these types of permits may allow for modifications to almost any Zoning regulation provided that the modification would result in a better project than strict application of the Zoning standards. This differs from a Variance, with represents an exception to the standards based on physical constraints, rather than an alternative based on superior project design.
Currently a Planned Development Permit may only be obtained for projects of greater than one acre in size. This Section would remove that restriction, allowing for consideration of projects of any size. Since the determination of whether an alternative is in fact “superior” to strict compliance has a high degree of subjectivity, there is no proposed administrative approval option for this permit type (ie all applications will be referred to the Planning Commission).
SECTION 20
This Section governs the review and approval of Use Permits and Minor Use Permits.
The most significant changes are to modify the process to allow for an administrative option as discussed previously in Section 16 (Architectural Review) as well as an Packet Page 191
elimination of the requirement for a Minor Use Permit for reasonable accommodation applications (as was discussed previously in Section 3).
SECTION 21
This Section presently covers Variances and Minor Variances. Unlike Use Permits and Minor Use Permits, which are currently differentiated based on processes, Variances and Minor Variances serve different purposes. Variances are applications to obtain exceptions to Zoning Ordinance Development Regulations based on physical constraints on a property that prevents an owner from enjoying privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zone. Minor Variances represent small (up to 10%) deviations from certain development regulations without the need for physical constraints.
Staff has proposed eliminating the Minor Variance application type, proposing instead to utilize the Planned Development Permit to allow for alternatives based on superior design. Variances would remain as-is to allow for exceptions based on physical constraints. The Section also would allow for Variances to be approved administratively using the same procedures for Architectural Review (Section 16) and Use Permits/Minor Use Permits (Section 19).
SECTION 22
The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that an applicant sign an approved permit within 15 days of approval. Staff believes that negating a permit due to delays in signing is not in the public interest. This change would stipulate that the signature must be obtained prior to Building Permit issuance or establishment of the use.
SECTION 23
This Section only removes a reference to Minor Variance applications, since those are proposed to be removed as a part of this change.
SECTION 24
This Section proposes the removal of a reference to a Minor Variance and adds a reference to a Planned Development Permit.
SECTION 25
This Section makes several modifications to regulations related to time limits. These modifications include:
1) Currently, applicants who obtain a permit are required to start construction within 6 months of obtaining a permit. This requires that the full Building Permit plan set must be drafted, reviewed, approved, and construction started in a very short Packet Page 192
time frame. The proposed changes would increase the time to 12 months and also deem the permit exercised upon issuance of a Building Permit. 2) Currently, an exercised permit remains in force until revoked. Revocation is a time-consuming process that involves public notification and public hearings.
This can result in permits lingering for years or even decades after a use ceases, allowing for uses to reestablish even though they may no longer be appropriate for the area. The changes to this Section would stipulate that if a use is discontinued for 24 months or more, then the permit will expire automatically. 3) Currently time extensions must be granted by the body that originally approved a permit. Since the Planning Commission reviews most applications, this means that extensions to existing permits require that staff schedule and notice a hearing before the Commission. The changes to this Section would allow the Zoning Administrator to approve extensions administratively if there have been no material changes to circumstances related to the original approval of the permit.
SECTION 26
A nonconforming use or structure is a use or structure that was legally established but, due to changes in statutes, no longer conforms. Nonconforming uses are treated somewhat differently than nonconforming structures, and in some situations both a use and structure may be nonconforming.
This Section would remove an unclear limitation for some modifications to buildings that would extend an existing legal nonconforming setback. A Minor Use Permit would still be required in all cases, while Architectural Review would be required for structures greater than 18 feet in height (instead of adding more than 25% to the floor area).
SECTION 27
Currently, any use that is discontinued for a period of more than 180 days (excluding those in possession of a previously approved permit – See Section 24) is automatically considered abandoned and any future use of the site must conform to then-current regulations. In practice, staff has found that it is not uncommon for businesses to be inactive for a period greater than that due to difficulties in securing tenants. In some cases, buildings are specialized to a certain use (such as auto repair) and are not easily converted to other conforming uses without significant cost. This Section would allow the Zoning Administrator to extend the time from 180 days to 24 months before a nonconforming use is considered abandoned, provided that the Zoning Administrator can make certain findings.
SECTION 28
This change would clarify that the process for amending a Specific Plan would be identical to the process for amending the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance.
Packet Page 193
SECTION 29
This change would treat Architectural Reviews the same as other permits with regards to which persons are allowed to file an appeal. It also removes references to Minor Variances (see Section 20).
SECTION 30
This change would alter the definition of Discretionary Land Use Approval to remove the term Minor Variance (see Section 20) and administrative permits (which are by definition not discretionary). This change is primarily a consistency change, as the term Discretionary Land Use Approval does not appear elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 31
Currently, a medical office with “four or more” licensed practitioners is considered under the use “Medical Services – Clinic, Urgent Care.” However, the “Medical Services – Doctor Office” allows for “up to four” licensed practitioners. This makes it unclear under which use a practice with four practitioners would fall. This change would make it clear that an Urgent Care office includes five or more practitioners, while a Doctors Office would continue to include up to four.
SECTION 32
Owners and tenants of nonconforming structures (see discussion in Section 25) are allowed to perform “Ordinary Maintenance and Repair.” However, the definition of Ordinary Maintenance and Repair currently states that anything that requires a Building Permit does not qualify as Ordinary Maintenance and Repair. However, there any many items that would normally be considered repair and maintenance, such as water heater replacement, plumbing/electrical work, reroofing, etc that require a Building Permit.
This puts owners and businesses in the uncomfortable position of either performing the work without obtaining Building Permits or allowing the property to deteriorate. Staff recommends adjusting the definition of Ordinary Maintenance and Repair so as not to prohibit maintenance work simply because it requires a Building Permit. The Section would also provide that aesthetic updates may be performed on the property, in order to encourage property owners to continue to invest in and utilize their properties, which would minimize blight.
SECTION 33
This change would simply remove Minor Variance from the list of Planning Permits and acknowledge that not all Planning Permits are explicitly mentioned within this definition.
Packet Page 194