CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - On August 27, the Citrus Heights City Council (still meeting through teleconference) considered a proposed General Plan amendment and various updates to the Zoning Code. The General Plan’s current land use designations specify a residential density allowance of 0-20 units per acre when developing commercial areas. However, the more specific Zoning Code was changed several years ago to allow up to 40 units per acre in order to provide a variety of flexible housing options and more opportunities to meet the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation. Consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Code is required by law, so the General Plan amendment would bring both documents into conformance.

The proposed updates to the Zoning Code included a change to the Business Professional commercial land use table. These zones are for professional business offices, and currently the Code allows other businesses to operate there—such as restaurants or retail that serve or support the offices—as long as they don’t take up more than 15% of the land use. If they exceed the 15% limit, they can request a Use Permit from the City to operate in that zone. The proposed Zoning Code change would lower the requirement to a Minor Use Permit, which would include a staff-level review without a required hearing. This change would make the process more timely and efficient for the applicant.

Another group of proposed changes to the Zoning Code would apply to home-based businesses. Language would be added to the Code to clarify that tattoo and body art are not allowed as home-based businesses. Transportation activities (such as Lyft and Uber) are currently prohibited from home-based businesses, but with so many recent changes to both transportation and employment, staff proposed to allow this use to give residents more flexibility. People using their personal vehicles as part of a home-based business would now be explicitly allowed, but the storage of limousines and tow trucks in residential driveways would still be prohibited under the Code. Real estate agents were also added to the list of approved home occupations.

Council voted unanimously to approve the General Plan amendment and the changes to the Zoning Code.

The Council also considered a proposed updated to the Solid Waste Municipal Code. The City is working toward compliance with various unfunded state recycling mandates—such as AB 1826: Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling; and SB 1383: Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

AB 1826 requires multi-family housing complexes and businesses that generate large amounts of organic waste, such as large restaurants and grocery stores, to recycle those materials. SB 1383 seeks to reduce California’s methane gas production by limiting the landfill disposal of organic waste, including food waste, green waste, and certain paper products.

Data from CalRecycle shows that California throws away 5.6 million tons of food waste every year. Landfilled organic waste—which accounts for two-thirds of all waste generated in the state—emits methane gas, which is a super pollutant contributing to climate change. California is already experiencing the effects of climate change, with severe droughts and horrific wildfires.

The City’s current compliance rate for organic waste recycling is 25%. This is partially due to the current ordinance, which requires waste collection franchises to offer general and organic recycling collection in addition to garbage collection but does not require businesses and housing complexes to subscribe to the recycling services. The proposed update will require waste collection franchises to only provide garbage collection services in addition to recycling collection, unless the business or housing complex has written approval from the City showing they are meeting the recycling mandate through alternative compliance methods.

After the ordinance is updated, the City will amend their commercial solid waste franchise agreements to reflect the new requirements; expand education, assistance, and outreach to businesses and housing complexes; implement inspection and enforcement mechanisms; and seek grant assistance for additional funding.

Vice Mayor Steve Miller asked about the fiscal impact to the City. Staff explained that there will be an impact to the City in staff time spent on the project, but the bulk of the fiscal impact will go to the ratepayers—the businesses and housing complexes that are required to sign up for the recycling services.

Councilmember Bret Daniels said he wants the City to push back against these mandates instead of working toward compliance. He said he doesn’t want Citrus Heights businesses to shoulder the cost.

Councilmember Jeannie Bruins agreed that this is a huge government overreach, and she said she would like the City to write a letter of objection.

The state can penalize the city $10,000 a day for not having enforcement measures, such as an ordinance, in place. So, although some Councilmembers were unhappy with the mandate, they voted 4-1 to approve the resolution, with Councilmember Daniels dissenting.