staff report: a public hearing to consider city-initiated

ZS749offstreetparkingccmtg1-25-21(klk)

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY MEMORANDUM

January 25, 2021

TO: City Council FROM: Department of Environmental Services SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITY-INITIATED SIMI VALLEY

MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS (Z-S-749) REGARDING OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE

RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends denial of Z-S-749B regarding proposed changes to off-street vehicle parking in residential zoning districts. . BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW At the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council requested a review of the City’s off-street parking requirements, including recreational vehicle (RV) parking on residential properties. It was further directed that staff obtain input from the four Neighborhood Councils on the matter and that non-health and safety related enforcement of RV parking be paused during this review period. On February 11, 2019, staff presented to the City Council the results of the initial Neighborhood Council (NC) input, and the City Council directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Development Code to allow for additional rear yard parking on residential properties for both typical sized and larger sized lots with a permit option. In addition, the City Council desired to maintain surfacing requirements (e.g. concrete) for parking areas, streamline the entitlement process, and to expand RV storage land use options for commercial and industrial properties. In December 2019, staff presented proposed amendments to each of the four Executive Board Neighborhood Councils. Three of the four Neighborhood Councils passed motions to recommend amending the rear yard parking provisions outlined by staff (NC #1 opposed). NC #3 also requested that additional front yard parking options be considered. Refer to Exhibit 2 for full summaries. On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for rear yard parking and the other suggested amendments, and after public review and testimony directed that a subcommittee of two Planning Commissioners be formed to meet with staff to discuss the residential proposal in greater detail. Additionally, the Planning

AGENDA ITEM NO.

4B

2


Commission recommended approval of the proposed commercial and industrial text amendments by separate action (those items will be heard by the City Council at a later date as part of a comprehensive code update.) On February 11, 2020, the Subcommittee, consisting of Commissioners Ken Rice and John Casselberry, met with Planning and Code Enforcement staff to review the history of parking on single-family residential properties, the proposed amendments, and concerns on enforcement. Staff reviewed with the Subcommittee various property layouts throughout the City, the pros and cons of accessing residential properties, issues related to adding additional driveway approaches, front and side yard parking situations, and how the Code Enforcement Division handles parking complaints. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Subcommittee decided to recommend to the Planning Commission that no changes be made to the ordinance and that enforcement of the existing rules resume. The Subcommittee was concerned about complications that could arise from adding an additional allowance for rear yard parking, including the following: a. Broadening the parking location standards is likely to result in additional violations

over time, which could hinder enforcement of the rules; b. Loss of on-street parking due to additional driveway approaches; c. Possible use of the parking areas for inhabited recreational vehicles; d. Lack of ability to regulate the type or condition of the vehicle; e. Lack of enforcement tools to create more detailed parking rules (i.e. access to the

site and rear yard of violators, licensing/tracking of vehicles and registrations, monitoring, etc.).

Due to public hearing delays caused by COVID-19, the Planning Commission considered the recommendations of the Subcommittee on September 2, 2020 and by a 5:0 vote, recommended to the City Council that the proposed changes be rejected and enforcement of the existing standards resume. The Planning Commission commented that the amendments would create enforcement issues and result in additional complications versus resolution of the issue at hand; have significant costs associated with potential new violations; rear yard parking provisions would not motivate people to make pads in the rear yard due to additional expenses; and that the Neighborhood Council suggestion to allow the option to add a pad on the opposite side of the front yard would result in curb jumping and damage to curbs at the taxpayer’s expense, and have the potential to create other parking issues (e.g. loss of parking on the street due to new driveway approach). Current Parking Rules for Single-Family Residences The current rules for parking on single-family properties (including RVs) are identified in the shaded areas on Figure 1. For rear yard areas, parking may only occur within an approved garage or carport, or on the paved driveway leading to the garage or carport.

3


Figure 1 – Approved Parking Locations on Single-Family properties

Proposed Rear Yard Amendments The proposed rear yard parking amendment would allow the following with approval of a Zoning Clearance:

• Uncovered rear yard parking up to 400 square feet (2 car garage equivalent) for lots less than one acre (garage or carport not required)

• Uncovered rear yard parking up to 800 square feet (4 car garage equivalent) for lots one acre or more (garage or carport not required)

• Allowed square footage may have variable dimensional configurations (e.g. 10’ x 40’ or 20’ x 20’)

• No limit on number of vehicles, provided they fit in permitted approved area

Proposed operational and design standards are as follows: a. The designated parking area must be paved with concrete; b. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area is not allowed; c. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from a driveway approach or

access way approved by the Department of Public Works. Gate setbacks would still apply;

d. If access to rear yard is from the front yard, parking area can only be accessed from side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is currently permitted;

e. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not cover more than 40 percent of required rear yard;

4


f. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feet in height to screen the parking area;

g. Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from the side and rear property lines;

h. A Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit (if a new driveway approach is required) must be obtained.

Figure 2 shows an example of a rear yard parking area with the proposed amendments:

Figure 2 – Example of Proposed Rear Yard Parking Location

The proposed Text Amendments are contained in Exhibit A of the attached Ordinance. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES Staff’s interpretation of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial is that there is a lack of adequate tools or remedies available to enforce existing violations and that there exists the potential for violation conflicts when opening up the rear yard to additional uncovered parking. If additional parking locations are authorized with or without a permit, there is also the potential for unauthorized expansion of the said parking area and related nuisances (e.g. occupancy of RV’s, visual obstructions, health and safety impacts, and general aesthetics). Staff is not recommending elimination of any existing approved parking spaces and believes the current regulations provide a balanced

5


neighborhood approach between landscaping/aesthetics and parking opportunities for those properties configured to accommodate additional parking (not all properties were designed to accommodate additional on-site parking). These existing standards are easy to understand and explain to the public and administer. The proposed amendments will require Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit fees, site plan review, and compliance monitoring, which would be difficult with limited staffing. Under a separate action, the Planning Commission, in an effort to bring more RV parking operations to the City, recommended updating commercial/industrial use standards for RV storage facilities. Currently, the largest RV storage facilities within the City are at full capacities with waiting lists for new customers. These commercial options will be brought back to the City Council separately under a comprehensive Development Code update. Code Enforcement Discussion The Code Enforcement Section received a total of 70 complaints involving parking violations since the suspension of onsite parking requirements in February 2018. Of those, 38 have since been abated or not substantiated. The remaining 32 are currently being reviewed by Code Enforcement staff for compliance with the current standards. Previous direction to staff has been to only pursue parking violations once a complaint has been received; however, this has resulted in an overall erosion of compliance and a significant lack of understanding of the permissible onsite parking options throughout the community. Should rear yard parking options be expanded, the ability to verify and/or enforce upon violations in the rear yard is severely limited by access and staff resources that would otherwise need to obtain access through the courts when a property owner does not voluntarily grant access. This would result in an overall inability to effectively enforce rear yard standards which could lead to a proliferation of vehicles parked in the rear yard and individuals dwelling in vehicles in rear yards. Whether the parking standards are amended or affirmed in their current form, prior to reinvigorating enforcement on residential parking standards, Code Enforcement staff proposes conducting a community education campaign. The campaign will ensure that the community at large is made aware of the standards, whether new or existing, and allow time for residents to identify parking alternatives for recreational and other vehicles currently parked in locations not permissible under the approved standards. Staff is also sensitive to the need for some property owners to identify financial resources related to recreational vehicle storage and to abate other associated violations such as over paving or unapproved surfaces for parking. Currently, many of the violations throughout the community involve parking of a vehicle in an unapproved location, but it would not require other efforts other than relocating the vehicle to correct the violation. Additionally, a smaller number of properties have paved a larger portion of the front yard than currently permissible and would require modifying front yard landscaping to restore the required 50 percent landscaping.

6


The outreach efforts would include proactively identifying homes with violations and require Code Compliance staff to make informal contact with property owners, door hangers, and mass mailings to residential properties through utility billings as well as the existing list of open parking violations. These mailings would provide a mechanism to educate property owners and tenants on the standards. Additionally, outreach to local realtors would assist in ensuring that there is an understanding of allowable recreational vehicle parking so that homes are not marketed as having “RV access” when the City’s standards are not met. Additionally, Code Enforcement staff will make presentations to Neighborhood Councils, homeowners’ associations, and any other community group identified as possibly enhancing the community’s knowledge of the City’s standards. It is suggested this in-person outreach begin at the conclusion of the COVID emergency.

Given that the erosion of the community’s understanding of the parking standards happened over an extended period of time, it is recommended that outreach be conducted for six months prior to formal enforcement action being initiated. This would provide ample time to educate community members and groups, identify all violations or possible violations (such as a parking pad in the wrong location), and allow residents to plan for parking alternatives and any property improvements to abate all violations.

The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Do not approve Zone Text Amendment Z-S-749B and resume enforcement as outlined in the staff report.

2. Introduce Ordinance No. 1319 (Page 10) approving Zone Text Amendment Z-S-749B with or without modifications and direct staff to resume enforcement as outlined in the staff report.

3. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission.

4. Provide other direction to staff.

The Planning Commission Recommends Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION

I move to decline amending parking regulations for single-family dwellings and resume enforcement of parking violations as outlined in the staff report.

SUMMARY

As a result of citizen concerns of the enforcement of off-street vehicle parking (including recreational vehicle (RV) parking) on residential properties, the City Council paused enforcement, requested Neighborhood Council input, and directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Development Code to allow for additional rear yard parking on residential properties for both typical sized and larger sized lots with a permit option.

7


On September 2, 2020, The Planning Commission recommended that the existing parking regulations remain in place due to enforcement issues with existing parking violation cases and the potential implications of an expanded parking ordinance. It is also recommended that enforcement resume for single-family parking violations as outlined in the staff report.

____________________________________ Stratis Perros Environmental Services Director

Prepared by: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner

INDEX Page

Public Hearing Procedure ................................................................................... 8 Ordinance No. 1319........................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 1 September 2, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit 2 September 2, 2020 Planning Commission Packet

8


PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE HEARING DATE: January 25, 2021 1. MAYOR: This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider

City-initiated Simi Valley Municipal Code Amendments (Z-S-749B) regarding off-street vehicle parking in residential zoning districts; and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

May I have a reading of the ordinance? 2. CLERK: (Reads ordinance) 3. MAYOR: May we have an oral report on this matter by staff? 4. STAFF: (Report) 5. ANY COUNCIL

MEMBER : (Questions of staff and staff response) 6. MAYOR: Did we receive any requests for members of the public to

make a public statement on zoom for this item and if so, please use the hand raise function on your computer or *9 on your phone, staff will un-mute you when it is your turn.

7. AUDIENCE: (Comments) 8. MAYOR: The hearing is closed. Are there any comments or questions

from members of the City Council?

9. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : (Comments)

10. MAYOR: The Chair will now entertain a motion. 11. ANY COUNCIL

MEMBER : City Council Actions (by motion of any Council Member):

1) Introduce, modify, or not introduce Ordinance No. 1319 (does not require a second or a vote; requires reading of ordinance);

* Any action to refer the matter back to staff or to continue

the matter requires a second and a vote.

9


12. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER : Second

13. MAYOR: (Call for vote) 14. MAYOR: Proceed to the next item.

10


ORDINANCE NO. 1319

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY AMENDING SIMI VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9-34.040 (Z-S-749B) REGARDING OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

WHEREAS, at the February 11, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Department of Environmental Services to prepare potential amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code to address additional locations for parking of oversized vehicles within the rear yards single-family residential properties; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code will allow for opportunities to homeowners to park vehicles in their rear yards, provided square footage, setback, access, screening and lot coverage requirements are met; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA regulations (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) because the amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3)); and

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2021, the City Council considered evidence and public testimony on the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The findings for Zone Text Amendment No. Z-S-749B contained in the City Council staff report dated January 25, 2021, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

SECTION 2. Zone Text Amendment No. Z-S-749B, amending SVMC Title 9-34.040 contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto is hereby approved.

SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, adjudicated to a final determination, the City Council finds that said voided part is severable, that the City Council would have adopted the remainder of this Ordinance without the severed and voided part, and that the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

11 ORD. NO. 1319


SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary hereof to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the County of Ventura and circulated in the City, and if applicable, to be posted, in accordance with Section 36933 of the California Government Code; shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a certified copy of this ordinance, together with proof of publication, to be filed in the Office of the Clerk of this City.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________ 2021.

Attest:

__ Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of

Simi Valley, California

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Lonnie J. Eldridge, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager

Stratis Perros Environmental Services Director

12 ORD. NO. 1319


EXHIBIT A

(Changes are underlined or as strike through).

SVMC Section 9-34.040 of the Simi Valley Development Code is amended as follows:

Section 9-34.040 - Residential Use Parking Standards

A. Location of single-family parking.

1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family detached dwellings shall belocated on the same parcel on which the dwelling is located.

2. Additional uncovered parking for single-family detached dwellings beyondthat which is required by this Chapter shall only be placed in a required sidesetback, in the required front setback alongside the driveway on the sideclosest to a side property line, on a driveway to a garage or carport locatedin the rear yard, or on a circular driveway in the front yard, or in the rearyard when in compliance with subsection 6.

3. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall not be located in the front,side, or rear setback area of any residential zoning district, except within adetached garage or carport structure which may be located in a side or rearsetback area, in the rear yard when in compliance with subsection 6, or asauthorized by this Chapter.

4. The additional parking areas shall also be paved in compliance with Section9-34.090(F) (Parking and access surface requirements), and accessed incompliance with Sections 9-34.090(A), and (B).

5. Circular driveways located in front yards must not be used for the parkingof any oversized vehicle, trailer, or fifth wheel trailer, as defined in Section4-9.402.

6. On properties of less than one acre, up to 400 square feet of area, and onproperties of one acre or more, up to 800 square feet of area may be designated for additional uncovered parking, when in compliance with the following standards:

a. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area isnot allowed.

b. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from a drivewayapproach or access way approved by the Department of Public Works.

c. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not covermore than 40 percent of required rear yard.

13 ORD. NO. 1319


d. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feet inheight to screen the parking area. Fencing materials shall be in compliance with Section 9-30.030(A)(6).

e. Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from the sideand rear property lines.

f. If access to rear yard is from the front yard, parking area can only beaccessed from side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is permitted per SVMC Section 9-34.040(A)(2).

g A Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit (if a new driveway approach is required) must be obtained.

EXHIBIT 1

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 2, 2020

Z-S-749b

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD TREE ADVISORY BOARD

City Council Chamber September 2, 2020 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 1. CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was called to order at 6:30 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hodge, Rice and Tolson; Vice Chairperson

Casselberry, Jr.; and Chairperson Mann Absent: None

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the agenda as amended, reflecting the correct date of the Minutes being approved as August 19, 2020, not February 19, 2020.

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 19, 2020 It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.

6. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None

7. PUBLIC STATEMENTS – None

8. CORRESPONDENCE

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson referred to items of correspondence received. Three emails were received regarding agenda item 10.A.1, from Lisa Trent, Matt Dorros and Anne Smith. One email was received regarding agenda item 11.A.1 from Rancho Simi Recreation &

anning Commission Meeting Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board Tree Advisory Board Minutes - Page 2 September 2, 2020

Parks District. All correspondence received was emailed to the Commission and placed on the dais.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR – None

10. CONTINUED BUSINESS

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Z-S-749b; City of Simi Valley: : To consider Development Code Text Amendments (Z-S-749b) regarding off-street vehicle parking in Residential Zoning Districts; and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Location: Citywide Staff Contact: Sean Gibson

(805) 583-6383 There were no ex parte communications to report.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a presentation of the staff report. Commissioner Hodge asked for clarification as to what is considered a “recreational vehicle.” Mr. Gibson responded that a boat or trailer could also be considered an RV, with no height limit defined. Chairperson Hodge asked staff to comment on the findings of the subcommittee that was organized to review the proposed amendment. Commissioner Hodge suggested that allowing parking in the backyard might eliminate having boats parked in the front yard, which might be an improvement, granted the boats are under six feet. He also suggested the possibility of allowing just one RV to be parked in the backyard. Commissioner Rice stated that this was discussed by the subcommittee but the issue then becomes enforcement, which would be difficult. Commissioner Casselberry added that it was his understanding that you cannot discriminate against vehicle types. Deputy Environmental Services Director Mara Malch addressed several code enforcement issues. She stated that anything moved to the rear yard becomes difficult to enforce, as the vehicle has to be seen from the public right-of-way or another legally accessible location in an indisputable fashion, and code enforcement has to prove that the violation exists to a court-level standard. If it can be seen by a neighbor, the neighbor would have to become a willing party to the case, as the violation can only been seen from their vantage point. She


added that the City Council has directed in the past that the rear yard should not be the focus of enforcement as it involves people’s individual property, and the City Council does not wish to overly regulate the community. Ms. Malch then addressed vehicle types. She indicated that there is only one differentiation in the code, which does not allow for oversized vehicles to be parked in a circular driveway. Those specific vehicles are defined by height and size defined by the Vehicle Code. She added that if you were to start specifying measurements of vehicles, it would become very challenging and cumbersome because many measurements that would logically be associated with an RV are also associated with people’s personal vehicles, i.e., an extended cab pick-up truck with a long bed, a lifted vehicle, or a commercial vehicle that doubles as a personal vehicle. All the above-noted vehicles could hit the same standard as an RV. With respect to boats, the trailer itself would extend the height. An argument could be made in court that the boat itself is not over an “imposed” height limit. Every situation would then have to be envisioned and regulated. When an enforcement case is pursued, first an initial letter informing of the violation and the remedy needed is sent. If the party does not comply, a Notice and Order is sent. If that is ignored, a civil fine can be assessed. If there is non-compliance with the civil fine, a Final Notice is sent and an office conference is scheduled with legal staff to pursue prosecution, if compliance is not reached as a result of the conference. If you are dealing with an individual who is unwilling to comply with the request to move the vehicle, it would take months, and an extreme amount of resources to remedy the violation. Having the standards clear cut and readily accepted by the community enhances enforceability. Commissioner Hodge responded noting that allowing vehicle parking in the rear yard would complicate enforcement, and stated that he was clear as to why the subcommittee was not in favor of allowing a change in the code. Ms. Malch explained that this amendment was brought forth by staff as a response to community feedback requesting changes in the code. Ms. Malch added that if the standards are relaxed, they cannot effectively be reversed. She stated that the goal in bringing the amendment request forward was to address the community dialogue and input and to propose what could be permissible from a land-use and zoning standpoint. She ended by saying that all of the issues were fully vetted, and it was determined by the subcommittee that the amendment was not feasible once all things were considered, including enforcement options. Commissioner Tolson and Chairperson Mann referred to an aerial slide depicting several RVs parked in a back lot, and asked whether the owner was in violation. Ms. Malch acknowledged the violation, but indicated that if a complaint was made it could be presented to legal. However, if there is no complaining party, a Judge would have to concur with moving forward with criminal prosecution.


Without a complaining party, a Judge would be hard-pressed to rule against the violation. Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to speak via Zoom. Emails received after 5:00 p.m., and read into the record:

Jackie Neff, Simi Valley

Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Commission comments:

Commissioner Rice stated that approval of this amendment would create enforcement issues, and result in more problems than it solves. He commented on the discussion of the Neighborhood Council suggesting the addition of adding a pad on the opposite side of the house, but stated that this would create parking issues, people jumping curbs, and curb cuts would have to be added. He stated that the most prudent course of action would be to use the currently existing regulations, and start enforcing them once the City Council weighs in. Commissioner Rice was not in favor of the adopting the text amendments. Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. stated that one of his biggest concerns regarding the RV issue is people jumping the curb, damaging City property, and the taxpayer costs associated with remedying the damage. He indicated that he was in favor of leaving the regulations “as-is” in light of the enforcement issues and significant costs associated with potential new violations. Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. was not in favor of adopting the text amendments. Commissioner Hodge stated that he was in favor of supporting the subcommittee recommendation that the code not be amended. He commented that it was appropriate to extend the effort to explore the options proposed in the text amendment, but ultimately leaving the regulations “as-is” is the best course of action. Commissioner Hodge was not in favor of the adopting the text amendments. Commissioner Tolson stated the discussion was well-served. He commented that keeping the current regulation, and enforcing it is the best course of action. Commissioner Tolson was not in favor of the adopting the text amendments. Chairperson Mann stated that the current regulations should be enforced. He commented that allowing parking in the rear yard would not necessarily motivate people to move their RVs from the front yard to the rear yard, especially since money would have to be spent on concrete and covering. He added that some


people will be happy, and some people won’t, but stated that the amendment would just create more enforcement issues. Chairperson Mann was not in favor of the adopting the text amendments.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING APPROVAL OF Z-S-749B, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Hodge, Rice and Tolson;

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr., and Chairperson Mann

NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None

There is no Appeal period for the Zoning Text

Amendment and the item will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

11. NEW BUSINESS

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. CD-S-1021 MOD #1; PD-S-1021;NPLC Lost Canyons LLC: To consider a modification to Cluster Development Permit No. CD-S-1021, MOD #1; a request to construct 184 single-family residences on 168 acres; and a determination that the project is covered by the Lost Canyons Final Environmental Impact Report for the previously approved Planned Development Permit

Location: North of Lost Canyons Drive & West of Tapo Canyon Rd. Staff Contact: Jennifer Santos (805) 583-6897

There following ex parte communication were reported:


Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. disclosed that he spoke with applicant, John McClure and Tom Martin regarding the history and design of the project.

Chairperson Mann disclosed that he had discussions with applicant John McClure and Tom Martin regarding the history of the project, and viewed the video that was viewed during the applicant’s presentation. Commissioner Hodge disclosed that he had a discussion with John McClure regarding the project. Commissioner Tolson disclosed that he had a conversation with John McClure and Tom Martin regarding the project.

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the project. Associate Planner Jennifer Santos gave a presentation of the staff report. Commissioner Hodge asked Ms. Santos if 360 degree design element regulations were discussed with the applicant. Ms. Santos responded that the applicant has incorporated said elements, and will be discussing them in their presentation. Commissioner Rice asked if the Ventura County Watershed Protection District has given their approval for the conditions of project. Ms. Santos responded that the conditions were approved by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District as a part of PD-S-1021. Applicants John McClure and Tom Martin gave a presentation of the project. Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Speaker in opposition of the project (via zoom):

Natalie (no last name given), Simi Valley

Speaker – Undeclared as to whether he was in support or opposition to the project (via zoom):

Eric Inouye, Simi Valley (when called to speak, was not available)


Natalie expressed concerns that Big Sky residents would not be able to travel via Lost Canyons to Tapo Canyon, and that the project would be built in three phases inconveniencing residents of the Big Sky development. Chairperson Mann addressed the speaker’s concerns indicating Lost Canyons would in fact be travelable to Tapo Canyon. Senior Planner Jennifer Santos added that Phase I of the project would be North of Lost Canyons Drive, and Phases II and III would be South of Lost Canyons Drive, a good distance away from the Big Sky development. No email comments were received after 5:00 p.m. related to this item. Chairperson Mann closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commission comments: Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. addressed the modification which would allow the applicant to build semi-custom homes as opposed to custom homes. He stated that in this market, it makes sense to allow the project to be more affordable to residents. He commented that the project was approved by the City Council. He acknowledged the concerns building into the Hillside, but indicated that we have the Hillside Performance Standards for this very reason. Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. stated he is in support of the project. Commissioner Rice stated that he liked the balconies. He agreed with Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. regarding allowing the modification to build semi-custom homes resulting in the homes being more affordable. He indicated that in the rendering, some of the two-story homes appeared to be a little flat, but after viewing the video presentation was more comfortable with the design. Commissioner Rice stated he was in support of the project. Commissioner Tolson stated that he liked the floor plans, the variation, the casitas, great rooms and that the colors of the homes are not repeated. He stated he was in favor of modifying the homes to semi-custom. Commissioner Tolson stated he is in support of the project. Commissioner Hodge stated that he liked the design and architecture of the project. He added that this project is unique and updated. He commented that it is in the interest of the City to have various housing types, and this project fits into creating a well-rounded City. He indicated that he would have liked to have seen more 360 degree architecture. He ended by stating that this is an outstanding project and well worth the Commission’s support. Commissioner Hodge stated he is in support of the project. Chairperson Mann stated that he liked the design of the homes, the staggering and the distance in which the houses are spaced from each other. He commented that they have used of the curvature of the land, design and terrain


admirably. He agreed with Commissioner Hodge that some of the sides of the homes were lacking in design elements. Chairperson Hodge stated that he is in support of the project.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CD-S-1021-MOD#1, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY THE LOST CANYONS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PD-S-102) Commissioner Hodge seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Rice, Hodge and Tolson;



The appeal period for the Cluster Development Permit

Modification is 14 Calendar days. The Planning Commission meeting was recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m., with all Commission members present.

2. Z-S-752; City of Simi Valley: To consider amending standards for Accessory Dwelling Units; and a determination that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.;

Location: Citywide Staff Contact: Naren Gunasekera (805) 583-6863

There were no ex parte communications to report. Deputy Environmental Services Sean Gibson gave a brief overview of the amendments brought forth due to the change in State legislation. Associate Planner Naren Gunasekera gave a presentation of the staff report.


Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked if (Accessory Dwelling Units) ADUs would count toward the lower or moderate category of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Mr. Gunasekera responded stating the ADUs would qualify as moderate housing unless they are constructed in a neighborhood considered to be low-income pursuant to the census tract. Commissioner Hodge asked for clarification as to what areas qualify as low income. Deputy Environmental Services Direct/City Planner Sean Gibson responded explaining that they City is divided among census tract areas of which the government identifies as low income. If the ADU falls within an area considered to be low-income, it could qualify as such under RHNA. Mr. Gibson added that a lot of low income areas are contained within the valley floor. Commissioner Rice asked if four ADUs would be permissible on one lot. Mr. Gunasekera responded stating that two ADUs are allowed on one lot. One has to be a (Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit) JADU that is within the existing home, and the other one a detached ADU. The code currently allows guest houses, as well. The only difference between a guest house and an ADU is that a guest house does not have a kitchen. In theory, somebody could build a guest house, a detached ADU and a JADU which would add up to four units when you factor in the main house. Deputy Environmental Services Direct/City Planner Sean Gibson added that the City is receiving dozens of requests monthly for ADUs and JADUs. Chairperson Mann asked if the amendment involved a State mandate, or the City’s choice. Mr. Gunasekera responded that because the Development Code has not been updated, State law is operative. Chairperson Mann asked if ADUs were now allowed above a garage, even though the City code does not allow same. Mr. Gunasekera responded indicating that the State is allowing an ADU anywhere you want. Chairperson Mann asked if you could build a detached two-story ADU. Mr. Gunasekera responded “no.” Chairperson Mann asked if you could build a two-story JADU if it is within a two-story house. Mr. Gibson responded “no” because a JADU typically involves part of the house being cut off. If the JADU were to have two-stories, it would have to have a separate staircase.


Chairperson Hodge stated that the State will allow a two-story ADU, but the City will not be allowing two-stories. Mr. Gibson responded that this was correct. He stated that it is the intent to try to maintain the character of the community as much as possible. He stated that the single-story component is the logical first step in amending the code.

Chairperson Mann asked what the maximum size of an ADU could be. Mr. Gibson responded 1,200 square-feet. Chairperson Mann asked if a lot size does not allow room for a 1,200 square-foot ADU, could the ADU then be two-stories. Mr. Gunasekera responded “no.” Mr. Gibson added that there is an 18-foot height limit. Chairperson Mann asked if there was a height limit for residential neighborhoods in Simi Valley. Mr. Gibson responded that the height limit is 30 feet for the main house. Mr. Gibson added that for a detached structure, i.e., a pool house, gazebo, shed or ADU, the height limit is 18 feet. Mr. Gibson stated with respect to ADUs, the mandated requirement is four-foot side yard setbacks. Typically two-story structures throughout the City have 10-foot setbacks. Several ADUs have been built right at the four-foot setback limit, and the City cannot stop that. Complaints are received from neighbors, but the State allows same. Chairperson Mann asked if any permits had been pulled for ADUs above a garage in the City. Mr. Gibson responded that he is currently aware of one. Principal Planner Claudia Pedroso added that the State does allow local jurisdictions to set limitations based on floor ratio open space, limits on lot coverage, and allows cities to impose development standards. The State is requiring that an 800 square-foot ADU be allowed on the lot. If it is not buildable on the surface, that is when it can be allowed on a second floor. Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to speak via Zoom. Emails received after 5:00 p.m., and read into the record:

Matthew Gelfand, Counsel for California Homeownership

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson added final comments stating that this involves a very complex code situation due to the way the legislation and bills were written, intertwined with regulations. Mr. Gibson commented that planning staff is spending many hours working with homeowners throughout the City wishing to build ADUs, assisting them in


interpreting the code. Codifying the amendment into the City’s ordinance which will replicate the State’s standards will allow planning staff to work more effectively with requests.


Commission comments: There were no Commission comments.

VICE CHAIRPERSON CASSELBERRY, JR. MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF Z-S-752; AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Commissioner Tolson seconded the motion. AYES: Commissioners Rice, Hodge and Tolson;



There is no Appeal period for the Zoning Text


B. OTHER – None

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS A. STAFF

Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner Sean Gibson advised the Commission of the upcoming agenda for the September 16, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting.


B. PLANNING COMMISSION Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr., thanked staff for their hard work in bringing forth the text amendment items on the Agenda. Commissioner Rice welcomed Associate Planner Naren Gunasekera to the planning team. Chairperson Mann added that he did a great job on his presentation.

C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None

13. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on September 16, 2020.

Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Dodson

EXHIBIT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

September 2, 2020

INDEX Page

Planning Commission Procedure................................................................................6 Resolution....................................................................................................................8 Exhibit A of Resolution – Proposed Text Amendments ............................................ 10 Attachment A: Notice of Exemption ..........................................................................12 Exhibit 1 – January 22, 2020 Planning Commission Packet with Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Exhibit 2 – Correspondence

Z-S-749b

ZS749b PC Staff Report(jd)


September 2, 2020

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sean Gibson, Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT

AMENDMENTS (Z-S-749b) REGARDING OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission Subcommittee recommends that the proposed amendments not be adopted and that the existing vehicle parking rules be enforced. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW At the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council requested a review of the City’s off-street parking requirements, including recreational vehicle (RV) parking on residential properties. It was further directed that staff obtain input from the four Neighborhood Councils on the matter, and that non-health and safety related enforcement of off-street parking be paused during this review period. On February 11, 2019, staff presented to the City Council the results of the initial Neighborhood Council (NC) input, and the City Council directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Development Code to allow for additional rear yard parking on residential properties for both typical-sized and larger-sized lots with a permit option. In addition, the City Council desired to maintain surfacing requirements (e.g. concrete) for parking areas, streamline the entitlement process, and to expand RV Storage land use options for commercial and industrial properties. In December 2019, staff presented proposed amendments to each of the four Executive Board Neighborhood Councils. Three of the four Neighborhood Councils passed motions to amend the rear yard parking provisions outlined by staff (NC #1 opposed). NC #3 also requested that additional front yard parking options be considered. Refer to the January 22, 2020 staff report for further discussion.

AGENDA ITEM NO.

10.A.1

2 ZS749b PC Staff Report Continued(jd)

On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for rear yard parking and the other suggested amendments, and after public review and testimony directed that a subcommittee of two Planning Commissioners be formed to meet with staff to discuss the residential proposal in greater detail. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed commercial and industrial text amendments by separate action. Refer to Exhibit 1 for the meeting minutes. On February 11, 2020, the Subcommittee, consisting of Commissioners Rice and Casselberry, met with Planning and Code Enforcement staff to review the history of parking on single-family residential properties, the proposed amendments, and concerns on enforcement. Staff reviewed with the Subcommittee various property layouts throughout the City, the pros and cons of accessing residential properties, issues related to adding additional driveway approaches, front and side yard parking situations, and how the Code Enforcement Division handles parking complaints. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Subcommittee recommended that no changes be made to the ordinance and that enforcement of the existing rules resume. The Subcommittee was concerned about complications that could arise from adding an additional allowance for rear yard parking, including the following: a. Broadening the parking location standards is likely to result in additional violations

over time, which could hinder enforcement of the rules; b. Loss of on-street parking due to additional driveway approaches; c. Possible use of the parking areas for inhabited recreational vehicles; d. Lack of ability to regulate the type or condition of the vehicle; e. Lack of enforcement tools to create more detailed parking rules (i.e. access to the

site and rear yard of violators, licensing/tracking of vehicles and registrations, monitoring, etc.);

f. Broadening the parking location standards is likely to result in additional violations over time.

To recap, the current rules for parking on single-family detached properties are depicted in the shaded areas on Figure 1. For rear yard areas, parking may only occur within an approved garage or carport, or on the paved driveway leading to the garage or carport.



To address the City Council direction from February 11, 2019, the proposed rear yard parking amendment would allow uncovered rear yard parking up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more. This square footage is equivalent to a two-car garage or a four-car garage. The dimensioning can vary to accommodate multiple vehicle types. The revisions do not limit the number of vehicles but rather just the area where the vehicles may be parked. The provisions to allow rear yard parking include the following: a. The designated parking area must be paved with concrete. b. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area is not allowed. c. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from a driveway approach or

access way approved by the Department of Public Works. Gate setbacks would still apply.

d. If access to the rear yard is from the front yard, the parking area can only be accessed from side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is currently permitted.

e. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not cover more than 40 percent of required rear yard.

f. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feet in height to screen the parking area.

g. The Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from the side and rear property lines.

h. A Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit (if a new driveway approach is required) must be obtained.



The proposed Text Amendments are contained in Exhibit A of the attached Resolution. This item was originally scheduled for March 18, 2010; however the item is not being heard until now due to Planning Commission meetings being canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES The findings for recommending approval of Development Code Amendments to allow for additional rear yard parking are contained in the January 22, 2020 staff report (Exhibit 1).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS The proposed amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA regulations (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) which states that: “A project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The proposed amendments to the Development Code provide minor modifications to parking locations on single-family properties, and thus no significant impact on the environment. A copy of the Notice of Exemption is provided as Attachment A on page 12.


INDEX Page Planning Commission Procedure .................................................................................... 6 Resolution ....................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit A of Resolution – Proposed Text Amendments ...................................... 10 Attachment A: Notice of Exemption .............................................................................. 12 Exhibit 1 – January 22, 2020 Planning Commission Packet with Staff Report and

Meeting Minutes Exhibit 2 – Correspondence


PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: September 2, 2020

Z-S-749b 1. CHAIRMAN: a) This is the time and place set for a public hearing on

the consideration of Z-S-749b, and the determination that the Amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

b) Are there any ex parte communications to report? c) May we have an oral report on this matter by staff? 2. STAFF: (Report) 3. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Questions of staff) 3. CHAIRMAN: We will open the public testimony portion of the hearing. 4. CHAIRMAN: Did we receive any requests for members of the public to

make a public statement on zoom for this item and if so, please use the hand raise function on your computer or *9 if on your phone, staff will un-mute you when it is your turn.

Did we receive any email comments on this item received

after 5:00 today? (Staff to respond how many and to read the emails for up to 5 minutes each, 30 minutes total).

5. AUDIENCE: (Comments) 6. CHAIRMAN: a) Are there any comments from staff regarding

statements made during the public hearing? (Check with Deputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner, and staff members in the audience.)

c) If there are no further questions, we will close the

public testimony portion of the hearing. d) Are there any comments or questions from members

of the Planning Commission?


7. ANY COMMISSIONER: (Comments)

8. CHAIRMAN: May I please have a reading of the Resolution? 9. RECORDING SECRETARY: (Reads Number and Title of Resolution) 10. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will now entertain a motion. 11. ANY

COMMISSIONER: I move to adopt a resolution recommending approval of Z-S-749b, and the determination that the Amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

or

I move to recommend denial of the Amendments.

[Staff will forward the meeting minutes and denial vote to the City Council]

12. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made by Commissioner ___________. 13. CHAIRMAN: May I have a Second? 14. ANY

COMMISSIONER: I second the motion.

15. CHAIRMAN: Call for the vote. 16. CHAIRMAN: The motion (passes or fails). 17. CHAIRMAN: There is no Appeal period for the Zoning Text


or 18. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter until the meeting of ___. or 19. ANY COMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter to a date uncertain. 20. CHAIRMAN: Proceed to the next item.


RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 04-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Z-S-749b AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, at the February 11, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Department of Environmental Services to prepare potential amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code and applicable Specific Plans to address additional locations for parking of oversized vehicles within the rear yards single-family residential properties as well as commercial and industrial locations to encourage development of recreational vehicle storage facilities; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Development

Code will allow opportunities to some homeowners to park vehicles in their rear yards provided square footage, setback, access, screening and lot coverage requirements are met; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are exempt from review under the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA regulations (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) because the amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3)); and

WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the

discussion to a date uncertain to allow formation of a Planning Commission subcommittee of Planning Commissioner’s Rice and Casselberry to discuss residential parking options; and

WHEREAS, the subcommittee held a meeting on February 11, 2020, and

recommended to the Planning Commission to not change the residential parking regulations; and

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2020, the Planning Commission considered

the subcommittee’s recommendation and all evidence and testimony presented at the Public Hearings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

RES. NO. SVPC 04-2020


9

SECTION 1. The findings, for approval, for Z-S-749 contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated January 22, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby recommended to the City Council for approval.

SECTION 2. Development Code Amendment Z-S-749b, as specified in

Exhibit A, attached hereto, is hereby recommended to the City Council for Adoption. SECTION 3. The time within which judicial review must be sought for

administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 2020. Attest: _________________________________ ______________________________ Jennifer Dodson Allan C. Mann Chairperson Recording Secretary Planning Commission Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _________________________________ ______________________________ David Caceres Sean Gibson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Environmental Services Director/ City Planner

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on September 2, 2020 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

ATTEST: Jennifer Dodson Recording Secretary



10

EXHIBIT A

Proposed Simi Valley Development Code Text Amendments (Z-S-749b)

(Changes are underlined or as strike through). SVMC Section 9-34.040 of the Simi Valley Development Code is amended as follows: Section 9-34.040 - Residential Use Parking Standards A. Location of single-family parking. 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family detached dwellings shall be

located on the same parcel on which the dwelling is located. 2. Additional uncovered parking for single-family detached dwellings beyond

that which is required by this Chapter shall only be placed in a required side setback, in the required front setback alongside the driveway on the side closest to a side property line, on a driveway to a garage or carport located in the rear yard, or on a circular driveway in the front yard, or in the rear yard when in compliance with subsection 6.

3. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall not be located in the front,

side, or rear setback area of any residential zoning district, except within a detached garage or carport structure which may be located in a side or rear setback area, or in the rear yard when in compliance with subsection 6, or as authorized by this Chapter.

4. The additional parking areas shall also be paved in compliance with Section

9-34.090(F) (Parking and access surface requirements), and accessed in compliance with Sections 9-34.090(A), and (B).

5. Circular driveways located in front yards must not be used for the parking

of any oversized vehicle, trailer, or fifth wheel trailer, as defined in Section 4-9.402.



11

6. On properties of less than one acre, up to 400 square feet of area, and on

properties of one acre or more, up to 800 square feet of area may be designated for additional uncovered parking, when in compliance with the following standards:

a. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area is

not allowed. b. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from a driveway

approach or access way approved by the Department of Public Works.

c. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not cover more than 40 percent of required rear yard.

d. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feet in height to screen the parking area. Fencing materials shall be in compliance with Section 9-30.030(A)(6).

e. Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from the side and rear property lines.

f. If access to rear yard is from the front yard, parking area can only be accessed from side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is permitted per SVMC Section 9-34.040(A)(2).


NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

To: County Clerk County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93001

From: City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063

Project Title: Simi Valley Municipal Code Text Amendments (Z-S-749) and Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan Text Amendments (SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6) regarding Off-Street Parking and RV Storage Facilities

Project Location - Specific: _C_it_.._y_w_i_d_e ________ ________________ _

Project Location - City: _____ S_im_i _V_a_ll_e~y ___ _ Project Location - County: Ventura

Description of Project: Z-S-749 will amend the Simi Valley Municipal Code to 1) modify offstreet parking requirements on single-family residential properties; and 2) to allow for Administrative Conditional Use Permits for RV Storage Facilities. SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6 will amend the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan to conditionally permit RV Storage Facilities in the Business Park Zone of the Specific Plan Area.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _ C_it~y~ o_f _S_i_m_i_V_a_lle_y~--- - --------Dat e of A pproval

Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _C_it_.y'--o_f_S_i_m_i_V_a_l_le_y.__ __________ _

Exempt Status: (check one)

Ministerial [Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 15268]; Declared Emergency [Sec. 21080(b) (3); 15269(a)] ; Emergency Project [Sec. 21080(b)(4);15269(b)(c)]; Categorical Exemption - State type and section number -------------Statutory Exemptions - State code number - ------- ------- ---x General Rule [Sec. 15061 (b)(3)]

Text of exemption and reasons why project is exempt:

Section 15061 (b)(3) states that: "A project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment . Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a sign ificant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. " The proposed amendments t o the Development Code provide minor modifications to parking locations on single-family properties and text amendments to allow RV storage facilit ies in t he BP (SP) zone of the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specifi c Plan, and allowances for Administrative CUPs for indoor RV storage facilities

Lead Agency Contact Pers~ an Gibson

Signature: . ~~ Sean Gibson

Area Code/Telephone (805) 583-6383

Date: I {'f/zo1.e Title: Senior Planner Dept . of Environmenta l Services

X Signed by Lead Agency

13

EXHIBIT 1

Z-S-749b

January 22, 202 PC Staff Report & Meeting Minutes

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ZS749 PC Staff Report(jd)


January 22, 2020

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Stratis Perros, Environmental Services Director

SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS (Z-S-749) AND SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS (SP-S-9, AMENDMENT NO. 6) REGARDING OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITIES; AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code and Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan and make a recommendation to the City Council.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

At the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council requested a review of the City’s off-street parking requirements, including recreational vehicle (RV) parking on residential properties. It was further directed that staff obtain input from the four Neighborhood Councils on the matter, and that non-health and safety related enforcement of RV parking be paused during this review period.

On February 11, 2019, staff presented to the City Council the results of the initial Neighborhood Council input, and the City Council directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Development Code to allow for additional rear yard parking on residential properties for both typical sized and larger sized lots with a permit option. In addition the City Council desired to maintain surfacing requirements (e.g. concrete) for parking areas, streamline the entitlement process, and to expand RV Storage land use options for commercial and industrial properties.

The current rules for parking on single-family properties are depicted in the shaded areas on Figure 1. For rear yard areas, parking may only occur within an approved garage or carport, or on the paved driveway leading to the garage or carport.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.B.2

EXHIBIT 1

2 ZS749 PC Staff Report(jd)


Proposed Amendments

1. Rear Yard Parking: The proposed rear yard parking amendment would allowuncovered rear yard parking up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800square feet for lots one acre or more. This square footage is equivalent to a two-cargarage or a four-car garage. The dimensioning can be variable to fit for the vehicletype(s). The revisions do not limit the number of vehicles but rather just the area wherethe vehicles may be parked on. The provisions to allow rear yard parking include thefollowing:

a. The designated parking area must be paved with concrete.b. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area is not allowed.c. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from a driveway approach or

access way approved by the Department of Public Works. Gate setbacks wouldstill apply.

d. If access to rear yard is from the front yard, parking area can only be accessedfrom side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is currentlypermitted.

e. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not cover more than 40percent of required rear yard.

f. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feet in height toscreen the parking area.

g. Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from the side and rearproperty lines.

h. A Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit (if a new driveway approach isrequired) must be obtained.



2. Administrative Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Indoor RV Storage Businesses(with no size limit): Currently there is a project size limit of 10,000 square feet for aConditional Use Permit to be considered at the Administrative Hearing Level. Thisamendment would allow for an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for an indoor RVstorage facility of any size within an existing building. Administrative Conditional UsePermits require Public Hearings heard by the Zoning Administrator (or EnvironmentalServices Director or designee), and may be appealed or raised to the PlanningCommission Level at staff’s discretion.

3. Add the Business Park-Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RVStorage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP): This amendment would allow RVStorage lots with approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the BP (SP) Zone of theBrandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan area. This may include outdoor or indoor RVstorage facilities. The BP (SP) zone is located at the south end of Tapo Canyon Roadand contains developed and undeveloped properties, some with approved or pendingentitlements. Although the Specific Plan area is limited, market conditions or other siteconstraints could make RV storage a viable land use option. However, no proposal hasbeen submitted as this is a proactive request.

The proposed Text Amendments are contained in Exhibit A of the attached Resolution.

In December 2019, staff presented proposed amendments to each of the four Executive Boards Neighborhood Councils. Each Neighborhood Council made motions on three separate Actions: 1) Additional Rear Yard Parking at single-family properties; 2)


Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Facilities; and 3) Allow for RV Storage Facilities in the BP (SP) zone of the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan. The motions and results are summarized below. Three of the four Neighborhood Councils favored Action 1 provisions for additional rear yard parking. All four Neighborhood Councils favored Action 2 and Action 3 provisions for commercial RV storage facilities. First Action – Rear Yard Parking

NC 1 Recommend that the Planning Commission deny Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff. Executive Board vote: 4 Ayes; 4 Noes; 1 Abstention Audience vote: None NC 2 Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff. Executive Board vote: 5 Ayes; 3 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 3 Noes; 1 Abstention NC 3 Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots 1 acre or more with provisions identified by staff, with the recommendation to include provisions to:

Allow parking on either side of the front yard, with permits, while still maintaining the 50 percent landscaping requirements.

Prevent occupancy of RVs in back yards.

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 1 No; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 10 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention NC 4 Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff, with the recommendation to include provisions to:

Allow City staff to enter a backyard to assure permit compliance by conditioning any new Zoning Clearance for a concrete pad for an RV or other vehicle.

Executive Board vote: 7 Ayes; 3 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 1 Aye; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions


Second Action

Recommend that the Planning Commission allow Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Businesses (Staff Approval).

NC 1 Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: None

NC 2 Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions


NC 4 Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 1 Aye; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions

Third Action:

Recommend that the Planning Commission add Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RV Storage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

NC 1 Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: None

NC 2 Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 2 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention


NC 4 Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 1 Aye; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions

Neighborhood Council #4 and other Neighborhood Council members also recommended that if rear yard parking is granted, that the property owner grant the City access to the rear yard to allow for occasional inspections to ensure compliance with


the parking approval. This requirement could be added to the text amendments, but only on a knowing and voluntary basis; and legal warrants may still be necessary should there be any non-consensual need for a compliance investigation. Additionally absent exigent circumstances and other community priorities, compliance may not be readily pursued due to the significant staff time involved in obtaining warrants.

Full Summaries of each of the four meetings are attached (Attachment B).

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES

The proposed rear yard parking text amendments will only be feasible to certain property configurations within the City. Not all properties have adequate side yard setbacks for vehicles to access the rear yards; and only corner lots allow for side-street access. Other properties may have terrain restraints or may not have access from the approved front yard parking area. In addition, the property owner would be subject to expenses related to concrete construction, new driveway approaches, and related Zoning Clearance and Encroachment Permit fees.

There are many other advantages and disadvantages to allow for uncovered rear yard parking that could benefit or hinder the homeowner or adjacent neighbor or neighborhood. In general, the amendment may allow for more parking areas for vehicles including RVs. It could also create view restrictions or encourage expansion of the rear yard parking area beyond the designated pad area resulting in enforcement concerns. The proposed amendment may also encourage occupancy of RVs in the rear yard.

For Development Code and Specific Plan Text Amendments, findings for approval are required to be made. The proposed amendments are consistent with the following findings:

1. Development Code Text Amendment Finding (SVMC Section 9-73.070: Theamendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Brandeis BardinInstitute Specific Plan, in compliance with State Law (Government CodeSection 65860), in that the proposed amendments for RV Storage lots areconsistent with Land Use Policy:

a. Policy 17.1 states: “Provide for, and encourage the development of, abroad range of uses in Simi Valley’s commercial centers and corridors thatreduce the need to travel to adjoining communities, and capture a greatershare of local spending.” The proposed amendments will help diversify theland uses within the City by allowing conditional approval of RV storagelots in the BP (SP) zone, or indoor RV Storage lots, with an AdministrativeConditional Use Permit, where they are presently allowed with a CUP, asan incentive to operate a business.

b. Policy LU-10.1 states: Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities,and quality of Simi Valley’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing theircontribution to the City’s identity, economic value, and quality of life forresidents. The proposed amendments for rear yard parking will allow a


reasonable amount of permissible parking areas and include regulations to help maintain the quality of life in the City.

2. Development Code Text Amendment Finding (SVMC Section 9-73.070:The City

has considered the effect of this amendment on the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residence and against available fiscal and environmental resources, in compliance with State law (Government Code Section 65863.6), in that the proposed amendments to recreational vehicle parking will not affect the housing needs of the region and no housing codes are being changed.

3. Specific Plan Amendment finding (SVMC Section 9-56.060) The Specific Plan

Amendment is in compliance with purpose, intent, goals, polices, programs, and land use designations of the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City. The text amendment is consistent with Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan Objective II.B.1, which states “to site a variety of business and industrial uses in a manner that recognizes physical constraints and accommodate development in a sensitive manner.” The proposed addition of RV storage facilities as a conditional use with in the Business Park Zone will contribute to the variety of businesses allowed in the area.

Front Yard Alternative During the Neighborhood Council meetings, NC #3 suggested a front yard parking alternative. The suggestion is to allow for parking on the opposite side of the front yard from the currently approved 10-foot wide strip of land next to the driveway leading to the garage. Under this scenario, the homeowner could park on one of the two locations, but not both (See Figure 3). With this option, the 50 percent landscaping requirement would be maintained. While this could also be considered a permitting option, criteria would have to be established to prevent parking from occurring on both sides of the front yard. Staff has not fully analyzed this alternative, but it could be brought back to the Planning Commission for further discussion.


Figure 3 – Front Yard Parking Alternative

Correspondence

Staff received correspondence regarding RV Parking and this Planning Commission hearing. Refer to Exhibit 1.

Code Enforcement Discussion

The Code Enforcement Division received a total of 34 complaints involving parking violations since the suspension of onsite parking requirements. Of those, 12 have since been abated and five have yet to be confirmed by staff due to lack of access to the properties. The remaining 17 complaints have been verified and violations under the current standards remain. Previous direction to staff has been to only pursue parking violations once a complaint has been received; however, this has resulted in an overall erosion of compliance and a significant lack of understanding of the permissible onsite parking options throughout the community. Therefore, once the standards are affirmed and/or modified, Code Enforcement will be conducting a comprehensive outreach effort to inform residences of the permissible options for onsite parking prior to resuming enforcement on those cases that have been on hold, as well as any new violations observed or received via complaint.

Should rear yard parking options be expanded, the ability to verify and/or enforce upon violations in the rear yard is severely limited by access and staff resources to obtain access. This could result in an overall inability to effectively enforce rear yard standards

Alternate Front Yard Parking Suggestion


which could lead to a proliferation of vehicles parked in the rear yard and individuals dwelling in vehicles in rear yards. The Municipal Code currently requires that a gate must be set at least 20 feet back from the public right of way and this standard may not be possible for all properties to achieve. Additionally, there is a long history of non-compliance with the current gate setback requirements and modifications to allow for rear yard parking may increase the current number of violations of this standard within the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS The proposed amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA regulations (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) which states that: “A project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The proposed amendments to the Development Code provide minor modifications to parking locations on single-family properties and text amendments to allow RV storage facilities in the BP (SP) zone of the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan, and allowances for Administrative CUPs for indoor RV storage facilities, and thus no significant impact on the environment A copy of the Notice of Exemption is provided as Attachment A on page 21. INDEX Page Planning Commission Procedure .................................................................................. 10 Resolution ..................................................................................................................... 12 Exhibit A of Resolution – Proposed Text Amendments ...................................... 14 Attachment A: Notice of Exemption .............................................................................. 21 Attachment B: Neighborhood Council Development Review Meeting Summaries (#1, #2, #3, #4) ..................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 1 - Correspondence


PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: January 22, 2020

Z-S-749/SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6

1. CHAIRMAN: a) This is the time and place set for a public hearing onthe consideration of Z-S-769 and SP-S-9, AmendmentNo. 6, and the determination that the Amendments areexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

b) Are there any ex parte communications to report?

c) May we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

2. STAFF: (Report)

3. ANYCOMMISSIONER: (Questions of staff)

3. CHAIRMAN: We will open the public testimony portion of the hearing.

4. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the Chamber wishing to be heard on this matter?

5. AUDIENCE: (Comments)

6. CHAIRMAN: a) Are there any comments from staff regardingstatements made during the public hearing? (Check withDeputy Environmental Services Director/City Planner, andstaff members in the audience.)

c) If there are no further questions, we will close thepublic testimony portion of the hearing.

d) Are there any comments or questions from membersof the Planning Commission?

7. ANYCOMMISSIONER: (Comments)

8. CHAIRMAN: May I please have a reading of the Resolution?

9. RECORDINGSECRETARY: (Reads Number and Title of Resolution)


10. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will now entertain a motion.

11. ANYCOMMISSIONER: I move to adopt a resolution recommending approval of

Z-S-749 and SP-S-9, Amendment 6 (and as modified bythe Planning Commission), and the determination thatthe Amendments are exempt from the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act.

or

I move to recommend denial of the Amendments.

[Staff will prepare the resolution for the Planning Commission to ratify at the next meeting.]

12. CHAIRMAN: A motion was made by Commissioner ___________.

13. CHAIRMAN: May I have a Second?

14. ANYCOMMISSIONER: I second the motion.

15. CHAIRMAN: Call for the vote.

16. CHAIRMAN: The motion (passes or fails).

17. CHAIRMAN: There is no Appeal period for the Zoning Text Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, and the items will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

or

18. ANYCOMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter until the meeting of

___.

or

19. ANYCOMMISSIONER: I move continuation of the matter to a date uncertain.

20. CHAIRMAN: Proceed to the next item.

ZS749 PC Staff Report(jd) 12

RESOLUTION NO. SVPC 02-2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Z-S-749 AND SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SP-S-9, AMENDMENT NO. 6 (BRANDEIS BARDIN SPECIFIC PLAN) AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, at the February 11, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council directed the Department of Environmental Services to prepare potential amendments to the Simi Valley Development Code and applicable Specific Plans to address additional locations for parking of oversized vehicles within the rear yards single-family residential properties as well as commercial and industrial locations to encourage development of recreational vehicle storage facilities; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Simi Valley Development

Code will allow opportunities to some homeowners to park vehicles in their rear yards provided square footage, setback, access, screening and lot coverage requirements are met; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Brandeis Bardin Institute

Specific Plan will allow for the opportunity a business to operate a recreational vehicle storage facility within the Business Park zone of the Specific Plan, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are exempt from review under the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 2100 et seq.) and CEQA regulations (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.) because the amendments are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3)).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The findings, for approval, for Z-S-749 and SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6, contained in the Planning Commission staff report dated January 22, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby recommended to the City Council for approval.

SECTION 2. Development Code Amendment Z-S-749 and Specific Plan

Amendment SP-S-9 Amendment No. 6, as specified in Exhibit A, attached hereto, are hereby recommended to the City Council for Adoption.



SECTION 3. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 2020.

Attest:

_________________________________ ______________________________ Jennifer Dodson Chairperson Recording Secretary Planning Commission

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

_________________________________ ______________________________ David Caceres Stratis Perros Assistant City Attorney Environmental Services Director

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley, California, at a regular meeting held on January 22, 2020 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Jennifer Dodson Recording Secretary



EXHIBIT A

Proposed Simi Valley Development Code Text Amendments (Z-S-749) and Brandis Bardin Institute Specific Plan Text Amendments (SP-S-9

Amendment No. 6)

(Changes are underlined or as strike through).

Table 2-5 of Section 9-26.030 of the Simi Valley Development Code is amended as follows:

9-26.030 - Commercial, Industrial, Business Park Overlay, and Mixed-Use OverlayDistrict Land Uses and Permit Requirements

A. General requirements. Table 2-5 identifies the uses of land allowed by thisDevelopment Code in the Commercial, Industrial, Business Park Overlay, andMixed-Use Overlay Districts, and the Land Use Permit required to establish eachuse, in compliance with Chapter 9-22 (Land Use Permit Requirements). Regardlessof the permit requirement established by Table 2-5, Planned Development Permitapproval (Section 9-52.050) is also required for all new construction.Note: Where the last column in the tables ("Specific Use Regulations") includes asection number, the regulations in the referenced section apply to the use; however,provisions in other sections of this Development Code may also apply.

B. RCC and BP districts. Allowable land uses within the RCC and BP zoning districtsshall be determined by the applicable Specific Plan.

C. Specific Plan (SP) Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts: Allowable landuses within Specific Plans shall be determined by the applicable specific plan,except that commercial nonmedicinal and medicinal cannabis uses, operations, andactivities, including cultivation, dispensaries, distribution, deliveries, manufacturing,processing, microbusinesses, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, andtransportation facilities or uses are prohibited in the City (refer to Chapter 5-41 forNonmedicinal and Medicinal Cannabis Standards).



TABLE 2‐5

Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements

for Commercial and Industrial Zoning

Districts,

and Mixed‐Use and Business Park Overlay

Districts

P Permitted Use (2)

CUP Conditional Use Permit required

HP Home Occupation Permit required

— Use not allowed

LAND USE (1)

PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific

Use

Regulations MU (9)

CO CN CR CC CPD CI BP (9)

LI GI

SERVICES ‐ GENERAL

Storage ‐

Personal

storage

facilities (mini‐

storage)

— — — — — — — — — CUP 8 9‐44.140

Storage ‐

Recreational — — — CUP(11) — CUP(11) CUP(11) — CUP(11) CUP(11) —

Notes:

(1) See Article 8 for land use definitions. All commercial nonmedicinal or medicinalcannabis, and industrial hemp uses, operations, and activities, including collectives andcooperatives are prohibited (refer to Chapter 5-41 for Nonmedicinal and MedicinalCannabis Standards).

(2) A Planned Development Permit (Section 9-52.050) is also required prior to anyconstruction.

(3) See Section 9-10.070(B) for industrial district land use limitations.

(4) May require a CUP depending on location (see Section 9-44.040).

(5) Allowed if located within the Sexually Oriented Business Overlay District, with theapproval of a sexually oriented business site plan review application and a zoningclearance. Refer to Chapter 5-41 Nonmedicinal and Medicinal Cannabis Standards.

(6) Administrative Conditional Use Permit.



(7) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall not be subject to the CUP requirement for Telecommunications Facilities, as set forth in the above Table, and instead shall be subject to the permit requirements of Chapter 35 of Title 5 of the Simi Valley Municipal Code.

(8) Must be located on a property that does not abut a primary or secondary arterial street as defined by Appendix D of the General Plan.

(9) Overlay District.

(10) For Massage-related regulations, including separation, see SVMC Chapter 5-15.

(11) Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreational Vehicle Storage within an existing building. SVMC Section 9-34.040 of the Simi Valley Development Code is amended as follows: Section 9-34.040 - Residential Use Parking Standards A. Location of single-family parking. 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family detached dwellings shall be

located on the same parcel on which the dwelling is located. 2. Additional uncovered parking for single-family detached dwellings beyond

that which is required by this Chapter shall only be placed in a required side setback, in the required front setback alongside the driveway on the side closest to a side property line, on a driveway to a garage or carport located in the rear yard, or on a circular driveway in the front yard, or in the rear yard when in compliance with subsection 6.

3. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall not be located in the front,

side, or rear setback area of any residential zoning district, except within a detached garage or carport structure which may be located in a side or rear setback area, or in the rear yard when in compliance with subsection 6, or as authorized by this Chapter.

4. The additional parking areas shall also be paved in compliance with

Section 9-34.090(F) (Parking and access surface requirements), and accessed in compliance with Sections 9-34.090(A), and (B).

5. Circular driveways located in front yards must not be used for the parking

of any oversized vehicle, trailer, or fifth wheel trailer, as defined in Section 4-9.402.



6. On properties of less than one acre, up to 400 square feet of area, and onproperties of one acre or more, up to 800 square feet of area may be designated for additional uncovered parking, when in compliance with the following standards:

a. Parking in rear yard areas leading to the designated parking area isnot allowed.

b. Access to the rear yard parking area must originate from adriveway approach or access way approved by the Department of Public Works.

c. Combined with all other structures, the parking area must not covermore than 40 percent of required rear yard.

d. The rear yard must have property line or rear yard fencing six feetin height to screen the parking area. Fencing materials shall be in compliance with Section 9-30.030(A)(6).

e. Parking area must be set back a minimum of three feet from theside and rear property lines.

f. If access to rear yard is from the front yard, parking area can onlybe accessed from side of house where the approved 10-foot wide parking strip is permitted per SVMC Section 9-34.040(A)(2).


The Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan is amended as follows:

Section II.C. Business Park Section is amended as follows

Business Park: This use area is intended for development of a broad range of industrial and industrial-office activities whose operations are conducted on a high level of site development and operational performance standards. Development sites within this category will be of varying sizes to accommodate both single and multiple user development.

Principal uses permitted are those identified in the BP, Business Park District identified in Appendix A, and include high technology, manufacturing and assembly, administrative offices, laboratory, research and development facilities, supporting services such as financial and professional offices, and recreational vehicle storage.



Appendix A of the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan is amended as follows:

(BP) BUSINESS PARK ZONE

A. Purpose

The Business Park zone is intended to provide desirable areas for high quality,large-scale industrial development, together with supportive and compatiblebusiness uses, which are protected by strict development and performancecontrols.

B. Uses Permitted

In the BP zone the following uses are permitted, subject to the planneddevelopment standards in this section and elsewhere in this Specific Plan asspecified:

1. Agriculture and grazing, except the raising or boarding of animals.

C. Uses Requiring Planned Development Permits

The uses set forth below are permitted in the Business Park (BP) zone only if aPlanned Development Permit is obtained according to the provisions of the SimiValley Development Code Zoning Ordinance.

1. Research, development and testing laboratories and facilities.

2. Manufacture, assembly, testing, and repair of high technology equipment,components, and systems (e.g., computers, optics); provided that suchactivities are not obnoxious, offensive, or hazardous.

3. Medical laboratories.

4. Professional office buildings only for professional persons, such asdoctors, lawyers, and accountants; general business offices, such as theoffices of insurance companies, trade associations, manufacturingcompanies, investment concerns, banks, and trust companies, real estatecompanies, and other similar uses. Professional office buildings shall notinclude veterinary office or any kind of retail or wholesale store except asprovided as follows:

Commercial activities primarily serving the predominant uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the district (e.g., pharmacy, newsstand); provided that the activity be located within a building occupied by predominant permitted or conditionally permitted uses, that customer access be through the lobby or the interior common areas of the building, and that no sign or other indication of the activity's presence be visible from outside the building.



5. Other similar uses which the Director of Environmental Services findscompatible with the Uses Permitted described herein; consistent with theintent and purpose of the Business Park zone.

6. Warehouse and distribution facilities which are an integral part of one ofthe aforementioned facilities, provided such uses are fifty percent (50%) orless of the gross floor area of the project.

D. Uses Requiring Special Conditional Use Permits

The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a Special ConditionalUse Permit according to the provisions of the Simi Valley Development CodeZoning Ordinance.

1. Public service and utility structures and facilities.

2. Natural resources and water, exploration or development of, includingnecessary structures and appurtenances.

3. Hospitals and clinics (excluding animal hospitals and clinics).

4. Commercial recreational facilities (e.g., health clubs, gymnasiums, andtennis facilities.

5. Hotels and motels.

6. Dinner house restaurants and fast food restaurants.

7. Service stations as part of an office complex or a hotel/motel complex.

8. Business service establishments for such uses as electronic computerservice facilities, addressing services, mail order houses or packagingbusinesses.

9. Warehouses and distribution facilities

10. Any type of business whose operation is predominately for the repair ofproducts described in the Uses Permitted section of this zone.

11. Multiple story structures exceeding a height of 48'.

12. Religious Organizations including churches, temples, synagogues andother facilities used for religious worship in existing buildings limited up tofive (5) years in duration.

Requests for an extension of up to two (2) years beyond the original five(5) year period may be allowed based upon the procedures specified



under Section 9-1.1103(h)(3)(iii) and Section 9-1.II03(h)(4)(xiv) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 9-71 of the Development Code.

13. Storage – Recreational Vehicle. This includes a business that rentsindoor or outdoor space for the storage of recreational vehicles, boats, etc. May include incidental accessory service uses completely within a building.

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

To: County Clerk County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93001

From: City of Simi Valley 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063

Project Title: Simi Valley Municipal Code Text Amendments (Z-S-749) and Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan Text Amendments (SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6) regarding Off-Street Parking and RV Storage Facilities

Project Location - Specific: _C_it_.._y_w_i_d_e ________ ________________ _

Project Location - City: _____ S_im_i _V_a_ll_e~y ___ _ Project Location - County: Ventura

Description of Project: Z-S-749 will amend the Simi Valley Municipal Code to 1) modify offstreet parking requirements on single-family residential properties; and 2) to allow for Administrative Conditional Use Permits for RV Storage Facilities. SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6 will amend the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan to conditionally permit RV Storage Facilities in the Business Park Zone of the Specific Plan Area.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _ C_it~y~ o_f _S_i_m_i_V_a_lle_y~--- - --------Dat e of A pproval

Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _C_it_.y'--o_f_S_i_m_i_V_a_l_le_y.__ __________ _

Exempt Status: (check one)

Ministerial [Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 15268]; Declared Emergency [Sec. 21080(b) (3); 15269(a)] ; Emergency Project [Sec. 21080(b)(4);15269(b)(c)]; Categorical Exemption - State type and section number -------------Statutory Exemptions - State code number - ------- ------- ---x General Rule [Sec. 15061 (b)(3)]

Text of exemption and reasons why project is exempt:

Section 15061 (b)(3) states that: "A project is exempt from CEQA if the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment . Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a sign ificant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. " The proposed amendments t o the Development Code provide minor modifications to parking locations on single-family properties and text amendments to allow RV storage facilit ies in t he BP (SP) zone of the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specifi c Plan, and allowances for Administrative CUPs for indoor RV storage facilities

Lead Agency Contact Pers~ an Gibson

Signature: . ~~ Sean Gibson

Area Code/Telephone (805) 583-6383

Date: I {'f/zo1.e Title: Senior Planner Dept . of Environmenta l Services

X Signed by Lead Agency

21

ATTACHMENT A


22

NC 16/12-19

Meeting Summary December 2019

Neighborhood Council Nos: 1, 2, 3, 4 Item Description: Discussion/Action on Municipal Code Amendments

regarding Off-Street Vehicle Parking Regulations, including Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parking on Residential Properties

Staff Members: Stratis Perros, Environmental Services Director Sean Gibson, Senior Planner

______________________________________________________________________

Neighborhood Council #1 Meeting Date: December 5, 2019

Questions/comments from the Executive Board and responses from staff:

Is it affordable for homeowners to create curb cuts in sidewalks to allow off street vehicles, primarily RVs, to drive into back yards?

Yes, it is not extremely costly to do this.

Are existing RV storage facilities in Simi Valley near or at capacity?

Yes, all such facilities in Simi Valley are near or at capacity.

What is the approximate cost of a Zoning Clearance to allow the installation of a concrete pad, gate, etc. to enable RVs and other vehicles to be brought into back yards?

The cost of a Zoning Clearance is approximately $60.

Executive Board members had the following comments:

They were concerned about how allowing more RVs and other vehicles in backyards could affect the privacy, views and quiet enjoyment of adjacent neighbors.

Allowing more RVs in back yards can lead to people living in them because backyards are more private than front yards and not readily accessible to CodeCompliance officials.

There are too many unknowns at this point to support allowing more RVs and othervehicles in back yards.

ATTACHMENT B

23

NC 16/12-19

Following the end of the discussion, the Executive Board made the following three motions:

The first motion was made by Gary King and seconded by Ron Rudman:

Recommend that the Planning Commission deny Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff.

Executive Board vote: 4 Ayes; 4 Noes; 1 Abstention Audience vote: None Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion failed. A second motion was not made because the vote was split.

The second motion was made by Howard Glober and seconded by Shari Bowles Gibbons: Recommend that the Planning Commission allow Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Businesses (Staff Approval).

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: None Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

The third motion was made by Gary King and seconded by Ron Rudman: Recommend that the Planning Commission add Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RV Storage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: None Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Comments from the audience:

One person stated that approximately two years previously, his neighbors parked a large RV legally on their driveway. Now it is difficult to see around it when he is backing out of his driveway, and it blocks his view of the greenbelt. He also felt that the City should require that RVs be set back from the sidewalk much like it requires fences to be set back.

24

NC 16/12-19

Questions/comments from the Executive Board and responses from staff: Who pays for the construction of curb cuts in sidewalks to allow off street vehicles, primarily RVs, to drive into back yards?

The owner of the vehicle must pay for them.

If a curb cut is made and then the homeowner moves, are they required to return the side walk to its original condition?

No, the curb cut will remain.

Is inspection of a backyard to assure permit compliance currently allowed?

Currently it is not, but such an option could possibly be added to a new Zoning Clearance for a concrete pad for an RV or other vehicle.

Why does the City not require that new single family developments set aside areas for RV parking?

This is not something that can be required. However, there is a list of amenities that developers must choose from to add to their development, one of which is RV parking. Very few developers chose this amenity as it utilizes space which could be used to build more homes.

Comments:

A number of Executive Board members suggested that a condition to allow City staffto enter a backyard to assure permit compliance be added to any new ZoningClearance for a concrete pad for an RV or other vehicle.

One Executive Board member felt that City regulations should require that front yardlandscaping must be maintained to a certain standard the same way they require aconcrete pad to be preserved.

It was also suggested that RVs be required to park at least one car length back fromthe sidewalk for safety reasons.


The first motion was made by Gina Gooding and seconded by Jayesh Patel:

Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff.

Executive Board vote: 5 Ayes; 3 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 3 Noes; 1 Abstention Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

25

NC 16/12-19

The second motion was made by Gina Gooding and seconded by Ben Ramirez: Recommend that the Planning Commission allow Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Businesses (Staff Approval).

Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

The third motion was made by Gina Gooding and seconded by Ben Ramirez: Recommend that the Planning Commission add Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RV Storage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Executive Board vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 2 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Questions/Comments from the audience and responses from City Staff:

Will any of the proposed regulations be more restrictive than the existing regulations?

No they will not.

Since a permit is not required for front yard parking, why will a permit be required for back yard parking?

It will be required for construction of a concrete pad. It will show exactly where the vehicle will be parked to prevent over paving/over parking of a back yard.

What is the City able to do about existing old, poorly maintained, possibly inoperable RVs in back yards?

Unless the RV is visible from the front yard, the City has no recourse regarding these vehicles.

Comments:

One person commented that, due to the shortage of lower cost housing, there should be a permitting process to allow seniors to live in well-maintained RVs in back yards. Two residents from the Texas Tract stated that they appreciated that the City is working with both the pro RV and anti RV groups and is working to be fair to everyone.

26

NC 16/12-19

Questions/comments from the Executive Board and responses from staff: How far does an RV or other vehicle have to be parked from the side of a house or a fence?

There are currently no setback regulations. However, staff is proposing to add a 3 foot setback requirement for RVs and other vehicles in back yards.

Why is a concrete pad required to park RVs and other vehicles in back yards?

This is to protect groundwater from pollution from vehicle fluid leaks, and it will keep grass from growing under a vehicle and becoming a fire hazard.

Comments:

Executive Board members made the following comments:

They agreed that, due to the shortage of lower cost housing, there should be apermitting process to allow seniors to live in well maintained RVs in back yards.

They were in support of well-maintained, operable RVs legally parked inresidential neighborhoods.

They were concerned that allowing back yard parking of RVs will create unsightlystorage areas or allow people to live in them illegally. There should a condition ina permit that prohibits the occupation of these vehicles.


The first motion was made by Keith Kelly and seconded by John E. Weber:

Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots 1 acre or more with provisions identified by staff, with the recommendation to include provisions to:

Allow parking on either side of the front yard, with permits, while stillmaintaining the 50 percent landscaping requirements.

Prevent occupancy of RVs in back yards.

Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 1 No; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 10 Ayes; 1 No; 1 Abstention Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

27

NC 16/12-19

The second motion was made by Keith Kelly and seconded by Rick Norris: Recommend that the Planning Commission allow Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Businesses (Staff Approval).


The motion carried.

The third motion was made by Keith Kelly and seconded by Nancy Freigher: Recommend that the Planning Commission add Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RV Storage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP).


The motion carried. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Questions/Comments from the audience and responses from City Staff:

Can inspection of a backyard be allowed as a condition of a permit?

Currently it cannot, but such an option could possibly be added to a new Zoning Clearance for a concrete pad for an RV or other vehicle.

Questions/Comments from the Executive Board and responses from City Staff:

Are people allowed to live in RVs?

No they are not.

Which entity has the final say as to what a person can do with their property if they live in an HOA?

HOA regulations always supersede City regulations.

If someone is cited by Code Compliance, what is the City process?

The basic process is to work with people to bring their property into compliance, while taking someone to court would be a last recourse.

If changes are made to the current regulations, how will residents be notified?

There is not a formal Citywide notification process. The expectation is that those who wish to utilize their property to park vehicles legally will learn about them when they apply for a permit. Others will do what they wish and may learn about the regulations if they are cited by Code Compliance.

28

NC 16/12-19


The first motion was made by Victoria Wright and seconded by Joe Barrona:

Recommend that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendments to allow parking of vehicles (uncovered) in rear yards up to 400 square feet for lots less than one acre and 800 square feet for lots one acre or more with provisions identified by staff, with the recommendation to include provisions to:

Allow City staff to enter a backyard to assure permit compliance byconditioning any new Zoning Clearance for a concrete pad for an RV orother vehicle.

Executive Board vote: 7 Ayes; 3 Noes; 0 Abstentions Audience vote: 1 Aye; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions Unincorporated Area vote: None

The motion carried.

The second motion was made by Raine Wiseman and seconded by Shari Rangel: Recommend that the Planning Commission allow Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Indoor RV Storage Businesses (Staff Approval).


The motion carried.

The third motion was made by Gayle Sutton and seconded by Jennifer Warner: Recommend that the Planning Commission add Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP) zone to zones that allow for RV Storage Lots with Conditional Use Permit (CUP).


The motion carried.

29


30

EXHIBIT 1

Z-S-749

CORRESPONDENCE

EXHIBIT 1

Dear Mayor Mashburn and Council Members,

Firstly, thank you Mayor Mashburn for acknowledging receipt of my email yesterday regarding the RV parking issue. I did not hear from your fellow Council members.

I was unable to attend last night's Council meeting but watched with interest on T.V. I would like to share a few observations:

* The prior Council did you no favors by their lack of action on this matter last year. The number ofnoncompliant properties grew during the enforcement moratorium. Mr. Mayor, you alluded to this during yourremarks. We have an RV owner in our neighborhood who was notified by the City last year, while his newdriveway was under construction, that his project did not meet code. He claimed that he would not be parking

his RV there. Guess what - - it is parked there.

* Some Council members alluded to back yard RV parking as a possible solution. Well, it depends. If your

property is large, like the Bridal Path lots where some Council members may live, then yes, back yard parkingmay make sense. But I don't think this option is viable in most situations where our homes are very closetogether and have much smaller yards. As an example, on our cul-de-sac lot the greater portion of our "backyard" is really what would be side yard on most properties. A large RV next door would loom over ourpool. Of course, the City could authorize taller fences and walls to mitigate this problem - - 6 feet to whateverheight it takes to obscure an RV.

* It was suggested by one Council member that homeowners who may object to non-conforming RV parking intheir neighborhood move. This is outrageous. Just the opposite is true. The onus should be on the RVowner. I have heard this comment through the years from RV owners who feel that what they do on theirproperty is nobody's business, regardless of how it impacts their neighbors. That this remark came from thedais is beyond the pale. We have lived in our home for 46 years. We raised our family here. We planned toenjoy our retirement in our family home. Our expectations to enjoy our home are no less important than RVowners who wish to enjoy their RV's.

* During discussion, it was suggested that the City could pursue zoning that might provide space for additionalRV storage facilities in the City. This seems to be a good idea. However, I think there are some RV owners

who, even if storage was available, would be unwilling to pay the true cost of RV ownership, which mayinclude storage fees so that their RV does not infringe on their neighbors' expectations of an attractiveneighborhood nor detract from their property values.

* After a year ofresearch and input from Neighborhood Councils, it is difficult to believe that the Council wasunable to take a vote and resolve this matter. It is a shame that the City and its residents are being held hostageby a small group of RV owners who choose to flaunt the Municipal Code and may, in fact, be rewarded for theirefforts. It seems to me that non-RV owners have made all the concessions. They should not have to waitanother ten years for RV owners to comply with the existing very generous parking rules.

Carolyn Rueb

Jennifer Dodson

Subject: FW: January 22 meeting of the Planning Commission Topic of RV parking on

residential property

From: John Casselberry Jr <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 2:50 PM

To:

Cc: Stratis Perras <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: January 22 meeting of the Planning Commission Topic of RV parking on residential property

Jackie and Richard,

I want to thank you for taking the time to write to me about your concerns. It's so important to have feedback from residents to ensure that we are making informed decisions from the dais. I was appointed to the Planning Commission in December of 2018 so this is the first time I will be able to weigh-in on this topic. I understand your concerns because I have seen the behavior you describe on my own street and throughout our city.

I encourage you to attend the Planning Commission hearing on January 22nd so that people at the hearing and those who watch on public access TV are able to hear your concerns. This email will be entered into the written record regardless if you attend or not - I'm CC'ing our Environmental Services Director, Stratis Perras, so that he can do so.

Please never hesitate to contact me - I am here to serve you and your family. I'm always happen to answer questions and listen to concerns.

Kind Regards,

John Casselberry, Jr. Planning Commissioner City of Simi Valley

From: Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 3:16 PM To: Kenneth Rice; Tim Hodge; Allan Mann; John Casselberry Jr; John Tolson Subject: January 22 meeting of the Planning Commission Topic of RV parking on residential property

Dear Planning Commission members,

A Simi Valley resident advised me that the City's Planning Commission will be holding a meeting on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, to discuss the issue of RV parking on residential property. I can't tell you how disappointing and frustrating it has been that City Council has dragged their feet and delayed making any decisions on this issue for two years meanwhile suspending all the former rules and regulations that were in place up to 2017. During the period the rules were suspended, RV owners were able to build parking pads and install pavers in their front yards in places where formerly they were not allowed to do so. One RV owner in

my neighborhood installed a parking pad in his front yard opposite the driveway. Neither side of his house had an RV area or space big enough to park his humongous RV. His paved area began in the front of his house, went down to the sidewalk, and sat next to his neighbors property line in the front yard! In addition, in front of his paved area sits a fire hydrant and two utility boxes both of which he must miss when he jumps the curb backing onto the pavers.

Also very frustrating was the City Council meeting held on Feb. 11, 2019, when Mr. Perros gave the results of the City staffs review of the issues related to RV parking on residential property. After he summarized the findings, his staff recommended that there be no change in the rules and regulations that had been on the books and enforced prior to 2017. However, City Council was unwilling to accept those findings/recommendation and instead decided that perhaps another committee should be formed to discuss solutions: that maybe RV's could be parked in backyards: maybe more RV storage lots could be found; or maybe RV owners should have a 5-10 year moratorium to move their RV's off their property! Why in the world should they have more time tofind more appropriate parking? They have had the past two years to do whatever they wanted to do.

As you know, most cities and communities completely ban RV parking on residential streets and private

properties. Simi Valley has been more than fair in their treatment of RV owners allowing 2-3 day temporary parking on public streets as they prepare to go on trips and allowing RV parking in their driveways and side yards. The trouble is too many RV owners park their vehicles, not in their side yards back next to the house, but most of the vehicle juts out into the front yard or even down to the sidewalk. I believe a lot of Simi Valley residents are going to be very unhappy if city Council gives RV owners permission to rip up their front yards to build parking pads. Many more RV owners who are presently storing their RV's in storage lots will bring them back to their homes to park them.

This whole issue might have been avoided if the city had only enforced the RV parking code these past years for all Simi Valley residents who owned RV's rather than to only cite owners who were reported for noncompliance. If all noncompliant RV owners had been cited over the years, they would not now think they are being singled out or picked on.

My hope is that you give serious thought to any changes or recommendations your Commission makes to City Council. If the City passes a new ordinance allowing RV owners to park in their front yards, the landscape of Simi Valley will be changed forever ..... we will be known as Trailer Park City.

Thank you for your interest.

Jackie & Richard Neff Simi Valley residents

2B284C7E-4ABA-B9BC-589E-65A123435270 init urns

init urns

Simi Valley, CA 93065

January 12, 2020

City of Simi Valley Planning Commission and City Council2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.Simi Valley, CA 93063

SUBJECT: Motor Home Regulations and Proposed Corrections

Dear Members of The City Council and Members of the City Planning Commission,

RV rules and regulations are not 'one size fits all' but the regulations need to be clear, and must not leave anything subject to misinterpretation while accomplishing a manageable policy that takes into consideration the rights and privileges that a Simi Valley homeowner has in order to properly store a motor home on their property. If the regulations are too complex and don't clearly define all of the rules in a simple and straight-forward manner it could become a huge burden on code enforcement officers. The policy needs to preserve the rights of RV owners and motor home owners who have dedicated paved RV spaces in their side yards to continue to use them. A very large percentage of homes already have such spaces. In fact, on my street there are RVs up and down the road and they are all neatly tucked into slots on the sides of homes and garages. (with one dangerous exception). They are not all hanging out into the sidewalk or in any way impeding or risking the safety of the community. And they do not present a loss or aesthetics or property values to the community.

The primary goal of the code needs to be to assure that Simi Valley streets and sidewalks are safe and don’t pose any serious risks to pedestrians, children, skaters, bicyclists, wheelchairs, motorists and any one who seeks to use the public rights of way. In addition, City Council and Administration have a fiscal responsibility to the city to prevent any liability or potential and costly law suits that would impact the city. The code must address safety and public welfare as its first priority.

As it stands today, there is a huge conflict in the code. It is my understanding that in order to keep the sidewalks and driveways open and provide clear visibility to all – that there is a requirement that homeowners maintain a 20 foot distance (setback) between the public sidewalk and any fencing or hedges that might otherwise partially or fully obstruct sidewalks and streets. There is an apparent conflict, however, with respect to motor homes which are somehow permitted to extend out to and into the sidewalk as long as its tires remain on the driveway’s concrete. This gap/loop-hole needs to be corrected without delay before somebody is injured.

When I bought my home over 25 years ago I was told by the Realtor not to be concerned about an RV or motor home next door because nobody would ever want to actually store a motor home there because of the pronounced curve in the roadway. My new neighbor was told (by the same agency) that they could park an RV in the driveway. I suspect that the Realtor was also thinking about their commission….

My new neighbors apparently sought out and purchased this home because the Realtor told them it waspossible and perfectly OK to shoehorn and jam a motor home permanently into the driveway -- extending out to the sidewalk and up to and above the roof line of the structure. There was apparently

no consideration given to the fact that there is a pronounced curvature in the roadway nor any attention to the fact that there are other homes that will be negatively impacted by this action. There was also no consideration given to the fact that there are other homes nearby that are all impacted by a 14 foot aluminum wall out front.

This conflict brings to mind a somewhat similar conflict that cropped up about 25 years ago. The city installed a traffic light at the intersection of Sycamore Drive and Heywood Street on a location that alsohas a pronounced curvature in the roadway. The engineers specially designed the signals and located one on the southwest corner of the intersection in order to make it visible to northbound drivers on Sycamore Drive approaching the curve. Unfortunately, the City failed to address the issue of drivers turning north on to Sycamore from westbound Heywood. There were a number of close calls. This placed liability on the city. Fortunately, the issue was corrected and a “No Turn On RED” sign was installed at the intersection for vehicles turning north from Heywood who had no possible way of seeing if any vehicles were heading in their direction.

In addition to the obvious safety issues that I’ve highlighted, aesthetics and property values are also a big concern. Nobody wants to live in a trailer park. There are alternative storage options available for the homeowners who do not have side yard and/or rear yard storage potential. When I visit Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Calabassas, Moorpark and other local cities, I see streets with rows of homes – but there are no Motor Homes in front yards or driveways. I hope that given the fact that people DO have the option to keep their motor home on side concrete pads, where available, and that there are many storage lots in and near Simi Valley, we can accomplish this.

The photos below are fairly self-explanatory and illustrate my own situation at my home. The first photo is taken from the drivers’ seat of my automobile as I attempt to back out of my garage. You can see that there is virtually no ability to see beyond a few feet.

The second photo is what one sees standing on the sidewalk in front of my garage. Again, there is littleto no visibility.

Third is a paste taken from the City Code indicating and confirming the 20’ requirement.

If you have any questions or wish to speak with me, please do not hesitate to phone me at 805-522-8822. I appreciate your attention and look forward to attending the January 22, 2020 meeting at City Hall.

Kindest regards,

M DorrosMatthew Dorros

Simi Valley, CA. 93065

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD TREE ADVISORY BOARD

City Council Chamber January 22, 2020 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063

1. CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley wascalled to order at 6:33 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Casselberry, Jr. and Rice; Vice Chairperson Mann and Chairperson Hodge

Absent: Commissioner Tolson

4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

By a vote of 4:0, Commissioner Mann was elected Chairperson, andCommissioner Casselberry, Jr. was elected Vice Chairperson for 2020.

5. ASSUMPTION OF CHAIR BY NEW CHAIRPERSON

The newly elected Chair took his place on the dais.

6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the agenda as submitted.

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 18, 2019

It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the minutes as submitted.

8. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT – None

anning Commission Meeting Mobile Home Rent Mediation Board Tree Advisory Board Minutes - Page 2 January 22, 2020

9. PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Chairperson Mann addressed the members of the public who were in attendanceto voice their opposition to item 12.1.B concerning discussion regarding thePlanning Commission’s denial of PD-S-1045, TP-S-685; and AHA-R-061, andthe request to schedule a public hearing to reconsider the matter. He advisedthe public that they could speak during this portion of the hearing.

The following members of the public submitted cards in opposition to theTapo/Alamo project but did not wish to speak:

Don Jaderberg, Simi Valley Brenda Ayers, Simi Valley Darryl Gordon, Simi Valley Barbara Gordon, Simi Valley Cosby Chestnut, Simi Valley Mary Eral, Simi Valley Paula Christian, Simi Valley Troy Christian, Simi Valley Amy Hamlin, Simi Valley Jerry Hamlin, Simi Valley John Strickler, Simi Valley Cathi Strickler, Simi Valley Debra Cole, Simi Valley Doris Goral, Simi Valley Bob Goral, Simi Valley Sonja Foster, Simi Valley Steve Foster, Simi Valley Daphne Boelsma, Simi Valley Marie Hutchison, Simi Valley Mike Aronson, Simi Valley Judy Aronson, Simi Valley Linda Groth, Simi Valley Betty Metchis, Simi Valley Ron Metchis, Simi Valley Andrew Skipper, Simi Valley Jean Praja, Simi Valley Howard Hoffman, Simi Valley Maria Hoffman, Simi Valley Sean Hart, Simi Valley Charles Swanson, Simi Valley Barbara Swanson, Simi Valley Robert Laney, Simi Valley Anna LaRusso, Simi Valley Roger Yang, Simi Valley Scott Lacoff, Simi Valley Sheri Briers, Simi Valley Alexander Nemethy, Simi Valley Annamaria Nemethy, Simi Valley Agnes Nemethy Foote, Simi Valle y Maria Okos, Simi Valley Lisa Atwood, Simi Valley David McDonough, Simi Valley Gladis Stoutsenberger, Simi Valley Eric Stoutsenberger, Simi Valley Carol Thomaier, Simi Valley Bill Mahan, Simi Valley Kathy Mahan, Simi Valley Denise Pistone, Simi Valley Jessica Vanderzwaag, Simi Valley Craig Sinise, Simi Valley Annette Clark, Simi Valley Nick Diamend, Simi Valley Julie Bershin, Simi Valley Chris Philip, Simi Valley Steve Roberts, Simi Valley John Hritz, Simi Valley Deanne Hritz, Simi Valley Judi Scheibel, Simi Valley Chidi Daniel, Simi Valley David Weil, Simi Valley Elise Weil, Simi Valley Vadim Bikovsky, Simi Valley Sonny Sanu, Simi Valley


Speakers in opposition to the Tapo/Alamo Project:

Donna Chisholm, Simi Valley Lyle Hibbs, Simi Valley Charles Monroe, Simi Valley Scott Kennedy, Simi Valley Robert Cole, Simi Valley Hezi Levi, Simi Valley Tracy Kamikawa, Simi Valley Roberta McDonough, Simi Valley Laura Altounian, Simi Valley Merrilee McLain, Simi Valley Russ Nester, Simi Valley Keith Kelly, Simi Valley Steve VanderZwaag, Simi Valley Cheryl Conaster, Simi Valley\ Katelyn Atwood, Simi Valley Carl Waite, Simi Valley Juan Odones, Simi Valley James Groth, Simi Valley Anne Reiss, Simi Valley Anna Vetchinkina Teresa Daniel

The speakers in opposition to the project had concerns regarding increased traffic, parking, high density, distance of the setbacks, the height of the building, devaluation of their of property, increase in criminal activity, incompatibility with the neighborhood, Barnard Street not included in Traffic Study, the Traffic Study being entirely adequate, increase in utility bills due to necessary maintenance caused by the increased density, traffic safety concerns, the adjacent neighborhood being used as a turn-around point as there is no left turn onto Tapo, the destruction of the character of the neighborhood, noise pollution, air pollution, light pollution, health concerns due to the dust and debris that will be produced by construction, and that the allowance of this development will set a precedent for future developers to propose similar projects in Simi Valley.

10. CORRESPONDENCE

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros referred to emails receivedregarding Agenda Item 12.B which were placed on the dais for review.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR – None

12. CONTINUED BUSINESS

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None


B. OTHER

1. PD-S-1045; TP-S-685, AHA-R-061 AMG & Associates, LLC:Discussion on the Planning Commission’s Recommendation for Denialof PD-S-1045 and TP-S-685; and Affordable Housing Agreement AHA-R-061 to consider Planned Development Permit No. PD-S-1045 andTentative Parcel Map No. TP-S-685 with Density Bonus andDevelopment Concessions and Waivers, to construct a 279-unit, four-story apartment complex and an 8,100 square-foot commercialbuilding remodel, and consolidation of six parcels to create two lots,located at 2804 Tapo Street, 4415 Alamo Street, and 4473 AlamoStreet; and consideration of the Environmental Impact Report for thesubject applications

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros gave a brief overview of the project, including a summary of the letter sent by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). He discussed some of the consequences the City could incur as a result of the denial including decertification of the City’s housing element. Mr. Perros referred to the Planning Commission’s initial December 4, 2019 denial based on the finding that the proximity of the easternmost driveway could represent a specific adverse impact on health and safety. Subsequent to receipt of the letter sent by HCD, and in consultation with the City Attorney’s office, Commissioner Hodge and Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. met with the applicant to discuss the safety concerns raised at the meeting. The applicant agreed to a second public hearing to reconsider the project, and to consider modifications to the project which could add traffic and safety measures for the driveway and other related areas. Mr. Perros requested that the Planning Commission adopt a motion to have the matter reset for a second public hearing on February 5, 2020.


Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked staff to clarify what decertification of the City’s housing element would look like. Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros responded that the City would lose local control of any construction and building within the City. A court would decide which projects could be approved and the City would no longer be able to issue building permits.

Commissioner Hodge indicated he was in support of a second hearing. He stated would like to hear from staff regarding the traffic/safety modifications. He also stated that a second hearing would allow greater clarity from staff so that the Commission can articulate their support or opposition to the project. Commissioner Hodge discussed the denial on December 4, 2019 indicating that he should not have denied the project, but requested approval with conditions. He stated a second hearing is necessary for the Commission to properly assess the project.


Commissioner Rice stated that he did not have anything to add.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. concurred that a second public hearing would be necessary as the denial would not likely hold up in court. He also asked the Assistant City Attorney to weigh in regarding AHA non-compliance, and whether any cities have prevailed in lawsuits.

Assistant City Attorney David Caceres responded that HCD is actively engaged in enforcing the state’s regulations. He added that extensive research would have to be done regarding any pending litigation or consequences.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF PD-S-1045; TP-S-685 AND AHA-R-061 AND CONTINUE THE PROJECT FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2020

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. seconded the motion.

AYES: Commissioners Rice and Hodge; Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. and Chairperson Mann

NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: Commissioner Tolson

The Planning Commission meeting was recessed at 7:59 p.m., and reconvened at 8:11 p.m.

Chairperson Mann addressed the public and explained that the matter would be set for a second public hearing on February 5th. He invited them back to address their concerns regarding the project on that date.

13. NEW BUSINESS

A. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORBRENT SIEMER

1. Stormwater Quality and Floodplain Management Regulations forDevelopment Projects


Deputy Public Works Director Brent Siemer gave a presentation regarding stormwater quality and floodplain management regulations and their relevance with respect to planning projects.

Chairperson Mann and Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. thanked Mr. Siemer for his presentation.

B. PUBLIC HEARING

1. CUP-S-825; Tait and Associates, Inc.: To consider Conditional UsePermit No. CUP-S-825 to renovate an existing office building into a coffeehouse with a drive-through window and vacate a remnant equestrianeasement, and a determination that the project is exempt from theCalifornia Environmental Quality ActLocation: 2595 Stearns Street, at the southwest corner of the Barnard

Street and Stearns Street intersectionStaff Contact: Vern Umetsu

(805) 583-6391

There were no ex-parte communications to report.

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros gave a brief overview of the project.

Senior Planner Vern Umetsu gave a presentation of the staff report.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

The Applicant Greg Fich gave a brief presentation of the project. Jim Delehoy, the Internal Real Estate Development Manager for Starbucks discussed the project.

The following members of the public submitted cards in support of the project but did not wish to speak:

Oneil McInnis, Simi Valley Anica Barbosa, Simi Valley John Hritz, Simi Valley Deanne Hritz, Simi Valley

Speakers in support of the project:

Sanjay Parsi, Simi Valley Sam Rafeh, Simi Valley

The speakers expressed support for the project but also wanted to address concerns about traffic, flooding on Bernard Street, and debris from the palm trees falling on their property. They indicated that the coffee shop would get a lot of foot traffic, and stated the project was good for the community.


The applicant, Mr. Fich, responded to comments made by the public indicating that they would be a good neighbor, and noted Condition C-7 regarding tree maintenance. He also referenced the Traffic Study which indicated that the traffic level of service would not be impacted.



Commissioner Rice commented that he liked the drive-through vehicle stacking the project offered and that the cars would be able to go around the parking lot. He indicated that it was a good project in a good location.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. concurred with Commissioner Rice’s comments and indicated that he will be happy to see a Starbucks on the east end of town. He noted the increased tax revenue will benefit the City. He stated that he would like see zebra-print crosswalks in the future for projects that have increased pedestrian traffic.

Commissioner Hodge indicated that it was a fine project.

Chairperson Mann stated that he liked the repurposing of the building for this project and encouraged the applicant to be a good neighbor.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CUP-S-825 AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Commissioner Hodge seconded the motion.


NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None


The appeal period for the Conditional Use Permit is 14 calendar days.


2. Z-S-745; (SP-S-9 Amendment No. 6): To consider City-initiated Development Code amendments and amendments to the Brandeis Bardin Institute Specific Plan to: 1) amend off-street parking locations for vehicles (including Recreational Vehicles) in residential zoning districts; 2) to allow the Conditional Use for Recreational Storage Facilities in the Business Park [BP (SP)] Zone; and 3) to amend Conditional Use Permit procedures for indoor Recreational Storage Facilities; and a determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Staff Contact: Sean Gibson (805) 583-6383

The following ex-parte communications were disclosed: Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. disclosed that he received several emails from constituents in town concerned with this ordinance update. He acknowledged receipt of each email and encouraged the senders to attend this public hearing. Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros gave a brief overview of the amendments to be updated. Senior Planner Sean Gibson gave a presentation of the staff report. Commissioner Hodge asked Mr. Gibson if there have been any applicants seeking to build indoor storage facilities. Mr. Gibson responded that he was not aware of any current applications. Commissioner Hodge then asked if the proposed text amendments are consistent or similar to those in neighboring cities. Senior Planner Sean Gibson responded that the commercial industrial provisions are incentives to encourage development in the City. Staff did not survey other cities with respect to this provision. Regarding the residential components, staff did research the parking components, i.e., where it is allowed (front yard, side yard, rear yard) and the results were across the board. Most cities do not allow front yard parking. Some cities allow rear yard parking. Commissioner Hodge expressed concern regarding the low vacancy rates for the light industrial buildings in town. He commented that using that space for RV storage appears to be a very low end opportunity for employment. However, he also understands the need for such use so that people are not parking their RV’s in their neighborhood, and acknowledged that the Commission would be notified of applications through notice of an Administrative Action. Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros added that he has worked for six different cities, and from his experience RV storage facilities are typically in light industrial or industrial zones, and not as much in commercial. He commented that Simi Valley has some problematic properties, i.e., an earthquake


fault runs through the property, the property is on a water table, or some other reason the property remains vacant due to a site condition. He indicated these properties would be a good fit for this type of use.

Commissioner Rice asked if driveway pavers could be used as opposed to concrete. Mr. Gibson responded that current rules allow for dustless surface, i.e., gravel. Mr. Gibson indicated that traffic grade interlocking pavers could beadded. Dustless surface gravel is acceptable for non-motorized vehicles.Concrete surfaces are used for motorized vehicles.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked if residents using a side yard for RV parking were required to install a curb cut. Mr. Gibson responded that the City currently does not necessarily require curb cuts in order to allow side yard parking. Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked if residents were liable if they damage the sidewalk when placing an RV in the side yard. Mr. Gibson indicated that they could be liable, but enforcement and proof are problematic. Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. stated that this is a concern of his as the damage incurred then becomes the burden of the taxpayers. Mr. Gibson added that if this proposed amendment adopted a rear-yard provision, he would like it to require a curb cut, a zoning clearance and an encroachment permit.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked if there would be a public educational period before enforcement actions were taken should the amendments be adopted,

Code Compliance Manager Nancy Cole responded indicating that an outreach program would be formulated once the text amendments were adopted by the City Council. This would potentially include door hangers, flyers in utility bills, speaking at Neighborhood Council meetings, speaking at community organizations, etc. Ms. Cole stated that the process may take about six months to allow the City to adapt.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr asked how the code is currently being enforced. Ms. Cole indicated that a first notification letter would be issued requesting voluntary compliance. If there is no response, a “Notice and Order” which is more firm is issued requesting compliance by a specific date. If there is no progress/compliance after the indicated date, a civil fine of $100 will be issued. Fines can be issued per day, per violation, and can be increased to $200 to $500 per day.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. asked if it is possible to inspect the backyard to ensure compliance once a zoning clearance is issued. Mr. Gibson responded that legally it would be very difficult to gain access to the property for the purposes of an inspection.


Chairperson Mann asked if there is a different surface allowance for parking a motor home as opposed to a trailer under the current code. Mr. Gibson responded yes, dustless surface gravel, i.e., gravel is acceptable for non-motorized vehicles. Concrete surfaces are used for motorized vehicles.

Chairperson Mann asked if the proposed amendment called specifically for concrete. Mr. Gibson responded that a concrete requirement could be at the Planning Commission/City Council’s discretion. He suggested concrete as a whole so that an inspection wouldn’t have to be done after the fact to see that a motorhome was moved in when a trailer was proposed, or vice versa.

Chairperson Mann asked for clarification regarding a picture contained in the PowerPoint which showed a home with a trailer on the left hand side with a garage, and a motorhome on the right hand side. He asked if the RV’s were parked illegally under the current code. Mr. Gibson responded that they were in violation of the current code. Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros added that this is the number one type of complaint.

Mr. Perros stated that the City allows some hardscape in the front yard, and the goal is to maintain a 50 percent landscaping component, not over-paving the front yard.

Chairperson Mann asked, that of the 34 complaints involving RV parking violations, did more involve front yard or rear yard parking.

Code Compliance Manager Nancy Cole responded indicating that it is pretty even across the board. She added that with larger properties, you see more rear yard violations and with smaller properties you see more front yard violations.

Chairperson Mann opened the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Speakers in opposition to the Project:

Matt Dorros, Simi Valley Caroyln Rueb, Simi Valley (Provided handout)

Richard Neff, Simi Valley

The speakers in opposition had concerns with RV’s blocking the sidewalk, privacy, blocking views, looming over property lines, blocking sight lines causing a safety issue, devaluing neighboring properties, the general aesthetics, and the lack of enforcement of the code.

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros responded to some of the comments made during the public hearing. He stated that when creating public policy, it is important to maintain a balance, and added that our current parking rules are fairly permissive. The question becomes does the City want to allow them to be changed. He referenced some public nuisance properties with


vehicles filling the rear yard which has become a regulatory difficulty, and is why some of the current ordinances have been working well for the past three decades.

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros stated that the current rules in Simi Valley are pretty permissive regarding RV parking compared to other cities in that we allow RV’s, boats and motorhomes to be parked in the front yard. He acknowledged the speakers’ concerns regarding the visibility obstruction created by the parking of large vehicles in the front yard.



Commissioner Hodge asked if the amendment could be changed to specify that parking is allowed in the back yard, or the front yard, but only one unit allowed per property for motorized RV parking. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by the speakers indicating that his prior neighbor owned an RV and he personally experienced some of their concerns. He noted the statements earlier regarding the enforcement problem with vehicles in the back yard, and asked what the enforcement problem is.

Senior Planner Sean Gibson referred to the staff report table depicting approved locations for parking on a single-family property. Currently you can park in the rear yard on a driveway leading to an approved garage or carport. There is no restriction on the number of vehicles which can be parked in the approved area. Mr. Gibson clarified that a provision is being added which does not require the property owner to construct a garage or carport.

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros related concerns expressed at the Neighborhood Council meetings, that when these vehicles are in the side or rear yard and the person goes inside their RV, they can easily see into their neighbor’s yard, causing a lack of privacy. Also, if they start up their RV, noise and fumes are also a concern.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. stated that the City is very generous with the current permissions regarding RV parking. He stated that if the Commission were to adopt the proposed amendments he would like to see a limit on how many units can be stored on a property. He expressed concern regarding the health and safety impacts of allowing more front yard parking and that enforcement has been suspended for the past two years. He encouraged the Commission to act expeditiously in resolving this Development Code Amendment in order to deal with the numerous complaints regarding noncompliance.

Chairperson Mann asked if there would be any provision which would disallow inoperable vehicles to be parked in the rear yard. Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros responded that this is an ordinance lacking in our code.


Code Compliance Manager Nancy Cole responded indicating that you cannot park in the rear yard unless you are on a driveway leading to a covered garage or carport.

Commissioner Mann echoed the concerns of Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. and Commissioner Hodge that there is not a limit to the number of vehicles that can be parked in the approved area of the rear yard.

Commissioner Mann asked if there is a front or side yard setback for RV’s. Mr. Gibson indicated that there is not currently a front or side yard setback. Ms. Cole added that the vehicle cannot protrude into the sidewalk.

Commissioner Rice suggested that the amendments be broken up, as they are addressed as three different sections: 1) amend off-street parking locations for vehicles (including Recreational Vehicles) in residential zoning districts; 2) to allow the Conditional Use for Recreational Storage Facilities in the Business Park [BP (SP)] Zone; and 3) to amend Conditional Use Permit procedures for indoor Recreational Storage Facilities. He added that he owns a travel trailer which is legally parked at his residence. He indicated that he does speak with his neighbors and his neighbors love that the City allows RV parking, adding that one of his neighbors moved from Moorpark due to their restrictive rules regarding RV’s. He stated that he also has friends who purposefully live in neighborhoods that have a homeowners association specifically because they not allow any type of RV parking.

All of the Commissioners were agreeable to approving part 2 and part 3 of the proposed Development Code amendments.

Commissioner Hodge reiterated that he would like the amendment to specify that parking is allowed in the back yard, or the front yard, but only one unit is allowed per property for motorized RV parking.

Vice Chairperson Casselberry added that he would like the amendment to impose a setback from the sidewalk.

It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend approval to City Council of Z-S-749, part 2, (which allows Administrative Conditional Use Permit CUP for indoor RV storage businesses), only and SP-S-9, Amendment No. 6, part 3 Business Park-Specific Plan (BP-SP), as amended (which allows RV storage lots with a Conditional Use Permit).

After discussion regarding part 1 of the amendment, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to form a subcommittee, consisting of Commissioner Rice (who owns an RV) and Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr., (who does not own an


RV) to discuss how to amend part 1 of Z-S-749 regarding rear yard parking, and other parking issues. This item was continued to a date uncertain.

COMMISSIONER RICE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPENT CODE AMENDMENT Z-S-749 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP-S-9, AMENDMENT NO. 6 (BRANDEIS BARDIN SPECIFIC PLAN) AND A TERMINATION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED

Commissioner Hodge seconded the motion.


NAYS: None

ABSTAIN: None


There is no appeal period for the Zoning Text Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, and the items will proceed to the City Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS

A. STAFF

Environmental Services Director Stratis Perros Congratulated newly elected Chairperson Mann and Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. He informed the Commission of an upcoming meeting on January 27th, at 6:30 p.m., in the Simi Valley Library held by Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation to discuss the 3802 Avenida Simi property and their proposal for an affordable development. Also at 6:30 p.m., the City Council will hear the Appeal of the Tapo District Lofts project, CUP-S-826, and a General Plan Pre-Screening.

B. PLANNING COMMISSION

Vice Chairperson Casselberry, Jr. advised the Commission and he and Commissioner Tolson will be attending the Planning Commissioners Academy in March, and he thanked staff for all of their hard work.


C. MOBILE HOME RENT MEDIATION BOARD – None

D. TREE ADVISORY BOARD – None

15. ADJOURNMENT

The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Simi Valley wasadjourned at 10:17 p.m. The next scheduled Planning Commission meeting ison February 5, 2020.

Minutes prepared by: Jennifer Dodson

EXHIBIT 2

Z-S-749b

CORRESPONDENCE

1

Jennifer Dodson

To: Ralph ChapmanSubject: RE: R V Parking

From: Ralph Chapman Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:28 PM To: Jennifer Dodson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: R V Parking

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Ralph Chapman wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ralph Chapman Date: March 17, 2020 at 11:25:46 AM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: R V Parking

To the Planning Commission , my name is Ralph Chapman and have been a resident of Simi Valley for over 40 years. I am also a R V owner that parks my rig along side my home and one of the reasons I bought the home. Like a lot of r v owners I would not like to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $200.00 a month to store it off my property. The 1994 Northridge did a lot of damage to our home and our R V became our life boat ! We pulled it out of the side yard and were able to have fresh water, a place to sleep electric power , a bathroom to use and wound up cooking food for the neighbors !! For that reason alone I would not want my r v 3 or 4 miles away. Storing an r v in an off site is a risk, things get stolen, broken ,dented or crunched and no one ever sees a thing. Not good when you have a lot of money invested in your rig !! Camping is another reason to have an r v , young families that buy an r v to take their family on trips should not be burdened with the added expense of storage off their own property , that’s why

EXHIBIT 2

2

we moved to Simi where the homes have access to side or rear yards. Someone with an r v storage yard already made it so we cannot park on the street for more than a day or two! Let’s not make it worse ! I am sure there are more pressing issues that this city should be concerned with and leave the the good neighbors with r v’s alone to enjoy the great outdoors with their families ! Thank you for taking the time to read this !! Ralph Chapman Sent from my iPhone

1

Jennifer Dodson

From: Sherri Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 2:03 PMTo: Jennifer DodsonSubject: Parking

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I live in bridle path and have issue with Simi Valley restriction on parking behind my home Everyone up here has their trailers, boats, Rv, cars, quads and motorbikes in their back yard. We have the land and that is why most moved up here. We CAN NOT block the driveway on the side of the house because we can not get our horses or ourselves out of the yard in an emergency if we park next to the house. I assume this was a mistake on part of the city of Simi to allow this I have no problem with this if my neighbors Have their vehicles in their back yard I can see an issue with homes with no property. Please consider the homeowners with the land to be excluded. That is why I didn’t purchase a home with no property where I could safely keep my vehicles behind my gates so neighbors wouldn’t have to look at them and less apt to get broken into Thank you for your consideration Sherri Sent from my iPhone

staff report: a public hearing to consider city-initiated

Documents