HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-25 Packet - DZCCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Downtown Zoning Code Workshop CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Monday, July 25, 2011 5:30 D.m. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Minutes of 7/12/11 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 7. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION a. Community Workshop For Discussion of the Proposed Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) 8. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 am to 5:00 pm I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 21 st day of July, 2011. JoAnne M. Currie, City Clerk Item 4a CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Downtown Zoning Code Workshop CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on July 12, 2011, the notice for which being legally noticed on July 8, 2011. Mayor Rodin called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers present: Landis, Thomas, and Mayor Rodin. Councilmembers absent: Councilmembers Crane and Baldwin. Staff present: Planning Director and Community Development Stump, Senior Planner Jordan, and City Clerk Currie. Councilmembers Crane and Baldwin were not present because both have a conflict of interest by owning property within a 300 square feet radius of the DZC boundaries and cannot by law participate in the discussion and/or vote on the matter. Mayor Rodin owns property within a 300 square foot radius of the DZC, but since Council needed to have a quorum, one member of the three with the conflict needed to participate, so there was a selection process between these three Council members and Mayor Rodin was selected to participate. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Special Council Meeting of 6/29111 M/S Landis/Thomas to approve minutes of 6/29/11, as submitted. Motion carried by all AYE voice vote. Absent: Councilmembers Crane and Baldwin. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Steve Scalmanini commented on how nice it is to have shade downtown because the trees have not been trimmed severely. 7. WORKSHOP DISCUSSION a. Community Workshop for Discussion of the Proposed Downtown Zoning Code (DZC) Director of Planning and Community Development Stump and Senior Planner Jordan presented the item. Recommended Action(s): Conduct a City Council workshop on the draft Downtown Zoning Code and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. Page 1 of 5 7/12/2011 USES No comments on the following: New/Updated Uses, Community Gardens, Home Occupations, Large Family Daycare, and Standards for Specific Land Uses. Residential Currently, residential dwelling-condominiums are found in the zoning code. The requirements are not consistent with the DZC and staff will need to develop other standards that are consistent with the DZC. Residential Second Unit Councilmember Landis expressed concern over the trash bins and how they are handled. Mary Anne Miller would like to see patterns or sketches of what the downtown would look like and how the DZC works with the existing pattern. Miller likes the existing pattern of alleys and supports people using their feet. Staff responded that design guidelines will accompany the DZC and are currently being developed by the Design Review Board. Don Larson asked if residential live/work and single room occupancy units would apply to the Palace Hotel. Staff responded that live/work and single room occupancy would be allowed at the Palace Hotel. Tasting Rooms Councilmember Landis commented that it appears that DZC creates hurdles for tasting rooms with hours of operation and potential for loitering. Staff stated can bring back ideas for allowing by right tasting rooms on July 25. PARKING Mayor Rodin asked about private parking lots and utilizing existing unused parking; and not have the requirement of creating new parking. Staff responded section 9.030 Shared Parking Factor addresses shared parking. Mayor Rodin stated she would like the section to say reduction of parking required; that the developer has to use the alternative unless an alternative is not available then parking can be provided on site as part of the project. Staff to develop alternative language and along with number of spaces and will bring back July 25. Pinky Kushner stated the less parking the better and certain uses do not use parking. Staff indicated this would be a significant change in the DZC that had not been previously discussed with property or business owners and suggested engaging the business community in the discussion before moving forward with the change. Page 2 of 5 7/12/2011 Don Larson supports trees in parking lots. Tammy, Quiznos, expressed concern over the existing lack of parking and parking is an issue downtown; people need places to park. New development should provide parking. Pinky Kushner asked if drive-thru services are allowed and if so for what type of business. Staff replied that drive-thru businesses were categorized, the zone and type of business would determine if and where it is allowed. For example, a bank or pharmacy drive-thru is allowed. A restaurant drive-thru is prohibited. A Major Site Development Permit is required for a drive-thru. Still need to determine if the level of site development permit for a drive-thru should be Major or Minor. Regarding Table 14, parking, Mayor Rodin asked for a general reduction in the number of spaces required for some retail, office, restaurant. Consider using 1 space per 500 square feet. Councilmember Landis concurs. Staff to review and bring back suggestions and what other agencies have done. Mary Anne Miller suggested performing a parking space inventory and then deciding where to put additional parking and where to have no parking. She supports the day lighting of Gibson Creek. Staff responded the City has a parking study including an inventory. Parking is spread out and there is more parking than currently needed. City Attorney Rapport left 6:21 pm TREES Councilmember Thomas asked if property values increase if it has a landmark tree. Staff stated Planning Commission discussed this and yes, property values do increase. Susan Knopf replied the tree advisory group was involved with the tree lists and tree protection requirements during construction. Property owners of landmark trees have not been notified. Staff will include landmark trees as one of the items to be discussed at the July 25th meeting in the public notice sent to property owners. Councilmember Thomas asked if global warming was a consideration given when selecting which trees are appropriate. Susan Knopf replied global warming did come up in tree advisory group. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS Page 3 of 5 7/12/2011 Councilmember Landis expressed concern over sign design and hopes to avoid garish, corporate signs downtown. Landis hopes to have signs that represent Ukiah and its uniqueness. Landis would like to see what DRB proposes. Staff responded that the Design Review Board (DRB) is working on updating sign guidelines and the guidelines are to meet the intent of the DZC. The DZC design guidelines will replace the current Downtown guidelines for parcels located in the boundaries of the DZC. It would be helpful to get City Council's comments regarding signs. Nicholson commented that many sign violations exist in the City. Alan Nicholson, DRB member, spoke regarding the DRB's efforts on the sign permit process and sign guidelines. It is difficult to legislate esthetics. Nicholson asked City Council and staff if the board can work on changing the sign ordinance. Nicholson suggests signs should be scaled to the building size instead of property frontage. Staff responded that the lack of staffing prohibits educating the public and staff does what they can with the available resources. Staff does not recommend changing the sign ordinance until after the DZC is completed. The concern is including a sign ordinance amendment as part of the DZC would result in postponing the DZC based on past experience with attempting to amend the sign ordinance. Councilmember Landis supports limitation of formula fast food but not elimination. She asked if the limitations are part of the DZC and thinks signage is important to include as part of the limitation. Staff will add formula fast food restaurant prohibition to the notice for the July 25 meeting. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS City Council agrees with the Boundary Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger changes, Small Lot Subdivisions, and Subdivision Ordinance topics. BUILDING OVER 50 YEARS OLD/HISTORICAL BUILDING STANDARDS City Council had no comments. OTHER Minimum Density Councilmember Landis commented on a YouTube video quiz on density. Landis is not sure the maximum is high enough and suggests a density bonus. Feels there is more room for conversation. Staff responded that there is a concern that a higher density would result in traffic impacts as part of the CEQA process. Also, airport has limitations related to density. Staff also responded there may be several ways to address the density concern. Single room occupancy uses can be exempt from density. Affordable housing is already eligible for a density bonus which would allow the project to exceed the maximum density noted in the table. Ideally projects will be mixed use with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential units above. If this is the case, Page 4 of 5 7/12/2011 the noted density is likely adequate. The airport height and density limits make it infeasible to reach the higher density numbers suggested. Sidewalk Widths Director Stump used Perkins street as an example and asked if Council's preference for on street parking or bike lanes? Councilmember Landis and Mayor Rodin avoid biking on Perkins because it is a busy street with many right hand turns by vehicles which are unsafe for bicycles. Mayor Rodin suggested bike and pedestrian path in the middle of Perkins as part of the median. Senior Planner Jordan addressed options for securing of right-of-way for sidewalks and frontage. Mandating right-of-way dedication or easement for sidewalk discussion will continue on July 25. Requirement exists now for minor subdivisions and certain building permits but might want an increase from the current 5 feet. Gene Hoggren stated that density did not work in Chicago, suggested changing the post office to a UPS or other enterprise. Building Height Constructing a one story in a two story volume to be retrofitted later will be discussed July 25. Gene Hoggren does not support two story houses. Alan Nicholson commented that on page 38, architectural standards section 7. Floor Height - Minimum could be a conflict with two story volume. John McCowen thinks the two story volume defeats the DZC purpose. McCowen asked why limit the 20% reduction in parking only to permeable paving because other drainage methods exist. Councilmember Landis reminded staff to look at the General Urban zoning or the parcels located to the west of the Pear Tree shopping center. It seems that this should be Urban Center. 8. ADJOURNMENT July 25, 2011, will be the next DZC workshop. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm. JoAnne M. Currie, City Clerk Page 5 of 5 7/12/2011 City oJ, Z_1kiah ITEM NO.: 7a MEETING DATE: AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT July 25, 2011 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN ZONING CODE (DZC) Background: On April 6, 2011, the City Council received an introductory presentation on the Downtown Zoning Code (DZC). On April 27, 2011, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint community workshop to review the draft DZC and received public input. On May 24 and July 12, 2011 (see approval of minutes for this meeting), the City Council held community workshops to continue review of the draft DZC. Discussion: The intent of this meeting is for the City Council to provide direction to staff on the remaining unresolved items included in the DZC and to receive public comment. The remaining unresolved items in the DZC include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Planning Commission recommended modifications to the boundaries for the DZC and to the Downtown Core zoning district (as shown on Figure 1: Zoning Map, Page 9). ■ Planning Commission recommended prohibition on new formula fast food restaurants. ■ Permit requirement for various uses included in the Table 3: Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements (such as hotels/motels, outdoor dining, tasting rooms, maintenance/repair, drive-thru's) ■ Street extensions for Clay Street, Stephenson Street, Church Street, Hospital Drive as shown on Figure 8: Circulation, Page 65. • General Urban zoning designation of parcels on the north side of Perkins Street west of Pear Tree shopping center. ■ Requests from property owners to be included/excluded from boundaries. ■ Consideration of reduced parking requirements. ■ Provision of frontage improvements, including sidewalk widths. All of the topics noted above have been discussed at previous City Council Downtown Zoning Code workshops. To facilitate the review and discussion of these items, staff has prepared a table that identifies the issues and provides discussion and/or possible options regarding the specific issue. Receiving direction Continued on Page 2 Recommended Action(s): Conducfa City Council-workshop on the draft Downtown-Zoning Code and take public comment. Alternative Council Option(s): Do not conduct the City Council workshop on the draft Downtown Zoning Code and provide direction to staff on how to proceed. Citizens advised: All Property Owners within the Proposed DZC Boundaries, Downtown Zoning Code email list, Planning Commission and Design Review Board Requested by: Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Jordan, Senior Planner and Charley Stump, Planning and Community Development Director Coordinated with: Jane Chambers, City Manager Attachments: 1. Table 1: Unresolved Issues 2. Written Public Comment 3. Survey of Formula Business Regulations June 2011 4. Lot Line Adiustment Procedures Approved: Ja~ .'Chambers, ity Manager from Council on the remaining unresolved issues will allow staff to complete the environmental review required for the Downtown Zoning Code. Next Steps: ■ Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The Draft DZC will be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission as required by the Public Utilities Code. ■ California Environmental Quality Act: Staff will complete the Initial Environmental Study required for the project by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ■ Design Guidelines: Design/Architectural Guidelines are being developed in conjunction with the Design Review Board and would be included as an appendix to the DZC. ■ City Council Public Hearing on Environmental Document and Zoning Code Amendment Fiscal Impact: ❑ Budgeted FY 10/11 ❑ New Appropriation I-XI Not Applicable Budget Amendment Required Amount Budgeted Source of Funds (title and Account Number Addit. Appropriation Requested ~ I• •VI IIYIVI \ I C O 7V! y ~ cr a C N Ll ca Ol a) M Q m 'E N LJ t10 Ol a) a C Q (U E c~ j 'E U N L 7 `J N oa C LL al rn L N u a Q L W E N N cA Ol a1 a C C)_ a) E c cod C N .fl 7 v N W C (V m L a) L) a Q C Gi E v° i m ~ a ~ vNi N L U C a) 0, a) a) a a Q m N 10 N a Z v C c Y O a) O C N E t O N 7 O Q C Y u E ` O Q H a a C a1 L O O C p N 0 Y a a) O U1 d > O O )a L -0 a) u C C N u cp N Q QJ C r'' m = @ 7 a1 O 7 u a) O C v) i 4- t al o 0) L N U a 0 E c C O E v_ N (p O (a H 7 a1 ti C N O Ql L N E m 0 O 3 Q :3 V1 o ~ Z N L t c i U O C Q) t0 N •c a L•+ - Q 4J H C U p = a) v v v N p M U cam 0 Q o , E o Y cu r a) V a L O C a O 4- m O _ p ~ w a/ V M Q o s F- a1 ° cv v- C a cu C v v - o o C o o a~i ~v a a 3a to ' c 0 oy + a) c o~ C7 ~n yL,, al a) N Ql O C v a C (O 3 c E Q1 E E a) o O C E C o !i+ O aJ N N N L N v co L 0 L N N C O' In a) O QJ ) ~ M N u U n Q v v ~ C Q L a) a) L 0 a L + OO c ~ C 7 0 0 L 0 Q H p a, ry 6 te N M L c c O a) L N ` aJ m O O L c u a s T a . 3 L a1 a, a c a v C n Q 3 Q o 3 cv v i a) in u M c 7 a) Q L+ a a c t E a) O E M + v + v •c M L L aJ o L t a) c_ o c° v c + E L L O E O Q ha O C in v) Q O L E YO a c a C {A v L v a a) o C: v •Q 3 a o N a) a) ~ ) T w v m o a N U O E v a C y a , a) a) r > M U al C O a) u N 7 to C Q) L n a+ aD UD a) c ' y a v O L a 7 > 0 -0 _O U -6 in p m t' f0 C Y a) a+ C C U oN E Q1 O T S ' a a1 a) E L C Q) C O U aY-+ L al C U Q 6 Q In a) OD V1 C a o c 7F u ° I _iu- O a .a u N c_ V 3 O a) L U Q 'n T Vf p (a m N N O y T L C- -Q C t' y L O - a) N a E U Q Q1 Ql i L t a ca L N N c w Q N U C K aJ a) O C 4- 3 O ul_ m y L 3 C: °1a L t Q a) Q 7 4- fa c~ v a u p cca E v c v O al s_ 7 M E d m al 7 0 -fu n w 4 lu O u u p Q 'D Co _ o°° ° v c U cn ti4 0~ o ff m y O Q Ql L L + .C a) Q M 6 > C C Q a N m j C U Q/ O _ ~ C~ Yif U s a a a - v W a a' Q v v o ca v a T C C O M 3 C a, o v L E a v o 'a > a a) > L N Q 0 t a) } c Q C a) 7 a n . a) O Q M --v (a N L o O> p 0a r_ a) u a) O C N a) -a ` ' ~ x ~ L CT a E a L v 3 a c r ^ 0 c - E v a L N 7 . c E I .N L L E 2 to a+ c E Q~ C M L C X' a) L c L ~ t0 Q E o a) a v~ T Ql t L C 0 ° U > ` L a v o m ~ O O v v v y r O `n 3 0 a,o d Q L a) fl1 c c Y 22 M O c -a N c + o L C L to a) + w u a, is o c v c v E 3 n- E 3 a - v L + ,n a) c o o Q- a) v U N C L v v M L a1 N T H E 3 a > n c W v o E 7 p is U L O 3 o 0 O o ~ aJ E N 0 N 3 a) u L 0 3 a v w o w L N Y L C E o u~ c 73 N a1 L v u M N a) o c0 is v ra u u y U v a ° = ~ v c a c a L o p c o a v v o c v a) fl- v, Q a , c v a a) a E v 3 0 C ro c t D a) o ca o O i v ar c oa =(u 3 E .a)) a QJ U N 7 Q' W c O C M C Q O O . W Q) N a) d> p C a E L (a N u L Q O C m m 7 a) d> E u L v> p fa N 7 'n Q ~a in vii L a N L a1 al t u 30 p n O a) U ~ to p u_ _u v L L~ L ~ -C U a) C - M _ _ L L a-+ . c. _ 0i N F (V(U - O _...L a1 ~ Ql .++--a). _ 1-_c_._.a) O ~ ~ - - E ar E c ~ E v) ca0 ~ U a) o C L caN u a) N O E C E L 3 T' - N al a 4-; C O C +L L a a) N ; c to ' C U o U - > > CO j L o M o T c 0 v, > F L4 70 U co N ' E > L m E C O W T c t cr. w c c a p c o c 3: to 2m c m ' o ° c Q o o u c Q 3 -o ° 7 a) 0 a a, a) , cL E c o E V Q u m 3 a c cu o- O _ Q m _ ~ 3 Q O E u E C c) Q .a O u C a_ C U t N v n. O a a1 N C a C ~n a O r E •C ` E 7 L C. p (a f0 i~I M i L N O 7 L a yL"+ c L Y p L a) U a L L 0 0 a~+ m C M v 7 aM+ N 7 7 0 3 d d a_ N O F_ O v) O U N N O. m+ N 0 3 s F O u N V) Q 4- 6 d of a U O ; m N v ` 7 Z 4 c CF) a v Q - a u L a ro m C a) v O m p O E m~ c Y r c O ' Z O. O " 7 Ql O a NN N U O a) U N a+ N Q p v - L a) L E L _ U A 7 N U -C 0 d y v mU N vp a) a) c:3 3 v C y j ~y N o C6 . H p O o p aD m m N E v ow m E 3•~~- °O v m CU of C) p O O a 0 0 O N E u z p L N N N O C 7 d v~ Q L t W m N C a) a) O L O al . v) 'v N aJ L > a > OO a a 7 a) a W _N a a) O E 7 O N E C U C: ha Q r_ _ O OD O O rv CL M 0 - ( N i-'i c I ~ M a E U U_ 7 m a Ian N Q Y l7 ac) B E Ol L ai~ aQ C E E U _U i L 7 m m a v y N m 0 _O Y C7 l7 C: m vi o f c-1 00 m L mWb,M a1-0 < C E a) E U U 7 m m 0. v`^i N O Y F U aCi d Iri E H 00 L W~u 0-CL (U E E U U_ 7 CO a 0) N E (u v E ci L ~m 0- E E U _U i m m a (D N N 0 0 L7 aCi d> Lr E r-i 0) L aaQ on to c v E T -0 T a v O aJ ° a) of C In O G "O O aJ c ° E u to Y c . m 7 U > y C _o o Q Qj (U o ° L }r N u •X fl C o -.S Y o O ti4 0 L ( E o _ . N E . L u L E m u 0 o c m ai ° ai fl ` m Yi T o p a m Q o a Q m x o o = o N Q ° "O O- + ' > + > 0 L L E E E 0 m E E m v o L O m 04 c E = w an a) O Y w 3 0 S o c ai Q o i 0 v > ° u(u ° m a ~a n o` ° 0 ° aa)) c C 7 ca + c C a a) n a) a c v o o v c c E:3 m H o ^ rn v L 0 _ u m u 3 Y c C ri -F :E 00 C 0 + m > O C f O Q) O L 13 a) O N> c m v 0 o, N L D c o 0 O u Y L n m v E c rLa 9 o u v c , $ 0 0 3 ' a _ T Q N Q v 7 t c E L > o o Q ai w o v a~i ^ 7 f0 O ob ° c o v c L 7 an N ° -0 n ^ ' m , 3 m° cu r~o 3 v 'c -0 > v v f° _ v Q u 3 on Q v 3 j E c , o v o 0 00 ° m o E ° a) Y v v> 0 o L 0 U t In L N fn u cu d Y a) C C, CL Q 7 L c L (U m 0 O In m 7 N O O O O Y Q o Q v -O h Q al Q C> > N a) 1- 'fl T O L a) a) Y > + m Y U N 0 N Y L m- :3 I- !n tw .E = C m v E Q -0 -r 0 Y a) v 0 aj =3 O u V E~ a) 4-- C a E C c C O H C p u 3 c > E a) v V O - Q u o N 7 0 a v ^ m u) ° m 7 E c° b o v o ai 7 O • 3 "O -0 Y b0 Q O OD U M 0 N a t In Y L a) s - d U an -0 ,L,, a) m aJ L = E O U a) r cvc yya C p O Ql .L in In Q y U w ,C O C a`+ In a1 C > -0 CL 0b0 7 Y o a Y> hD U _ t70 7 U v- c M) Q C 0 ` OA 0 c 'ti C O_ U N O N w • -O "6 N V m Y M C - m a) 0 -O Q L o ° (0 L 7 T c a) v 7 E 3 Q c EJ ~ E m - y H H U] c O m a) IO N E E U Y O O L L ° O ai > C Q c h p O E t 7 m c Q L ' L L m 3 ; U o Q O O ' N : [L O U ~ 0 : E c v° In c u Q L 0 a .L] a m m a1 L H :3 W H c 0 C v , y~ N m Y p to _ al ° 3 0 vm <n w a, Y Vf VI 1 + m .fl L O In S E C L 7 v v 7 2 v m 7- x C m m c L Y o Y O 7~ o cr (p Y Y 7 o 7 ° v O Q u 3 )O Y a C J- o C y- > p 7 a1 L a u Z N U v m ° c L No ° aa)) Y L v v - a1 a) 7 s L_ a) 3 5 L Y ; v a) - + o N L H° m Y c ` 3 m N ( 6 j 0 m Q c 3 N ° a) an ° a 7 y c L m Y •v > m m m 7 U c m m o L m c L O m a) c a) c E a a± u Q v 7 O N N 7 3 E C CL O. p V a1 L Y U c L N H an L L E ° 'O U a C o c > H a± vI H C L.+ al ° E L E U U p .a al v C L Y N "6 7 7 _O (U 7 C E o C m U U c w ' > U m t O u 0 O U - Y L -d = 7 7 0. _0 0~ 0 a) U In m r U O O i s b4 E 7 C E ul v m 7 0 n ~ o ° Y 3 C L m In a) 0 O L > N Y ED: E O +t+ 7 a) t 0 - ~ a1 L . vi -O Y O u u aj -0 0 0 3 0 y c y O c OA m v1 O> c E O L O -Y C ° to + . C U - 7 t- m ~ H 7 p i C a) C > 3 'Y - 'L E - c O a) O a) m `p 'L a) L a , 7 i O O Y E m E c m p, 0 O W v 7 _ _V _ _ H Q 7 L: L v h 4) L "O m _.m - - 00 _Q=_N a) H~ m E E U- v p • 7 a) Q aJ _V "O U a aj L a) v 3 - y E - _ m-.L Y v Y _In a) In In a1 > L p O LO N V) L in o c 3 -0 oa b4 L N m Y ' + m ^ L Q ° a) E m e a) 6 v n O E Q c t m E c ii) p c m C • a s Y y) c E a) > •c a m 7 c d p a) O- y p U al a) O_ Q. N In a) L a) , T Y L 7 m O E Y a h v ~i- !n m C YO o b 0 h m f6 C +m+ O C H Q 'O m C^ v Q Q N vi c Y Q a) L C Q 3 a i p O D L Q N Y u c C 3 : 3 0 m 7 a) 0 > E L I c C N O O O O a) m C U 7 Y In C (U L O 7 R 3 7 N a m 0 = c U Q m - i m t a Ln H H a 4J N an c2 a 1Y0 r N Y m o +m+ u E n fY0 5 N y N -Fu N W 7 7 m N I n d Cl Ol Z Q m v i O of LJ ~O O O ~ Gl m Y w O y m U O d ~ oy m m N N to 7 ` a) to O d > C TI O ~ m u C p c m v 3 + ~ m L Y U a F c ~ ; ~ a C E U " •u c Z 0 7 i+') a R C N S ) Y I- p v V n E a•i 0) c a) v m a s Q C E u u ` m m a O ("i, N O Y F L7 v v lD E (-1 00 L a) a) m a s 'J Q C E E u v m a ~ N Y H aci 1n -i E .-1 Ol L v a) m m itoo ~ o_ a Q C E E U u n m o_ ~ N Y F aci u'1 c-i E (-1 Ql L v v m m m Y o_ o_ Q L a a w o N J 3 u v 3 Y v aci ac) ° a`) a") r m cu O 3 c ° ° a) ° o C u v 3 a L c a ) m 3 7 u v v - c 3 3 0 E L °1 F a, m C: ~ W w O _ y a) c T a O 3 L a L O L j _ YO N O L a Q C E v, 3 - i c E m a) v o L o Y o cu 0 Y v" v m L Y m o v u aaj + a E a) m v a) m a Y ? V o L v V m o O Y m v C N Y O c i u O m Q 0 E Y O Q Y I V 4- a1 Y V CU L O n- to Y v, C " 7 f0 C C a) m f0 m L O 0 ai U Y N .O L C o> a) U a) 3 a a) 7 % v U a Y Q L O 3 i , v (n u, O a aJ O a) i1 U Y a) i- u, of a) m 9 c 7 07 7 o Y v i = a, CU C m a1 L m v O Ur m u Y vi C a) E - CU N U= 3 7 E L O E u CL CL C' O m -0 (D J O a ai > C -0 L L a O a - u E H C h O a) a) L Y L Y > m to a) "O N nom C: 0 C m i` m O 3 ` v C °u U 11 cu 'n 7 0 Y Q. Q v a O L v r Q -O N s . o-0 s u L o o ' ° o - S v o . Y a° c a Y M - o a a m 7 v m m Y„ p u o aci a' +L 3 0° 3 c m a 3 3 c Q n a m m m L c " a p ° ° Y > y o- X m v ' 03 0 v c c Y ° ^ ` a m H c' E E E a"i n N r v 3 O m= " E 7 p a i + u _ L a v m L n c 7 ° m O a) Y * al N m s m ° O O C "7' ~ m C Y Y m p u L v L s a x 15 " c c u a o ff u v N a O C a) > Y m O ai Q > .C '3 7 3 O O r 7 Y ° v v o C ,O- 7:~ r.+ 7 7-0 m to 7 m v L o o u° r 3 m E o m E o ° a ' a o o p F- > 0 3 7 o ai a) ° c t V L O_ Y L V) a o r° o o m v " a) o ~ Y c o c L a) E o n m Z a(U " c L E o c N -"O !Z a i "Lo Q- u 0) L a 1u L L a a) O al a) E N N O O L• en aJ " v 0 Y L m m i u 1?0 C m m 0 a) G L + CL - c a) Y u m C v, U ` ~ v, m L v a y eD m U C U m a) O O' " 3 y v Y m Y M Q. Y O '(n _ 2, Y O v u a) 7 . O ' cr m v T u cca Y O v L m o + c: v c 3 v c t on E c L Y 3 t a a) , ° E u o O 7 a) ,cc o 7 v m v 3 a) 0 a) e0 u • > u N m w O -o m N in m O Z m U a a O a) , E 0 a) Y m C U O •Q Q f L a) a X Q m L L E a, C " v C a) O u O L a v v t C C Q a en O o a) ° v U a1 a1 a m L .C a) v, C> E OU -C v n" 0 L p O Di a c v N L N > U Y (n L m O' 7 v vi m v env O m i- L Y a 7 ° c O o u O -0 0 0 j (1 a m m G l r • m m o a j O m , v i0 3 c Q . V C C L (n (n (n L a) Y a ~ E Q C . O. C ~ C L N a) a) m a m E N m {n a) O a- a O m s aJ a m C 3 7 a1 Y 7 " N 0- v, a N v, U O N a 7 a) " 7 U i•' a L " a) ' C a) a 17i ~ o a 3 -Ya L .°c -7; o Q u y a ' u u Q u c E N a) n a F a c a > N m m = 3 o m ° v d o v v v Y a, c c c E °J v g v L o v Q a, v 7 a o 0 m v m v E ai ` O CU a c c E E a) Q Y o y _ > v1 o a In a - c Q a E ) c m 6 7 E o a, v o o m u- L V o E 3 o E L L a a, O v U v L , v ' a, ,c . `ti > v 3 co T L O c Y ' Q y -C u a + c v O o v O O " m 12 cu t u d a1 " u Y a c = l O CL Y U ap j, v, ~ E Y F- O w ` c _ - ar a c E _ c.. - - - " a, -a) 00 'v, c ° o o Y m u a) E _C -Z 3 n) o- o v O a a E a a) L m m - vi u c Q - 7 a) Q a1 0 i m m Y a) N V) U a U L (n O 7 ~ E " a) m a E a ( -T O > c C) o " u ° ) v O m O O " c L m !Z ° u m a) c v E L Q N E m o a - do Q E 7 E°°` Q v a n Q v " v v en ai o Q 7 u v m 7 a) C n o a, m m. w o v 7 c t o E , 7 e 7 k 7 0 o v - O C ~ 7 0 m C a) u ai L E a U v a n 3 N U 0Q 0 VI M O_ Y (n . I m ..O n- N w W d 3 VI m U L m z G. U N Y Y in L m a) O C • 3 ~ o a ~ Y r " ~ v u ~ 3 u c ( fl i (A a a = c m in u o°)C o°JC m E > u u a ) c m c m c m c c w .C c c c a H V H in m (U c ` c E U m ma a) vNi N "Q o Y H (7 a) lOO rr L a) ai U ba to ym., a a Q m m c-1 ba a c E U m " ~a- ~ N lD' a) E N U ba m a Q J -fl Fm- w d p o of c u (n a am. a) M m + C 5 N ° p N O N m a) 4 a a) Y N C 3 p 7 to -Y c o c m ;g: L 1.11, r- o c c v aJ o v o u C a) c c N •E 3 L Y C N O N U U C) a) Y C O L L ` E O m a Y o Q m 0 3 N C ° o L N 2~ N Q i C Y a N w w aJ 3 E ^ E~ aJ a° a) p c a) o v - 30 o s o m o v N M m c a) 7 a > Y a) t c C Y to v m C> L v c -0 z 3 -Do E p O m • _N Y 3 m o W 0 O E c Q N Y ^ j Q p m N m N m E `ti m > m U C Q a C O O\ + aN+ C C N p C N a) Q N Y E N m° N , C Q w 'c 3 v o o Y t L X L ~ X a) w `o E a) L a) c Y = m - O m o ~ O_ .Q Y N o Q U m Y U o a a) y 4 N m N C O 3 U a) C (3) a > a > m a) Y _ u 3 C U a1 v Y C N aJ ba C c m O U E v i N Y v Q 3 a) .x m m c . C L N aJ D m N - L ro a) ai -0 ' Y i a c c} ,-i a1 (o un L L O V Y m E U C 2 Q v p O E Y p N aJ Y L p a) a Q w 4J c .-i m a bfl U O a) Q C 41 O L E O U N O U a w o L N N ° Q p C m 0 ° aJ bO_ c 3 m v m CL c p 3 v tr- Q O L m a) N U u C m N Y a) aJ N p C a U L v m Y :p N O > YO Y 0 3 Q) C L+ L L .C 0 Q a 0 a a L N 3 .O O a) H (aa N 3 O> YO -o U a :6 (U AR m L L a+ al -o c , L Y C a N ~ Y C m O O aJ C C 3 -0 3: bfl Y C •C C o o L y., : 42 O c O. 3 L > m a a O C C m 0 i -p O N ' E 'E O o t Y N N :3 ' L L C a) m vi o 0 - > L a)) a-0 ' E a a) o c E > c aJ m m a Y d L C 2 N a) ^N o a, Q = o =3 CL Q N - a) 3 p 3 a u - ai d Q O a O * v N C • C L, v E Y O Q m p L- m Y 7 m 4-% al Y U O a) O + N Q O C 0 -0 tw E E u N d! N O O m 3 N Q 3 0 °1 - al v 0 a) m - n 3 d m a) O v v Q m a o u CO O N 0 0 Y U Y c+ U m s a N C m N 0 0 Q E d 0 a) Y m L C Q a - v 3 U O a) s c~ W L c (a w c o mU v a N a 'p a) •N a L- a) 3 mo+ Y a w m aJ C C Q ~a ) F .3 N o L p m bO o Q o V (A N- Y Q ti4 v Y o o C L L B C: o ` u v 3 o fl N aJ v -a N a) c W U ~ c E as n C c a m > aJ m ai 'Y + O Q L C C a) L > a + Y ba Q N a) ba m C D -0 li Y v m m e -0 32 u N 3 x aN) o > o° v c Q m a N OD p 0 a - u Y a E m i v c ? a) v Q. v w -O p N v1 m a) a) Y O C m •E O L 9 W L O aJ 41 'ND ~ ~ a a) E C) Q b f0 N IL- c c c U + n c c c E p s ax) L c ,i v 3 N c O o al :N m c t Q +m+ ;F, t`O C .C DO m` O Ql a + o Y .Q m Y O a) R a L C X Y O ~ h b0 a1 a) c E t O aL-+ M Q a O N L m aJ .F M M to L Y Y m m Y 3 aJ L m x N m v o ao c x m m 3 N H . c a C m V 3 L H U c i C ° v a) ° m m c m a v ° v 3 v a L E E V Y a) aJ m 3 N O c a) Q L Q > Y m Q O -r- (U m v O N C pi c: a, in > 7 N N p 0 3 C = ° -:5 (1) a O ba a) a C m (A a cr > E O N L X 3 0 c m C a m O v- j Q N M U) C O E c o L :E aJ -5 - a ~ C m 2 N E aJ O Q V ~ CL N *N ' 3 Y~ C C p i ,bn {A N "fl Y M a Y O L o C O Y V m N aaj t m O m m > L N p E > c C al C 7 L a) a) O bC0 a O_ O aj L ' o a) E Y Y m _ Y Q > a a O N a m N > L W > U a bD a a) a d m C 7 a) L a N ( O C a) 7 C v C - c 3 O O a) N aJ O a) N a) N Y a) 3 m 3 U O p - m "O m ba > - Y O O Q L Q1 N m C i - m Y 7 i C c a Q) Q' L N a) a) o o L L1 L W i 7 E Q) (U Q E v al C Q N O c LT a) V Y U _ _ _E._ f c aJ O a) a o U al L E__a)-mo > i c> o o o m 3 Yo M . _Q vr. O L u N F - T3__a).. _ L •C Q a). F' N o I:r N -m. - a o a i u C E 3 41 y S a U L p• L O E C aJ Q N Y aJ c u C C N Y Q N a a ' ` N al al _ a O U ' C_ v E O N b4 N E O c m C a E a N N C > o' O aJ E ' a1 a) im al N L v) Y 3 C a o O a V m p C O N N a > 9 O O 7 O- _ c° o m Q E 3 m m v o L u m E -p N n !n 0 L v m- aJ v m v7 m L O c N O c O N C a) v o U C Y O on a u ¢ o N c N v U m a Q C m U' N U E ¢ o o L m y c v 3 C ba ba -0 o ¢ N n c c N - bD C v C U c ¢ E Q 0 _ u m E a c aJ Y E i a N a1 v .C ' O Y L ? m > E L Ql 7 N Q c ~C N a) m E U 7 C p 3 m a1 C m m 2 O m aJ N C . > c m 7 L a) m o p N U N 0 ~ aJ m aJ O> cc N L O X i O m O C X C ' O m N L U) m U Q Q N d Q V1 a L U N O d C m Vf Y U b4 a) U d 0 U 0 W U O 41 c O Q U a Q E O 41 O U ar U) O (h I G N f0 c n a -V ' O m CL Y O i O m to ` O. ` 6 s . E aj L a D Z c F' a ( A d C O O \ G~ a n (Li L F ' to a J O m of O au i V) w a C7 Q om a O C N O1 U VI 'O u a) V) N H V MO 0D a s l7 Q mo O1 C ° U V) a N N CO a 0_ m Y cC C M E V U L U U L W 3 N iz i a) l0 u OD ym, nmQ c m wo c L L g L m a) a ° t E> ° a) C: C: -r CL d0 al aj c O E m c (a m a E a) O O a O a) m U U 00 'p c a) Y O m Y O Q V1 U a) E° C cu a a1 a) c O ~n L a1 a) >O Y a1 v aj 0 m a (u :2 5 E ° 3 m -Q v m E u a) L Y o L ,L ° vc- ~ v L Y 72 m v a ° v v a ar to O v E O o O v n Y ` O v c ~ O a) a) N O_ s y m C L a) L al Y C L - Y " E N N W w' j • ° 3 E Y Y N Q a) 0 c m 3 _ ° - Y c v a) L c E ~ ° 0) o u _0 o a) Y 41 C O T a a -a d4 L c 0 a 0 v o C > m c ° m 3 m E L ' + i O L C Y N E 10+ O U O' j +O+ a O N a L 6• Y C N L Q U a) LO v O U 41 C E ° - E . O Y U L U m C a) 'D y , u L '>0 v O c C O _ a1 N 4- C X o to > a) 3 L c Y c ~J v o w w ou a) '0 3 a °o v o o° 3 v ` 0 O „Y' C Y 0 0 0 c 0 Cl) c ° 3 2 c Y O X m '.n a c v E E 7 c Q O = m ' c Y Q O L CO - l- . U -0 y m L L (J d C O p O L a) O L O • 7 Q E m Y N a) m a Y N + C v L + ' O + O v o u Y ai 2 c E Q o v o a) 0 0 0 of ~ v Y a aci m m a i Y m LL a) Y L- - 4 U L 7 al T Y v 7 d• 0 C U c a) 4_- L O a CL m al U a; ~ pmp C U 7 a v al N~` X Q O aJ a1 C ) C O L y.., 0 D 'C bD D > of = r_ C c N p CL R > O , U a L ` C E O U C O ° s C) _C O 1 C C C C 0 O aJ Q L E a) ! E + ) Q U + a+ aJ M ~n v E . m o Y L Y g a C a U Y 0 o ° O v L N O To o oa Y o N a) m i ai m N > v s ° c a) 41 a o a) C a) .0 0 0 c v - - a O L L U Y Y 7 Q C j.~ a) C Q7 U - Y a) al O L Y E O O a) Y C O o .O O a C a) a) H C d v a, c a) 7 U .a 3 0 N YO o a) o ~ fl- f0 u " a) c v a) -O v) ci a1 v c Y 0 a O O+ c C a) E C O ^ a) > G a) m L Y C O m E O N CO a- a) O v E v _0 (v -0 v u a r- o c u 3 C c 0 ° `0 ' a m ± o Y T} m m o = U 0 Y c n v E u a ,L E E v 0 ° CU a a) a) ° ) 0 O , O 0U w c Y 3 H ai 3 y E a) L +v, C O a1 v~ a1 C N v) m O O m U c Q v o ° E a 0 e0 c ° v o c v c T L7 v c a Y u 0 > L m d0 m _ > ~mif L a) JL.+ L Y ° C t0 f0 ~p a) -6 ~n to U Y O L U a) a) a) a Q O ` a) O 2 v a1 L O Y L m a H U al m m CL -r- Y L 4~ Q. 00 m 0 L L Y w L m E VI a) Y N a) _ > L 3 a) B - on a) > a) a) a) - ~ c o ° o c 0 t v) v z o ~ h v ° ° U a) oo =5 M o 00 c Y N u o 0 - o L a u u a ~ 11 L v ; a v µ o v Q N Y hC0 m tl0 3 c 0 N °c a a -p 7 C b.0 in C c a) a N ? N Y a) .o m v L G 0' ° Y a) a 3 c ~ Y Y m m Q m > m a) v 'L ° a) E> r` c v c a) c m ~o 3 '5 3 L O a {A 0 a) p E e `a p° C> ° o L 5 E u u :3 a-0 v° a) ~ Vm 0+ O m c o a 1~1 m i1 c + (1) Q E c CL a U O v U 0- m E Gi O L Q N > - Q 0 C 3 6 X a) al a v u o C C (6 C m C C t L a) E Q C =3 ai -0 N 0 L tw h cr a) 41 Y 3 H L1 C) v~ a1 aYl -x Q c a) Q O x ,C Q v~ O C O M O v2 a) a) C a1 O c aJ C a) Q "O O L c . O a) U E > 2 m m O O Y u al -3 a1 X -0 O O m E U L U OD N a) E c 7 °c° L ° Y > m m al bD O_ E C c Y a) .c 3 F t' E u Y u L N " al ` w a) U c T O a) N a - ~.-a- -a1 a) 32 --L. Q/ ai a L v -u_Y-. 7 - G=- Q_ CL O ,~..a)- v_-C- LA 0 O. O Y 7 O -E a) -0- CL Q O- O_ - 0 0 O L Y L 6 a) a) 'OC m U- =0 L- 0m (LO cu H a ° C N m m > a E E )n m r v 0. a. y) c 4J > M c-0 Y c c a O O u- O > C j , a) T° a) 3 o a) a L v > ID c 1 F- 3 u U p L = m 0 v (Ij on ` v o m o0 ` N p c m M 0 m ` ` o p v - v a on m m m v Q E a E E ro ° a, c v a) E o ° c iE X N a m u o a 0 a o_ -5 E v a) , a N *3 0 3 n r- - c p c 0 o m -0 u m c 7 .0 - L v c :3 al ~n a° tr- v o o Q v E - E a) am+ L m O ~ 0 y m+ C O E U m U a) O E L L aJ aJ a L U m a) a N 3 L O m a U N U N `J L v h O 3 _ N m Y _ O )A a) m 0 n + - a a F 0 m + O J.~ 3 o m y m d u m d v > E > 75 w (U c0 c -O C O FAA = a Y m ~ L {~A m Q aci = H C O. a) L O N V CL m 3 ~ 6 W. a) d > W ° tl0 y 3 N p C V C y a 0 y ( U C Y L a L z m u F- n w Ln C O O - y~y,~ fit' a Q m :c 0 E m E U° L~ u 66 3 v a 3 N aQ Y LL c W L a,~ a t; Q, ns ~c a E m E u ~ ° ~u U s 00 3 v ~ 3 N bA Y LL W L 1u SO M a Q H n LO v a U N C a) N u a) (1) - 0 O a VI Y N a) L v L ~ U L Y L+ ' 7 L (Ll c + + a a) (a M c ~ ' u • Y c v a, > a) a u ' 3 z 0 v 3 0 E a c c o c a) > N , (U a) to +L' O a o L _ `o v O L ° `o Y y c o p c O c ar ai > a v a) _p W > C v- C C a m m L U 0- O + + c L Y :3 -0 a) N U C a) 0 ° a) + + 3 i A2 a1 L c C 6 o ~ Y U L E Y O a1 > a) a1 N O .C a Q) O 4) p a y., Y 3 C h m (a V- Q 'Y L O al `J y_ ° V1 Y Q) C f9 Y C w p a) C Y Y p Ca L yj Q C c a) L O a) O 0 C Y a) Y U N L E VI Y C 3 N N c a> O m M U > a) U -j 0 v o t o E a N a C C C a C a, V C L - m„ m E m C > p u -0 O a s 3 E C L a1 3 y a) O O U L 3 ( 6 O L u C a, a) -O a) u+ v Y0 0 Q a ° C v a1 3 m E L 3 p) s s U U -p L t z L Y a1 -0 a ° U v U o i L ° o a • c a) C fO c c+ u ` 3 x ° ` 0 a) N c c 3 v s Y m 3 Y c m ,E a) o v c o m o a, v Y v O N L O C L m E _ 2 i O c U? H _ O 3 Y al a ~0 ~ C Y a) m V E cYO C c c ° a) N+ v 3 Y p v- c a a) Ca a1 ` ' • ,v m v E w. t v o ,F,, L m (a Q i L a) a) a) o` u' oa ' c 3 a) O 'n 3 X c M ' o C d ° E Q m V> m y , a) 3 h c L O X Q v- ai ea 3 a' E E a u c y o u c N U a C 0 3 N E o +r E c a M c Q o C: U o v Q Q Q N E (Ya a) i 41 E D a) O N m . 3 o v 3 m _ a) E O E 3 d L . Y L Q a7 U O i) E C C - ^ Y 3 + > a, v a) v v o a) a) ~ aJ a Q Q a) L d Y ° 0 C • a ha fa C 4J C Y 0) Y C Q ° > E E a 0 U Ql 3 C O Q E ' ~ Y a1 Q a) C Y ° a7 O O N a O ° ' `a V C U N L Y - a N C C U W 3 m C O E C > Q a E E O N 0 O 3 a + W a) Y Y L L Q N v o p Ua `o t o~ ~ U Y E° ° a E- v E -0 v E ° o 0 ° a) 3 C C6 C' j _ a) d E N 6 C O o N> w o ° c 3 0 N u o v 3 o C v a) a) 0 a) N o Oa U L Q ar Y > m C -O Q 'N c o Q 00 C -0 o a) Q ' +L ° a ai a v m m e o -0 _ O c v n U Y -0 E io O ,n Q O 0 m 4 Q a Ca c V1 3 O 'Y Y F ° p ) c 3 O Y c N M a) a) C o v v ar h L E a a) p i IL a O E a> .n u > + + 'L O N m ~ a, a) a) 3 Y Q E n v c v E C c Y L m v o o a Y h L o m " 3 a v ar E m m ° Y a c o c E a E a) 5 c+ a) v p E -0 t u d a) E° U C7 o m am) o C - a o a c~° _ o ^ L a `v m E a o° v L La) u u O O Y _p N O a) 3 3 C p i c v~ Q E L - N O r O m u E L N a) a) CU c01 U Q N 3> C i i O C O O C L a) fD O Y . > in of O L m Ll M O a _ a) a) U Q Q Y fn N a) m W a L C C L X y, C L M- LV v H 3 W U Q H - ) m-+ i) v 0 ' N `1 a) al w C 3 t c aJ aJ a) p N Y L 4 - f ~ Y m O co i O C X ^ C c0 a) 3 Y a) C Y Q U L U a) L a) N Y L m 3 Y Y X C `F > a X Y C a) a) X N L x _ a Y a) a) U' a) C O' p L -0 0 - 0) N C C 3 ` a) v o° c v ^ Y 3 O v Y o o 3 p v L L a, 3 u u o o 1 O 0 - 4- - a)-N- _ Q .o v L al a) ~ _ - v aJ Y i y 3 - n c - -a-) o 3 U V O a) a L N m E h `1 Q • H C L ~ v a) C O a) Y O Q U O O N L O E 'D E 3 ii) -vp N ~ Y v L O v a 0 O U m X w Q + + v : n a Y C 1 c N L E Q O O' • L Q U • ~ Q Z L U f6 ` y , C Q M U > C n C m m m m -p to a) GD M o C C N U v L a) Y i m a v b4 Q O m o Q i i O Q C O m - E C E c u+ _ 2 2 o a o N 'vC-i a o Q H U o " Y` Q> 3 N v v .5; v O' C > Q m O c ~ in L O . y j O ' O uf V Q 1 O L O m O 3 r al a1 L U 0 O M S -2 U O - X U vYi L al 4! .fl a) L Q M ` ¢ m c j ° m 3 H c L F 3 c VI a) o L . L a) I- 3 O a+ O G c ul N a r L C IA N N m C ` a+ m ~n O 0 u x r 0 0 3 O O Y H c c 3 v a a, L L W W 0 C O U) d H ~ ~ 47 R a ~ v ~ a) N a, a v v Q m N W N n n v n ~ fy~ M a, a m ~ vi u c ro a1 v O C O U a~j UJ aJ N U CO - -a +L+ O C O 5 U v 0- a1 C u O C U „ T N E " NO E p~ Q N 'y N O T v 75 L > C : H O U 'n v- a V C L = 4 p al ' O Ei CL a, 3 w -o c o C -0 v co V n t L U -p 7 N > m V .fl L O N ~tlD O + (u T O O a 7 'n ' D j hn a) o v i Q) -0 -C m a p t 0 - 3 Y c t 0 z i Q ai -a o 0 Y Y ° O E t y N ai v aJ = 3> f0 a1 - ~f w Y c a o v ai 3 u c v m a p on E t" ° c ar o 0 E a~ + cu Q 0- o ci Y° v v ' 3 ro c- v H y Y ro c c c n cu ' c .2 i C :3 aJ 3 7 3 N N o E 6 N L' L ' N u 2 = v ' " O T a 0 C N u C V- Cn 6 C O C O C Q Q c o Q O O C o O b0 O N O m 7 L N p 0 O L O t -p O U - o +L+ !n E N a1 U C H aJ U y > '(V _ L w Q U. V C O U m Z m ra o i+ _ C L> I~ N vyi W of i Y t y ~ _ m Q -OO U E V u r- x O ~ '6 C a1 O a (A a1 T t 7 ri al 6 4+ O O O U O C O u m 7 a Q O j v m do =3 o -0 3: y 0 C L Q L O y N a1 V O m -O C O O -O aJ N T v al Is O E ° to C c O ai U C 2 m c v o, 7 ' o al v Ql 6 m o o T - o v v 7 c n a Q to u v v 4 -0 1 m o w _ 3 o> v o o N as c u c Q.E c o 7 -Fu ` ° r Q c H 0 X07 Q N Q Q t T Q 0 C L ~n n O1 ° m - v Q ,7„ N N a, t c Y ar a al Q {A i 00 7 (O y f0 (a O L 7 N Ll y al - l7 c` ` (n +T+ d 3 o v a ° m v 7 ° 7 v 3 = E a o w c E o on y c {A o v V O > on E _p E C Cn i E v ° a E 7~ a) O- 7 CJ O 0 o° E E ~o m E o v L o a c CL) 5 v Q a) E . 5< w t a v° a v Q o al ° E C 0 ai C y y E d. N E a7 7 7 O a, 3 7 a7 f 0 0 o v 7 0 a v o °o v a, ° v c a, o U > E v N> 3 = a i 3 v - E t v Y c u 'T C a) .0 CD m -0 N ~ > 6 Q _ u s - E y L m_ ^ ~ v l) v - 0 O __F o + N c v c C C - -O c o L as E ba L u u al L Y N Y • o O a' y v 3~ i+ U a N a~ N e v Q y O w Vf Q 7 a M yt u 2 'T cco 21 c = a) aJ E Y 'O r al C ° v C m -r C: cs V O al 7 a1 O a i 3 C E N >o u >o E° 3 E s Q o °1 ¢ a, o v co m Q U Q O N= C ` io 7 N N 4 7 . 7 3 a s 3 , a HS~ 3 C . U v1 0 3° Y c m U N O a.+ C O D Cl O a~ H L N = F v1 t dd Y J T t d G7 S T co H r- Kim Jordan ?toaAit. Cavcw} From: dharmapeace Q att.net Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:49 AM To: Planning Department Subject: City Website Inquiry to Planning Department email: dharmapeaceoatt.net realname: Company: Name: Ron Epstein Title: Prof. Mailing_Address: City: Ukiah State: Zip: Phone: ATTACHMENT' Contact-Method: by E-Mail Comment: Please add to the public record my support for the banning of chain fast food restaurants and coffee shops in the downtown area. REMOTE-HOST= REMOTE_ADDR=69.107.88.162 HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 REMOTE USER= RECEIVIZ APR 2 7 2011 CITY OF UKM PLANNING DEPT. 1 Ukiah Unified School District 925 N. State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482-3470 707-463-5200 Fax: 707-463-2120 www.uusd.net LOIS NASH, Ed.D. Superintendent Date: 4/26/2011 To: Ukiah City Council From: Terry Nieves d'Selkie RE: Upholding Downtown Ukiah Zoning Code with its Prohibitions of New Formula Fast Food of All Types Dear Ukiah City Council Members: I would like to request that you uphold the downtown Ukiah Zoning Code with its Prohibitions of New Formula Fast Food of All Types. I have two general reasons why I believe this is best for our downtown area and the citizens of Ukiah. 1. The health and longevity of our children and families Nearly 1/3 of American children eat fast food everyday, consuming an average of 187 additional calories per day than those who don't, and accounting for an extra 6 pounds of weight gain per year. In Mendocino County, 48% of low-income children were overweight or obese in 2007, as were 59% of all adults. Overweight contributes to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, depression and some cancers. Because of the health effects of obesity, children born since the year 2000 have a 1 in 3 chance of developing diabetes in their lifetimes, and will be the first generation in modern history to live shorter lives than their parents if current trends continue. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that all the nutrition education we give kids, through our nutrition education program in schools, is ineffective to create lasting improvements to eating behavior when their neighborhoods surround them with low priced junk foods,_ and they have less access to affordable healthy foods. Studies show that we eat what's available and convenient. In Ukiah, there are already 4.3 fast food restaurants and convenience stores for every one place to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. With that much over-saturation of unhealthy foods, people do not have a fair opportunity to make a healthy choice. Americans also over eat junk foods to a much greater degree than we under eat healthy foods, so increasing consumption of healthy foods by itself will not solve the problem. While some fast food chains are adding salads and fruit to menu offerings, a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that only 3% of kids' meals at major fast food companies met the nutrition standards of the National School Lunch Program. Multiple studies have found that fast foods tend to be high in fat PRE content and energy dense (meaning many calories per weight of the food).~~~ APR 2 7 2011 Focused on Success for All C11Y®F UKIAH Educational Services 707-463-5213 Fiscal Services 707-463-5201 Personnel 707-463-5208 Personnel Commission 707-46 - 5 Food Services 707-463-5269 Services for English Language Learners 707-463-5286 Special Education Services 707-468-3315 Technology 707-463-5294 Transportation/Maintenance/Grounds 707-463-5233 2. Supporting our local economy and our existing local businesses The General Plan adopted in 1995 for the City of Ukiah issues a call in policy GP-2 to "Promote business development, emphasizing local ownership of businesses in order to keep capital and growth within the community." This is a way to increase locally owned and operated businesses in our downtown area, while discouraging fast food chains such as Starbucks and McDonalds. So in closing, by prohibiting new chain fast food establishments, we both promote the health and longevity of our children, and return about 20% more revenue to the Ukiah community while preserving community character and civic participation. Any business owner would be thrilled with a 20% higher return. Why don't the people of Ukiah deserve a 20% higher return? The downtown zoning code as written is a win-win for the people of Ukiah. Please support it as written. Thank you from future generations and, Terry Nieves d'Selkie Gardening & Nutrition Education Program Director Ukiah Unified School District Focused on Success for All Educational Services 707-463-5213 Fiscal Services 707-463-5201 Personnel 707-463-5208 Personnel Commission 707-463-5205 Food Services 707-463-5269 Services for English Language Learners 707-463-5286 Special Education Services 707-468-3315 Technology 707-463-5294 Transportation/Maintenance/Grounds 707-463-5233 Kim Jordan From: Bill Steele [besenbok@pacific.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:01 AM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Downtown Business Bans Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Just thought you'd like to know, I have been doing a FaceBook Poll of Listeners during my morning show. They are overwhelmingly resentful of the City's proposed Ban of Formula Chains Downtown. I plan to contually keep my audience informed on the issue. Citizens do not want government controlling private enterprize under the guise of preserving the aesthetic look of of the area. Bill Steele PD/MD KWNE/KMKX-fm 707-462-0945 Send Audio to spots@kwine.com Kim Jordan From: Tammy Ingle [tingle29@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:15 AM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Re: Downtown zoning and ban on chain restaurants Hey Kim, Okay here is what I really wanted to say last night and did not:-) I love the ideas of what the planning department has in mind for the downtown Ukiah. Would love to see school street be a walking street only if we could provide parking in the area. Hmmm maybe the old Palace Hotel..... Not sure where all the money to do this is going to come from but when or if this does happen I would love to be part of it. On another note I think it is very important to the entire downtown businesses that we do not ban any new business from opening up. That's not to say that every new venture should be reviewed and approved. When we decided to open a franchise 7 years ago we had a Quiznos Corporate person come to Ukiah to approve our site. Of course all his ideas were Pear Tree Center, Orchard Shopping Center or Raleys. I fought to be downtown. I remember coming to the Main Street Deli when I was younger and missed that. I was also told that people do not like to cross State street and will not come from the court house due to that reason. Now some of our most loyal everyday customers are court house employees. Yes I know we are not the Mom and Pop deli but we run our franchise like we are except we have the expertise of a franchise. My partner and I both grew up in Mendocino County. We are local girls but did not feel we had the expertise or know how to start a business so we thought we would start with a franchise that could show us the ropes. We wanted to provide something that Ukiah did not have in a quick service restaurant with high quality good food. We both have learned a lot and would not change the past. I know from experience there is a huge difference in a corporate ran store vs independently owned store. We are able to make most decisions as to how we want to run our business and I think in this economy we have done a pretty good job. As for the cute little boutique shops yes we need these downtown, but we also need stores that are willing to stay open 7 days a week and past 5 pm. We need to build a consistency for the downtown. We use to open Sundays but most of Ukiah does not come downtown because everyone else is closed. This is something that occurred when all the corporate stores moved out of the downtown area. We did not do enough business to make it worth our while. So I think franchise/fast food or fast service stores also provide a consistency for hours and product where mom and pop not always do. So it is vital to have both. On another note I think it is also great to have all the art galleries and touristy local things but I would-love to see whatihese stores contribute to the city iri $$$'s. I know we pay the city a nice amount in sales tax because we have the sales. We also voted for the increase in sales tax in order to provide more tax dollars for our law enforcement and fire dept. Which I think was a very positive accomplishment. I just don't feel we are in any position as downtown merchants or city officials to discourage any new business. Yes it should be reviewed and need approval by whom ever but at least considered. Please keep me posted on any new or additional information in this matter. I think this could be vital to not only our investment but the city as a whole. Sincerely, Tammy Ingle, Owner of Quiznos Kim Jordan From: Tammy Ingle [tingle29@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 8:32 AM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Fw: Downtown zoning and ban on chain restaurants Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Kim, I spoke to you several weeks ago about the ban on chain restaurants in the downtown area. I am the owner of Quiznos which is located downtown. I realize this will not effect my current store but I also feel this would not be good for the downtown to eliminate other franchises to open downtown. We need any business that is willing to open and improve the downtown area including franchises. 1 was hoping you can email me any information. Thank you so much for your time. Tammy Ingle TAMMY INGLE ~ OWNER / OPERATOR ft1Zn0 SUS m amm...'rOASdY!. P.O. Box 1028 135 West Gobbi St., Suite 200 Ukiah, California 95482 Daniel C. Thomas Office: (707) 462-1425 Facsimile: (707) 462-1791 E-mail: danthomas@pacific.net MORENO & COMPANY THOMAS VINEYARDS Thursday March 31, 2011 Ms. Mari Rodin Mayor Mr. Benj Thomas Councilman Mr. Doug Crane Councilman Mr. Phil Baldwin Councilman Ms. Mary Anne Landis Councilwoman Ms. Jane Chambers City Manager Mr. Charlie Stump Planning Director Dear Sirs and Madams, APR - i 2011 In regards to the proposed Downtown Zoning code (DZC), please accept this response. I do not think the City of Ukiah, nor its citizens, are served by enacting certain aspects of the (DZC). The (DZC) corroborates with the thought that large corporate business and particularly fast food establishments are undesirable and bad for all of us. And, that somehow the presence of these establishments, in the downtown area of Ukiah, diminishes its stature. I disagree. Certainly a case for common architecture can be made to preserve the appearance of a downtown. This makes absolute sense. The character and nature of an area is more influenced by the way it blends in together visually more than any other input. But to say that the origin of the business itself, whether it is Joe's Coffee or Starbucks Coffee, greatly influences the character of an area in itself, is absurd. Obviously if a downtown area were 100% corporate fast food one would wonder what the hell is going on. Too much of one thing is obviously too much of one thing. A mix of various types of businesses, I -believe, is the best forour community. Neither one in itself is the answer- because neither-one-in itself can answer our individual retail needs or preferences. There is a place for fast food and mom and pop eateries. Not only can they exist side by side but they can also prosper. A perfectly good example, right in our own back yard, is The Pear Tree Center which is actually within the (DZC). The center has had private and corporate retailers / fast food establishments co exist since its construction. Several of the smaller shops are the original tenants and have been in operation for 35 years! If this is not an acid test of compatibility please tell me what is. In evaluating this statement you should do a double check and ask yourself how many downtown operations have been in existence for 35 years. I think it is entirely out of order for anyone to say there will be no corporate retail / fast food in an area. Equally out of order would be for anyone to say that only corporate retail / fast food will be located in an area. It is entirely not the place of the Planning Commission or the City Council of Ukiah to dictate my choice of what I purchase and from whom I purchase it. I want to decide as should everyone else. Ukiah is a beautiful little town. I have lived here my entire life. Becky and I have raised 6 kids here. We are a special place. But I can assure you we are not as pretty and special as we think. We are struggling economically to a degree that may have never been seen before. Our local community has lost some very big businesses and employers in the last 10 years. For that matter we have actually lost industries! Just list the companies that have disappeared on 1 side of a paper and on the other side the new ones. I have, and the conclusion is absolutely obvious. It is not in the best interest of our community to limit any reasonable business from coming here. As a community, we have a hard enough time attracting any business! Lower wage employment opportunities are great starting places for students to learn the responsibility of a job, for students needing part time work, or for unskilled workers to earn supplemental income. Ukiah is not in the position to limit any jobs! I understand the desire by some to create a utopian piece of America, here in our home town, but limiting the very, very scarce jobs that are or may be available is simply not the right thing to do. Please see the attached flyer from Starbucks on part time employment benefits. Please note the circled items on pages labeled 2 and 3. These benefits are available to employees working a minimum of 20 hours per week or half time. Health Care, Dental Care, Vision, Dependant Care Reimbursement, Life Insurance, Adoption Assistance for part time employees. You simply cannot deny this possibility for anyone in these times. To that end I am vigorously opposed to any limitation of business type in regards to the (DZC). Architectural cohesiveness is a different matter. With kindest regards, Daniel C. Thomas Kim Jordan From: Maureen Mulheren Wattenburger [themoyouknow@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 6:25 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Fwd: City of Ukiah and Franchises: Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Kim, Sorry. Just thought I should forward this to you for your record. Thanks. www. themo youknow. info Forwarded message From: "Maureen Mulheren Wattenburger" <themoyouknow@gmail.com> Date: Mar 8, 20112:40 PM Subject: City of Ukiah and Franchises: To: "Linda Helland" <hellandl@co.mendocino.ca.us>, "kaderli" <kaderli@juno.com>, "Whetzel" <tmaviation@pacific.net>, "Judy Pruden" <hortense@pacific.net>, <jasontreebeard@gmail.com>, "Phil Baldwin" <felipe@pacific.net>, "Benj Thomas" <ukiahguy @ yahoo. com>, "Mari Rodin" <rodin@pacific.net>, "Doug Crane" <dougc@pacific.net>, "Mary Ann Landis" <malandis @pacific. net> Hello Planning Commissioners and City Council Members, For those of you that don't know who I am I will give a brief summary of my background. Born and raised in Ukiah, business owner, mother of four, and I really love Ukiah. So much so that I created a special Facebook page and website: Facebook.com/lheartUkiah. Just so that I could help spread the word about events and businesses that are so vital to what makes Ukiah a great place to live work and raise a family. I realize that your jobs can sometimes be thankless. You have roughly 20,000 (in the Ukiah Valley, or is it more than that) that are depending on your every move. What a lot of pressure. I know that some of you have successful businesses that you built from the ground up, some of you work for the public sector and others of you, well I'm not exactly sure what you do. But I wonder have -you ever tried to open a business? To find capital? To go through the lending process, a business plan, etc? My father owns a business in Ukiah, since I was a very small girl I've dreamt of owning my own business, I have a 13 year old daughter who doesn't even talk about "where" she'll work, rather "which" business she will own. When I think about Ukiah and the place that I want to raise my children in I think of a vibrant community, lots of local businesses and family activities. Well, we have lots of family activities but the businesses that support those activities are dwindling in numbers. Recently I've been following the debate on the Downtown Zoning Code (I tried to attend the meetings but it was hard with juggling the kids sports schedules, my business and the free time I get occasionally) and in particular the Ban on Fast Food Chains. I know that at one point there was consideration to include coffee houses, bakeries, etc. I'm not sure how that got taken off of the table but I have to tell you that this scares me. It scares me that you would chose to take away the opportunity for myself or my children to open their own business. Sure we could do it from scratch, but would we make it? Could we get a loan? Here's an interesting article I found recently: Trends and Facts About Restaurant Franchises 1. The Restaurant Franchise industry is one of the fastest-growing franchise industries in the US. According to The National Restaurant Association, restaurant revenues reached $566 billion in 2009, at 945,000 restaurants nationwide. 2. Restaurant revenue grew by 2.9% in 2008 and make up 4% of the U.S. gross domestic product 3. The restaurant industry has earned a reputation for high risk and high rewards. Some industry analysts claim a dubious 90 percent failure in the first year. Franchise restaurants based on proven systems have a higher success rate about 62 percent over four years - than independent operators. 4. The average adult purchases a meal or snack away from home about 3.72 times each week. Nearly one- third (31.9%) of respondents say that on weekdays they always or often purchase lunch at a restaurant or fast food provider. As I understand it Quiznos, Round Table or Wendy's would not be allowed in our Downtown or on Perkins Street. Some of the other Franchise's you may be excluding; Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, TOGO's Eateries, Cici's Pizza, Starbucks, Peet's Coffee, Cold Stone Creamery, Jamba Juice, Mr. Pickles Sandwich Shop. I think that the citizens that are anti-fast food have their hearts in the right place. But there are other ways to encourage healthy eating than to flat out ban potential businesses. And with a Franchise its likely to be a LOCAL person that wants to OWN their own business, and not an out of town corporation that we will never see (Safeway, Walmart, Etc) Are all of these places knocking down our doors? No, probably not. But let's not put up a "No tresspassers allowed" sign before we even know who is pulling up to the driveway. I know that not a lot of people will be able to take time out of their evenings to come to tomorrow nights meeting. I hope that you will try to seek out people, families, outside of your "inner circles". Please go Downtown and talk to some local merchants and get their take. The Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce is having a mixer at Branches on Thursday (3/10/11) I would invite you to come, and speak to business owners and ask them what they think. Ask the question out loud on Facebook. "Is this what the community wants?" I know that they're kind of rough sometimes but check out the UDJ blog, read what people are saying about the articles. Those are your citizens, those are the people that you represent, as diverse as we are. I just want to close by saying: "Please Commissioners and Council Members, don't close the door for myself or my kids to become a successful business owner based on the views of a few "anti-fast foodians". contact info is included below. Thank you for your time. Mo Maureen Mulheren Wattenburger JLB Insurance 5ervices, LLC CA Lic #OG38950 707-671-6944 707-462-6626 fax TI MISSION OF THE UKIAH MAIN STREET PROGRAM IS TO PRE -RVE AND ENHANCE WHAT MAKES UK' -4 A GREAT PLACE March 7, 2011 Tent' Sholin ET Solar USA President Mike Spencer KMNE & KMKX Vice President Judy Pruden Historian Treasurer Dina Polkinghome Project Sanctuary Secretary Justin Briggs KIMNE & KM10( Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members, ~j cc~cod L1AA -1 2011 D~i It has been brought to our attention that the Planning Commission has voted for and approved a recommendation to eliminate any and all exemptions for formula fast food chains and/or franchises in the Formed Based. Zoning Code, as it applies to the Downtown Business District and the gateway corridor along Perkins Street. As you know, such exemptions, if they were to remain in place would Cynthia Coale Member at Large , permit certain types of formula businesses such as coffee houses, Shannon Riley bakeries, ice cream parlors and hot dog stands to locate in the Shoefly and Sox aforementioned areas. Richard Moser Access Design-Build, Inc. The Planning Commission's decision was discussed at the February Cindy Lindgren Board of Directors meeting, where it was the general consensus that the Coldwell Banker downtown could significantly benefit from some of these businesses, Mary Ann Villwock particularly coffee houses. Law Offices of M.A.V. Leslie Smith St F I t Therefore, Main' Street staff conducted a survey of downtown businesses e arm a nsurance , which revealed that 82.5% of the responding business owners also Lolonis Tole S Camera Thple ri s C favored allowing the specified exemptions. Dave Haas Expressions Candy 9 On Thursday, March 3rd the Board of Directors of the Ukiah Main Street Sage Sanglacomo Program voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that the city of Ukiah exemptions should remain. Our organization respectfully requests that the MaryAnn Landis - - - - Council oppose the Planning Commission's recommendation and City Council Member continue to allow for these types of exemptions. Benj Thomas City Council Member Sincerely, Richard Hansen Executive Director ` Jai Fults Events Coordinator X t r Terry Sholin Board President 200 S. School St, Ukiah CA 95482 * (707) 462-6789 * (707) 462-2088 fax * mainstna pacific.net www.downtownuliah.com F ~y 1rft 90 FEB-9201, Feb. 7, 2010 The Honorable City Councilmembers of Ukiah Dear City Manager Chambers: As you know, the Ukiah Planning Commission plans to bring forward to the Council their recommendation regarding exemptions to the, Downtown°Zoning Code to include in its definition of "formula:fasrfood restaurants.,, busimesses like ice cream shops, bakeries, hot dog stands-an.. coffee shop s: The phrase "formula fast food" conjures up notions of an impersonal, corporate, and "cookie-cutter" approach to doing business. While we support whatever decision you make regarding the zoning code, we feel that it's important that youknow.what kind of company Peet's Coffee & Tea is: We are a'16ca1 business-.our companyheadquarters,are located in Emeryville, Calif.-with localwalnes and a commitment to ourlocal communities. Our mission has always been to enable and inspire our customers to enjoy the daily pleasure of our coffees and teas by providing distinctive, superior products, superior coffee and tea knowledge and superior service to every customer, every dap: We hold dear the principles put forth by our founder, Alfred Peet, who was staunch in his commitment to artisan craftsmanship, roasting coffee by hand-not machines-with great care and attention to detail: Also rooted in our-company's values is a deep commitment to the prosperity of our employees, of the local communities in which we do business, and of our global partners who provide us with the best quality coffees and teas in the world. Peet's currently has 192 coffee shops, and the selection of each location was the result of very measured and deliberate decision making. We take into consideration the community, the customers'.needs, the surrounding architecture, the landscape and environmental impact when selecting a location and when designing our coffee shops. Our baked goods, which are baked and delivered to our stores fresh daily, come from local vendors. The mills used by our certified baristas comes from local dairies whenever possible. Lastly, Area, and opportunities to use vendors and consultants in the immediate areas are always considered. As a local business, we take our commitment to the community seriously. We act e1)-. bute`thzough sponsorship; donations and volunteeiii at a veryloeaFleoel. Each year, during our annual Holiday Donations program, our employees give out free drip coffee and tea in exchange for donations to the local, non-profit organization of their stores' choosing. Last year, this 25-year tradition-started by our store employees-raised more than $280,000 companywide, with $45,000 benefiting non-pso fit.orgaruzations in the North Bay, Central Valley and Sierra Foothill's districts alone. For tb.e-people'who work in our coffee shops, it's a great job. We're`conilnitted toldeveloping.their coffee and tea knowledge; inspire within them the art of making the perfect handcrafted'beverage, and the ability to: • Peees Coffee & Tea 6 P.O. Box 12509, Berkeley, CA 94712-3509 N Tel 510 594.2100 Fax 510 594.2180 1• share this expertise with our customers. In addition, we pay our store employees very well, and we offer full benefits to employees who work at least 21 hours a week. We.:hope:ahatthe City CouncilwilT exclude'Peet•'s Coffee Tea from the definition of "formula fast food" businesses in its Downtown Zoning Code. Our entire business is based on relationships-with the farmers who grow our coffees and teas; with our employees who serve our customers; and with the communities with which we do business. Sincerely yours, ewk'V Carol Mazzetd Director, Real Estate Peet's Coffee & Tea Peet's Coffee & Tea M P.O. Box 12509, Berkeley, CA 94712-3509 0 Tel 510 594.2100 Fax 510 594.2180 I January 12, 2011 Dear Planning Commission of Ukiah, I am a citizen of Ukiah and live in the downtown vicinity. I am 100 percent against the allowance of corporate business coming to our School Street/Downtown vicinity. I am for a local downtown and do not want Peet, Starbucks, or any other corporation is my downtown. This would be a huge planning mistake on your part! My favorite part of town in downtown because it contains local businesses! Mike Whetzel does not have my support if he supports corporate coffee houses downtown! Please keep Ukiah Downtown 100% orate free! Je a Pearson 82 N. School St. Ukiah Ca, 95482 467-3972 ~Cc~ o~ . C~YV1 EEfV JAN 12 2011 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. Kim Jordan From: Holly & Scott Crafty - WRM [cratty@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:43 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Comments on the Downtown Zoning Code City of Ukiah Attn: Kim Jordan at kjordan d,)cityofukiah.com Greetings. understand that the Ukiah Planning Commission is reviewing new Downtown Zoning Codes that would prohibit new formula fast food restaurants from the downtown area. However, the current draft of the new codes apparently would allow formula/chain food businesses that do not focus on full meals, such as ice cream shops, coffeehouses and bakeries. Admittedly, I have not been following the intricacies of the deliberation, so I apologize if the following points have already been considered. However, the logic of exempting chain businesses such as coffeehouses and ice cream shops eludes me. If the ban on chain restaurants is being enacted (at least in part) as a step toward safeguarding public health, e.g., helping reduce the epidemics of obesity, diabetes and other social maladies linked to the formula food business, the exceptions would seem to be misguided. Chain ice cream shops, bakeries and the like will be at least, if not more, unhealthy for the population of Ukiah. If the exemptions are related to economic considerations, they also make no sense. Formula businesses certainly do have a negative economic impact on a community relative to a locally-owned alternative. But, the tendency of formula business to export a large share of the local capital they absorb (for things such as supplies, advertising, legal services, and much more) is presumably the same regardless of the type of food served. If the exceptions are related preserving the unique and historic interest of Ukiah's downtown business district, they again makes no sense. Downtown Ukiah's charm and character would be no less altered if an Starbucks inseatd of an Arby's replaced Schat's. Given the similarity of the effects of exempt and not expect formula businesses the exemptions seem to be inconsistent, arbitrary and counterproductive. Thanks for your attention and regards, Scott Crafty Ukiah Saturday Farmers' Market Manager June 22, 2010 Dear City of Ukiah, We, the undersigned, petition the Planning Commission and the Ukiah City Council to prohibit additional fast food restaurants and alcohol outlets in Ukiah. Allowing more permits to sell alcohol or fast food is not in the best interest of the public's health and local family-owned businesses. Nor is it in the interest of the City of Ukiah if it wishes to maintain any sense of unique identity. Must Ukiah be just one more bland, American town of strip malls, major chain drive- thrus, a huge Wal-Mart and dead downtown? Cotati and St. Helena are nearby towns with character that have severely restricted these facilities. Other examples are Calistoga, Davis, and Arcata. The Vision Statement for the Ukiah General Plan calls for "businesses that retain dollars within the community". Chain "formula" businesses and restaurants siphon local money away to corporate headquarters, benefiting distant banks, advertising firms, accountants, CEOs and investors instead of the people of Ukiah. Additional fast food restaurants and alcohol outlets in Ukiah would only increase the large population that suffers from obesity, diabetes, alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. All of these conditions are not only personally devastating, but also a fiscal burden to the community. These "downstream" costs dwarf any sales tax revenue generated. We already have more than enough of such establishments. We call on our city policymakers to only approve projects that would improve the beauty, health and economic base of our community. Ukiah first! Sincerely, L~ YV~ L I fill, RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2010 PITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. Hello Ukiah City Council and Planning, June 23, 2010 My name is Terry Nieves and I am a nutrition educator and healthy food advocate for students and their parents in Ukiah. I would like to make a recommendation, which comes from the following evidence about fast food access and availability. My recommendation is to limit access to fast food as much as possible through the planning and zoning process, which will lead to healthier Ukiah citizens. It has been proven that the more fast food that is easily accessible, the more overweight and obese the population is and the less healthy the residents of those cities are. New evidence has been released by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that proves that selected behaviors that lead to a greater propensity to gain weight include (but are not limited to) "eating out frequently (especially at Quick Service Restaurants [i.e. fast food restaurants])". An emerging body of evidence has documented the impact of the food environment and select behaviors on body weight in both children and adults. Moderately strong evidence now indicates that the food environment is associated with dietary intake, especially less consumption of vegetables and fruits and higher body weight. Limited but consistent evidence suggests that increased geographic density of fast food restaurants and convenience stores is also related to increased body mass index. Strong and consistent evidence indicates that children and adults who eat fast food are at increased risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity. The strongest documented relationship between fast food and obesity is when one or more fast- food meals are consumed per week. 1 Fast Food Peer-reviewed published studies have demonstrated that when people have easy access to healthy foods they eat more fruits and vegetables, and conversely, when fast food abounds people eat more of it, consume more calories, are more overweight, have higher incidence of insulin resistance, and higher rates of diabetes, regardless of income. - - - - - - Nearly 1/3 of American children eat fast food everyday, consuming an average of 187 additional calories per day than those who don't, and accounting for an extra 6 pounds of weight gain per year. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that only 3% of kids' meals at major fast food companies met the nutrition standards of the National School Lunch Program. Multiple studies have found that fast foods tend to be high in fat content and energy dense (meaning many calories per weight of the food). Eating fast food is associated with consuming more calories, more a beverages, and higher rates of obesity and diabetes. ~~D 1 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (appendix a-1- conclusions) JUN 2 3 2010 CITY OF UKIAH PEANNINC ! EPT. Thank you for your time, Terry Nieves (707) 462-2561 August 26, 2009 Dear Planning Commission, I am program, director for Ukiah Unified School District's Network for a Healthy California program. We have a strong presence in all UUSD schools, serving over 6,000 students - preschool through 12a' grade. Our goal is to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and encourage more physical activity in our school age population as well as in their families. I am coming before you to ask you to consider several things while you update your city code, deciding what level of review to require for different uses. While I never think having fast food outlets in our downtown area is healthy, I think prohibiting all drive- thrus in downtown zones would promote health (of course pharmacies would be exempted). Peer reviewed studies have found an over concentration of fast food restaurants in low- income and minority communities, contributes to these communities higher rates of overweight and chronic illness. There are already 4.2 fast food restaurants and convenience stores in Ukiah for every one place to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. People do not have an opportunity to make a healthy choice with that level of saturation. I am not looking for a ban on fast foods, just looking for balance and a proper mix. I would also like to see fast food being separate and distinct from restaurants when you make planning decisions. An amendment would be needed in order to do this. We all know that there is a difference in sitting down to a meal, rather than grabbing something and eating it in our cars. Thanks for your time. Terry Nieves RECEIVED AUG 26 2009 CRY OF MAN PLANNING DEPT ~t~lv~tt. C.anc~n~ Kiin'Jordan From: Charley Stump LAw$ Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:05 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: FW: Kevin Doble sent you a message on Facebook... Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI From: Mary Anne Landis fmaiIto: maland isOpacific.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 20114:03 PM To: Charley Stump Subject: Fwd: Kevin Doble sent you a message on Facebook... Hi Charley, Please pass on to Kim, I don't have her email address.. Original Message Subject:Kevin Doble sent you a message on Facebook... Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:21:04 -0700 From:Facebook <notification+y4ft64y6@facebookmail.com> Reply-Tomoreply <noreplly@facebookmail.com> To: Mary Anne Landis <malandis @pacific. net> Kevin sent you a message. - Kevin Doble2:21 pm Apr 27th Subject: Downtown Zoning Code Hello Mary Anne, Please consider asking planning staff to develop an administrative process for the following uses in the Downtown Core Zoning District: Hotels, Schools, Outside Dinning, and Tasting Rooms Theses uses will bring people downtown after 5pm and on weekends. I see that the code provides this very approach to Certified Farmers Markets, which is great, it just needs to go a little further. I personally feel that the code could also offer concessions similar to the density bonus program which has worked well in creating incentives to provide affordable housing units. I will not be able to attend tonights meeting because I have to be home with my children while my wife is at work. Thanks for your consideration! Best Regards, Kevin Doble Resident-City of Ukiah You have 52 new notifications. Visit Facebook now to see what's happening with your friends. To reply to this message, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.conVn/?inbox%2Freadmessage.php&t=1346737886376&mid=42285edG54cd93e0G293aca2G0&bcodc=V58ZvksU&n m=malandis%40 The message was sent to malandis(5)pacific.net. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please follow the linty unsubscribe. htti)://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=b44837&u=1422758880&mid=42285edG54cd93eOG293aca2GO Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 1 Alto, CA 94303 OPTHPORT LAND W COMMEIRCIAL COMPANY FORMERLY THE BLACK DIAMOND O P.O. BOX 1997 `~~ot~QO~t~ rd COAL MINING CO. MARMEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0997 (925) 372-7798 10 ,V8p0 - A CALIFORNIA'S OLDEST STOCK CORPORATION f~R April 26, 2011 E111VE City of Ukiah APR 2 7 2011 Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn : Kim Jordan CffYOF UKKH 300 Seminary Avenue PLANNING DEPT Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: April 27, 2011 Public Hearing on proposed Downtown Zoning Code Dear Ms. Jordan: We own the North Valley Bank Building at the corner of North State Street and Perkins Street. Our building is in the "Downtown Core" under both the original boundaries and the Planning Commission's proposed boundaries. We are concerned about the total prohibition against several types of uses in the Downtown Core, which would be implemented if the currently proposed "Downtown Zoning Code" were to be enacted. Instead of totally prohibiting certain uses, we would like to see them allowed under a Use Permit with pre-defined conditions, or, in the alternative, we would like to have the proposed definitions (which we believe are too broad) revised to weed-out what the City deems to be undesirable uses, while allowing uses that are compatible with the Downtown. FAST FOOD The first use that drew our attention as being prohibited in the Downtown Core was "Restaurant - formula fast food." First, there appears to be an overlap in the definitions of "Restaurant - formula fast food" and "Restaurant, Cafe, Coffee Shop." (See the definitions on page 95.) An establishment such as a Peet's Coffee or a Starbuck's, as well as any "Mom and Pop" establishment that tried to emulate those national chains, could City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn: Kim Jordan April 26, 2011 Page 2 easily fall into either category. With overlapping definitions (and with one definition being allowed and the other definition being prohibited) it leaves it up to the City Planner at the time an application is made to arbitrarily determine which category the proposed use fits into. This could easily result in similar applications being treated differently, which would not be fair to the business community. The definition of "Restaurant - formula fast food" should expressly except those businesses that fall under the definition of "Restaurant, Cafe, Coffee Shop." Second, assuming that coffee houses such as a Starbucks would fall into the "Coffee Shop" definition and not the "Fast Food" definition, the latter definition would still likely exclude all "donut shops" and "ice cream shops" - not only nationally branded ones such Yum Yum and Baskin-Robbins, but also the type set up by local individual entrepreneurs. (As a side note, the City where we maintain our corporate office has a downtown much like Ukiah's, including a downtown County courthouse. In that downtown there is an ice cream shop that opened in existing zero-lot line building, and it does not detract from the pleasant downtown atmosphere.) Also assuming that the "fast food" definition is primarily intended to target restaurants such as McDonald's and Burger King, an outright ban is not the solution. Like the city where our corporate office is located, some cities have prohibited new stand-alone fast food establishments in their downtowns, but allow fast food to be instituted in an existing building with a zero lot line from the next building, and with a restriction that "branding" be kept to a minimum. That way, the impact of the fast food establishment is greatly reduced, without prohibiting it. (The downtown where we have our corporate office has a McDonald's, but it was put in an existing zero-lot line building, with very little modifications to the exterior of the building itself, so it blends with the other businesses. There are no big "golden arches" or corporate branding paint schemes, resulting in the McDonalds fitting right in.) Among the things we would want to prohibit in the downtown is a national fast food chain coming in with a proposal to tear down a building or two and putting up a stand alone building that has the maximum amount of elements of corporate branding. In that example, it is not the fast food that deters from the downtown, but the manner in which the fast food establishment is designed and operated. We believe that reasonable conditions can be drafted which will allow fast food businesses in the downtown, but which, at the same time, will protect the downtown from things like the example just cited. Some examples of possible rules for fast food restaurants are: City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn: Kim Jordan April 26, 2011 Page 3 1. Prohibit a fast food restaurant from having a parking lot for customers; 2. Require all fast food restaurants to be in buildings with zero lot lines on the sides and front; 3. Require small signs and small corporate logos for all fast food restaurants; 4. Limit all signage for the fast food restaurant to the ground floor of a multi-story building; and 5. If occupied by a nationally recognized chain, prohibit the building in which the fast food restaurant is located from being repainted with colors that are indicative of, or unique to, the national chain. BUSINESS SERVICES Another prohibited use that caught our eye was "Business services." The definition on page 86 incorporates by reference the definition found in Section 9278. Section 9278 defines "Business services" to include "printing shops" and "office equipment supply firms." Printing shops should not be outright excluded. A small "Mom and Pop" print shop, where you can get business cards printed, get a banner or sign made, get some photocopies, or mail a Federal Express package, would be an asset to the downtown, but it would be prohibited. (Again, in the downtown where we maintain our corporate office, a small print shop is among the businesses that are thriving, in part because it provides a needed service for other businesses. Ironically, it is located almost directly across from fast food restaurants, a Starbuck's and a Subway.) Likewise, a store selling computers, fax machines, scanners, and related supplies could be interpreted as an office equipment supply firm, and thus would be excluded from the Downtown Core. When deciding to exclude these uses, the fear was likely the size of a potential business. Small businesses of these types are not a threat to the downtown. Yes, larger print shops and business supply establishments (for example, an Office Depot) could detract from the character that the City is trying to achieve downtown. Perhaps the solution is either to require a Use Permit, or better yet, put a square foot size threshold on such businesses - anything over a certain size would be prohibited. MAINTENANCE & REPAIR BUSINESSES Also prohibited in the downtown would be any business that provides maintenance or repair services at a client's site. (See City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn: Kim Jordan April 26, 2011 Page 4 definition of "Maintenance/Repair - Client Site Services.") These types of businesses typically consist of an office out of which the business is run, with vans and similar vehicles that load-up with what is needed and which are then driven to a client's location to actually do the work. The prohibition was probably intended to keep plumbers, electricians, and large appliance repair businesses out of the downtown, because these businesses have to load-up their vans or trucks with often large equipment and supplies, which is not compatible with the downtown. However, by way of example, technology maintenance and repair companies ("Geek Squad" type businesses), are also prohibited, which typically do not have any offensive vehicle "load-up" component. The definition also cites (and therefore prohibits) companies that repair or maintain "instruments" at a client's facility. So, a business that calibrates equipment at a client's factory would be prohibited. The businesses that would be prohibited often have office staff who would patronize other downtown businesses at lunch time and after hours. Those office staff employees are needed downtown to help create a sense of vitality. We believe that not all of the businesses included within the broad category of "Maintenance/Repair - Client Site Services" should be prohibited in the downtown. The City should identify what attributes of such businesses are offensive to the goals of the downtown, and then revise the definition to allow businesses that do not have those attributes. In preparing this letter we noted that "Maintenance/Repair - equipment, large appliances" is a use that is prohibited in the downtown. We could not find any definition for that use, but we did find, on page 91, a definition for "Maintenance/Repair Service." We are assuming that the definition on page 91 applies to the similarly named category that is prohibited on page 15. With that assumption, we believe that the exclusion of "Maintenance/Repair Service" businesses is also too broad. For example, computer repair businesses are specifically cited as being prohibited. But, there is nothing inherently wrong with a small computer repair business in the downtown. If a personal computer or a laptop breaks, and the customer has to bring it downtown to get it repaired, that would be great because it gets people into the downtown to create a synergy among the businesses and their customers. Again, it is how the computer repair business is run - its size, cleanliness, etc., that should be the focus - a total prohibition is not the solution. Certainly we don't want a storefront full of "dead" or partially cannibalized computers, but such a menace can be easily prevented by the proper inclusion of conditions on a Minor Use Permit. (By way of examples: "No equipment in a state of disrepair shall be visible from the storefront windows" and "All repairs shall be conducted in an area that is not visible from the storefront windows." City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn: Kim Jordan April 26, 2011 Page 5 Such conditions could even be written into the definition: "Excepting those businesses where no equipment in a state of disrepair can be seen through the storefront windows and all repairs are conducted in an area that is not visible through the storefront windows.") PARKING LOTS We also question the wisdom of totally prohibiting new parking lots (public or private) in the Downtown Core. (See page 15 of the plan.) If the new courthouse is erected upon the parking lots next to the Library, there may be a need for new parking lots. Thus, it is too soon to create an outright prohibition on parking lots. Our building has a parking lot, and it is one of the features that has attracted tenants over the years. If new parking lots are now prohibited, we fear that parking will eventually become a premium, resulting in a policing problem for us. We fear that private parking lots, such as ours, will fill-up with the cars of people who are not patronizing the tenants in the buildings which the parking lots are intended to serve. This is especially true with our building being located directly across from the library - if the new courthouse uses-up library parking that is not replaced, we may find that our parking lot is the parking lot of choice for library patrons. The bottom line is that parking lots should not be prohibited at this juncture. DRIVE-UPS Another concern that we have is the prohibition on drive-up banks. The bank in our building has indicated that unless they can get approval for a drive-up ATM, they will likely leave the site when their lease expires. We have the room for such an ATM, but it will be prohibited under the new zoning. At the very least, drive-up facilities should be allowed by way of a use permit, because not all drive-up facilities are harmful. In our situation, a drive-up ATM could be installed with little change to the existing parking lot. No one would really notice the added ATM, however the alternative - a vacant building on a prominent corner - would certainly be a detraction in the downtown. CONCLUDING REMARKS Overall, we believe that the total prohibitions on many uses in the downtown should be carefully re-examined and thought out. City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Dept. Attn: Kim Jordan April 26, 2011 Page 6 When broad categories are used in definitions, it has a tendency to prohibit both the good and the bad. What the City should do is, for each use, ask the following questions: 1. "Does every business of the prohibited type detract from the downtown?" (If not, the definition should be narrowed to weed out the businesses that detract and allow those that will contribute.) 2. "Can elements of a business that detract from the downtown be prohibited without prohibiting the business itself?" (If so, specific conditions prohibiting the undesirable elements should be created for the type of business rather than imposing a total ban on those businesses.) 3. Along the same lines as #2, above, "Is it how a business is run that detracts from the downtown - in other words, if a prohibited business were to be run in a certain manner, would it detract from the downtown, but if it were run in a different manner, could it contribute to the downtown?" (If yes, then the use should be allowed under a use permit that will impose conditions to ensure that the business is run in a way that is compatible with the downtown.) In summary, the multiple prohibitions on broadly defined business types in the downtown is not the way to achieve the goals which the City seeks. There has to be some exceptions and some flexibility. Multiple outright prohibitions will contribute to the opposite of a vibrant downtown. Sincerely, David R. Fischer, President DRF/kl "Kim Jordan From: Jack & Mimi Booth [cnnbear@cinnamonbearfarm.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:10 PM To: Kim Jordan Cc: Harney Angela; Spring Gypsy; Cratty Scott Subject: Fwd: Downtown Zoning Code - Workshop #3 Dear Kim Jordan, Senior Planner City of Ukiah I'm grateful that I heard about your city planning session recently and that I was able to attend. In addition, I appreciate your request to find out more information regarding certified farmers markets and the consideration of streamlining the permit process. Previous to 1975, produce selling in the state of California was quite restricted to larger farms who could meet the criteria of specific size, weight, and packaging requirements in the wholesale market for each commodity. Primarily, the growers of those commodities participated in the creation of those rules. The Direct Marketing Program for Certified Farmers Markets came about because the system was unfair to smaller family farms and because there was a tremendous amount of food waste for the produce that didn't meet the state requirements. The state of California passed legislation to allow certified farmers markets to operate, while still meeting many standards to protect consumers. Ukiah was one of the first certified markets in the state to participate in this new option for farmers when it created its first market in 1976. Ironically, it was the city planning department that had the most concerns about this new concept at the time. However, we are aware that most cities consider farmers markets to be assets to their communities today and we're grateful for the strong support that we receive. Nevertheless, behind this perception of just a wonderful place to socialize and buy fresh produce, certified markets have very strict criteria in order to operate. The whole premise of a certified market is that it is direct marketing from the farmer who grew the produce. Each produce vendor has a certified producers certificate that they acquire at their county's department of agriculture by paying a fee and getting an embossed certificate that shows where the produce is grown, the quantity, and the specific varieties. There are only three exceptions to produce that isn't sold directly by the farmer: 1. It can be sold by a family member residing in the household. 2. It can the farmer's employee, who is knowledgeable about the farm, and is paid in actual wages with the expected withholding requirements. 3. It can be sold on a second certificate from another farmer who has a certificate with authorization from that farmer and both names on the certificate. The state allows two. Our association allows only one second certificate per vendor. There are never any guarantees that the produce is grown by the vendor who is selling it, but this honor system also has a few more protections to ensure that the products aren't just purchased from a wholesale warehouse or of unknown origin: 1. The agriculture commissioner and enforcement officers who work in this department have the right to visit any certificated farm in order to verify the production. 2. Each vendor is required to transport their produce with their certificate and to post their certificate in full view of customers. 3. Each market manager is required to check the certificate to ensure that only products on the certificate are on the table. 4. All produce vendors are required to submit a load list at the end of each market as a way to account for the quantity sold. In addition to the requirements for each vendor in a certified farmers market, each market manager is responsible for submitting applications to California Department of Agriculture and the WIC program, as well as submit maps, and fees to the county departments of agriculture and environmental health. In addition, they need to meet the many requirements of each city that they are located in. It may seem like a lot of hoops to jump through just to sell tomatoes, but consumers deserve to know the origin of their food and to feel confident that their food is safe to eat. When farmers markets are certified, communities can be confident about the origin of their food and that the vendor is knowledgeable about the growing practices. Certified does not mean that the produce is organically grown. The consumer should have the opportunity to ask questions before selecting produce. Certified producers are exempt from the requirements of size, weight and packaging expected of wholesale producers. However, there are no exemptions for quality. Without this certification, a farmers market is not legally exempt from the expectations of wholesale producers. In addition, a roadside produce stand or street vendors with produce in carts are not exempt from these packing standards and often operate illegally. It is beneficial to certified farmers markets that there is a current consumer trend to connect with their past, talk to the person who grew the food, and to eat more fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, this has also led to a proliferation of itinerant produce stands who mislead customers with the produce from distant locations, often uninspected, and often without the required permits. It's deceptive and potentially a health risk for communities. While, our nine markets in Mendocino CoL...,y Farmers Market Association serve as a catalyst for new certified markets and applauds the efforts of many community gardens and other ways to bring fresh foods to our communities, I am personally opposed to uncertified markets that set up in the city of Ukiah. It is unethical to operate a farmers market without strict guidelines to ensure that the vendor grew the food. Consumers don't know the difference in market expectations and can be mislead by produce brought in from unknown sources. This informational letter has been delayed, as Mendocino County Farmers Market Association has been quite busy in the very rare dismissal process of a vendor in a situation that I believe relates to prudent city planning. These recent experiences have certainly affected my outlook on city planning and put me in a position to inquire further about our permit processes. Although our market managers occasionally accept vendors from more distant locations in California in order to meet market "demands", none of the six markets who accepted this vendor from Tulare Co. suspected the difficulties that this would cause. This vendor was very uncooperative in complying with the requirements that ensure that he produced the fruit on his table. Certificates were often lacking, the produce didn't always match the certificate, and he was very reluctant to turn in a load list to verify the quantity of production. Numerous issues became a concern for market managers, including the employees who misrepresented the growing practices with statements like, "Almost organic". Ample documents and warnings to the vendor supported our decision to dismiss this vendor from all of our markets. However, it hasn't been that easy to get this operation to leave our county. In retaliation for the first dismissal from the farmers market in Mendocino, this business has been setting up on the same day and same hours as the certified farmers market that has all the required permits. This has been happening since July 3. As this produce stand is operating about 25 yd. from the certified market, these vendors are behaving in an unethical and unfair manner, parasitically taking advantage of our farmers market's reputation and advertising dollars. In addition, they are operating without permission from the landowner, do not have all the required permits, and are creating a safety hazard. As they are using "farmers market" bags and in close proximity, there was initial concern for liability. On July 10, a deputy sheriff came and closed down the operation as they didn't have any permits and he thought there was a traffic hazard. Unfortunately, the produce stand returned the following week with an "Itinerant Permit" that is obtained through MC Sheriff Dept. and the deputy allowed them to stay. The following week, the sheriff dept. was called again, as this permit wasn't the only requirement. The visibly irritated deputy was unconcerned that there is Mendocino County ordinance number 760.095 that doesn't permit street vending to protect the character of that town. The ordinance states that it is enforceable by the sheriff dept. and there is a possibility of a fine up to$50. In addition, these produce sellers are lacking a Produce Sellers Permit from the California Department of Agriculture and a permit from MC Environmental Health. When this vendor was dismissed from all of our markets on July 30, Gualala and Laytonville were faced with the illegal produce stand next to their markets. I have had individual meetings and phone calls with heads of departments and have sent letters to request enforcement. More importantly, the permit system lacks coordination. In fairness to an applicant, there should be clear information for what the requirements are. After experiencing this frustrating situation, I'm very impressed with the City of Ukiah's Planning Dept. draft of permit requirements that were presented on a very clear chart form at the meeting that I attended in July. I hope that Mendocino County can achieve that kind of clarity at some point. The other opinion that I have acquired from this unfair situation is that street vendors should be held to the same standards from the department of agriculture and environmental health as everyone else to ensure food safety in our locality. I actually feel that street vendors who operate with legal permits should be encouraged if they are a Mendocino County resident. It adds a flair to our communities and it provides opportunities for local people to start a business with low overhead. However, there should be clear parameters regarding where they can set up or move through. They should not be allowed to operate within 500 feet of another event such as the Pumpkin Fest, Certified Farmers Markets, and other permitted downtown events. It's clearly deceptive, unfair, and perhaps a risk to liability to be in the vicinity if you're not paying the fees and accepted as a participant. Perhaps there should be some guidelines regarding selling products elsewhere in the City of Ukiah as well. It wouldn't seem fair to the owners-of an ice cream store to have an ice cream vendor set up in front of their store. All of these decisions complicate the process, but they should be considered. In addition, if the street vendors are permitted to sell produce in the City of Ukiah, please check with other agencies to ensure that their permits are included in your chart as well. It is my understanding that an itinerant produce stand must get a "Produce Sellers Permit" from the California Department of Agriculture if the value of their products is more than $200. They are not exempt from packing requirements like a certified farmers market. In addition, they most show proof of ownership through receipts of purchasing the produce. I believe that the Department of Environmental Health requires a Mobile Food Facility Permit or possibly a Temporary Food Facility Permit. It's somewhat unclear which permit is required in their Health and Safety Code. However, there are also clear parameters for the physical setup, depending on whether they are a Produce Stand or a Produce Vehicle. It's obviously quite complicated to set up a Certified Farmers Market, but at least the requirements are known and the agencies are familiar with the expectations. It's more complicated to set up a Produce Stand/Vehicle in our county as the requirements aren't even known by some of our agencies who provide permits. However, it seems to be an easy task, as it's not enforced regularly. If you are considering produce vendors as permissible street vendors in Ukiah, it clearly needs coordination within the City of Ukiah as well as with other agencies. Thanks for the careful planning that you are facilitating for the City of Ukiah and for including the views regarding Certified Farmers Markets. Thank you also to Linda Helland who proposed the streamlined planning process for the required permits regarding Farmers Markets operating in the City of Ukiah. We're extremely grateful for this kind of support. Sincerely, Mimi Booth President Mendocino County Farmers Market Association cc: Angela Harney, Office Manager MCFARM Gypsy Spring, Fort Bragg Farmers Market Manager Scott Cratty, Ukiah Saturday Farmers Market Manager Pu.~lt~ a~ Dear Members of the Ukiah Planning Commission, I regret that I cannot be at your July 14 meeting. However, I would like too geryou'some recommendations. As you know, as the density of alcohol outlets in a community increases, so does the harm. Harm runs the gamut from domestic violence to aggravated assault; from accidents and fatalities caused by driving under the influence to child neglect. The state's department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has long recognized this, and has, in fact, placed a moratorium on new alcohol outlets in Mendocino County. According to the ABC, the City of Ukiah has 9 times the allowable density of on-sale outlets, and 4 times what the ABC allows for off-sale outlets. Merchants requesting alcohol outlet licenses can bypass the state moratorium by approaching their local law enforcement agency for a letter of "Public Convenience or Necessity." Until law enforcement agencies in our county can be convinced to stop issuing these letters, the only other way for Ukiah to limit the harm from new alcohol outlets would be by attaching conditions to merchants' use permits. I've included a list of conditions, already in use in other jurisdictions in our state (and therefore approved by the ABC), for your consideration. Sincerely, (signed) Charlie Seltzer Mendocino County Community Health Administrator - Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs RECEIVE JUL 12 2010 CRY OF U PLANNING Dtft Suggested Conditions for Alcohol Licensees within Ukiah On Sale Off Sale (If licensee is a restaurant): The premises shall be There shall be no bar or lounge area upon the licensed maintained as a bona fide food restaurant and shall premises maintained for the purpose of sales, service provide a menu containing an assortment of foods or consumption of alcoholic beverages directly to normal) offered in such restaurants. patrons for consumption. (If licensee is a restaurant): At all times when the (Particularly good for gas station/convenience stores): premises are open for business the sale of alcoholic The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the not exceed the gross sales of any other item during the sale of food to the person ordering the beverage. same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of alcoholic beverages and the gross sale of all other items of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the City or Department of Alcohol Beverage Control on demand. (If licensee is a restaurant): The quarterly gross sales (Particularly good for gas station/convenience stores): of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales The sales of beer or malt beverages in quantities of of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all quarts, 22 oz., 32 oz., 40 oz., or similar size containers times maintain records which reflect separately the is prohibited. No beer or malt beverages shall be sold, gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic regardless of container size, in quantities of less than beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall six per sale. be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic (Particularly good for gas station/convenience stores): beverage promotion shall be allowed. There shall be no cups, glasses, or similar receptacles commonly used for the drinking of beverages, sold, furnished, or given away at the petitioner's premises in quantities of less than twenty-four in their original multi- container package. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any premises is strictly prohibited. portion of the licensed premises or any portion adjacent thereto which is under the control of the licensee. The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on or around these premises. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold to any person while such person is in a motor vehicle. Doctors Letter to Ukiah PC.doc Page 1 of 1 We, the undersigned, petition the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Ukiah to prohibit further fast food restaurants and alcohol outlets in Ukiah. It is in the best interest of neither the public's health nor of local family-owned businesses to allow more permits to sell alcohol or fast food. Nor is it in the interest of the City of Ukiah if it wishes to maintain any sense of of unique identity. Must Ukiah be just one more bland town of cookie-cutter drive-thrus with a huge Walmart and dead downtown? The Vision Statement for the Ukiah General Plan calls for "businesses that retain dollars within the community". Chain "formula" businesses and restaurants siphon local money away to corporate headquarters, benefiting distant banks, advertising firms, accountants, CEOs and investors instead of the people of Ukiah. Cotati and St. Helena are nearby towns with character that have severely restricted these facilities. Other examples are Benicia, Calistoga, Coronado, Davis, Carlsbad, Pacific Grove and Arcata, Additional fast food restaurants and alcohol outlets in Ukiah would only increase the huge burden of obesity, diabetes, alcoholism and alcohol-related illness and violence that we already suffer. All of these conditions are not only personally devastating, but also financially costly to the community. Their costs dwarf any sales tax revenue provided. We already have more than enough of such establishments. We call on our city policymakers to only approve projects that would improve the beauty, health and economic base of our community. Ukiah first! Sincerely, /w caµ.,~~ '-r ql~1;2, L ; C-A Lo;-~S- ~/Oo c," R~Jl RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2010 MOF#9 IRAW M i T RITCHELL ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS (707) 462-8778 FAX (707) 462-1511 135 WEST GOBBI STREET, SUITE 205 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482-5477 September 23, 2010 Pi.bttt. Comn,.,~ CAW, City of Ukiah Planning & Community Development 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Re: August 25 Agenda RECEIVED SEp 2 7 2010 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING DEPT. I studied your proposals for regulating Community Gardens, Home Occupations, Large Family Daycare, Live/work Units, Mixed Use, Single Room Occupancy Facilities, Second Units, Lot Line Adjustments, Site Development Permits, Tasting Rooms and Non-Conforming Uses. My first impression and my studied conclusion is that planning would seek to control too much, becoming fragmented and dysfunctional in the process. Here is my overview of each of your attachments to the August 25 agenda: 1. COMMUNITY GARDENS As long as activities on private property do not negatively impact the neighborhood, they should not be regulated. Don't try to list negative impacts, you will inhibit good activities and overlook bad ones. 2. HOME OCCUPATIONS See above. Do you have any idea how many professional, gardeners, house-cleaners, consultants, cosmetic sales, therapists, etc. run their business out of their homes? And do you wish to permit crystal ball, palm-reading and star-gazing astrologer while prohibiting card readers? (an example.) 3. LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE Again, as long as activities and structures do not violate setback or impact the neighbors, stay out! The State governs them. City of Ukiah Planning & Community Development 23 September 2010 Page 2 4. LIVE/WORK UNITS As long as operations are allowed in the zone, shouldn't the operator and his family be permitted to live there? Building Codes govern, and private parking must be provided. Your design standards inhibit the very thing you are trying to implement. Does this conflict with "Home Occupations"? 5. MIXED USE PROJECTS It would appear you are overlaying residential and commercial. What about Assembly/Commercial/Industrial/Public? You should let developers create proposals and designs, and review them with a careful eye on density, parking and infrastructure impact. 6. SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY Most of the City's motels already are SRO's. Must all units comply with accessibility/adaptability requirements? You review management procedures? Stay away. Limited to 30 or more days? Do you mean "not less than 30 days"? 7. SECOND UNITS Watch out! In lower income neighborhoods, several families already occupy one house - just look at the parking. If a "mother-in-law" unit is provided, it should be considered as if it were in an R-2 zone. How do you regulate 2 or 3 families in one house, clogging the streets? 8. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS Not already codified? And how about dissolutions? Check out the County's simple procedures. 9. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS I have seen this create monsters in some places and dull (if elaborate) copy-cat appearances in others, where "acceptable" design becomes "required". Conforming to height, setback, parking and infrastructure requirements is valid. Otherwise, let the person who is investing his money and his future in the project design it. Your "Design" findings (3 times?), particularly "Architectural Standards", are inhibitions to creativity. New creations are what keep a Community vital as times constantly change. 10. TASTING ROOMS These are governed by ABC. Stay out! If they negatively impact the neighbors, let the neighbors take action. Keep our attorneys busy! I have yet to hear of a riot in or around a tasting room. If they become an entertainment venue, then they become an Assembly Occupancy and must meet parking and building code requirements anyway. City of Ukiah Planning & Community Development 23 September 2010 Page 3 11. NON-CONFORMING USES 1. Existing are permitted to continue. If expanded or altered in function, they require a variance. 2. Non-conforming structures, when repaired, expanded or altered, are required to meet California Building Code requirements anyway. Don't interfere. The Code lists demands and exceptions. In an effort to cover the bases and clarify the issues, you have a) inhibited design creativity; b) created redundancies in both planning and building regulations; c) discouraged productive activities; and d) stepped into areas best left to other agencies and/or the private domain. Yours truly, Robert M. Axt RMA/db FWAk Kim Jordan From: Kerri F Vau ikerri.vau@coldwellbanker.coml Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:01 PM PT"Nun~ To: Kim Jordan Subject: Creek Pedestrian Path Attachments: IMGP1935.JPG; IMGP1937.JPG; IMGP1941.JPG; IMGP1945.JPG Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Kim; Per our telephone discussion, I'm sending you photos of the Railroad Center/Creek area for your review. These photos may help with a better understanding of the area. The proposed pedestrian path as depicted on the City of Ukiah figure 11A Circulation Hap shrews the path going through our driveway and perhaps a portion or the building, although it is difficult to tell. The property is fully developed at this point. The driveway is one lane particularly where it meets Mason Street. As a property owner I'm opposed to having a public path go through our parking lot whereas this makes for a dangerous situation. As you can see in the photos, autos back up when leaving the designated parking spaces, making it more challenging to see pedestrians. We are already experiencing a difficulty with pedestrians walking, bicyclying, and skateboarding by trespass which has resulted in occasion for us to contact the City of Ukiah Police Department for their assistance. Additionally, any path could also negatively impact the landscape, some of which was installed as a condition of a building remodel permit in 2006/2007. Additionally, we would like to ask how the pedestrian path would effect our property and what would trigger implementation. It is our intent to attend Wednesday's meeting and hope that this matter can be discussed in greater detail then. Thanks, Kerri Vau ING 6 r yy ,.r s r.l. i CL c a~ ~ 8r l Y ~ 4 ~p ~ 7 I t s ' £ ~ t f I A } '1 1y i' 7 _ ? t $ z yt 1 N ' ii .s . , , ~ ~ i ~ II rg a' I d I ` ' ~ ~y ' +r ~ ; ~ ~ M1 ~ ` ~ t ~ r ~ y y7 . " ~ , ~ ~ ` ~ t ; ~ ~ .r ~ ~ ` tt` ° ~ _ - , 1 t 1 ~ _ r ~ 4 n 4. ` Md .y ~ ~ t r. x. ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ' it ~ 1, ~ AE, ~ , ~ ; ~ . ' C ! 1 c > ~ s ~ S ~ i f i I E ~ v rr ; , Downtown Zonip~ Code Section 11. Circulation Standards - r-r I d My b~{ b. tn~.- ' A 13 U w u. , f~l m y p ~ O vt C , C G! rn o IA r C .13 ii -0 a n c 0 c c c a c c -Cc 41 6 M IA Q' c C V1 c a -p O .a Om G7 c . w o E c E HE ~ p E ` G O 7 ' w O W W O Gu3 ¢ d cc L f= Q p r C ~ A O tm O C~_ O a m U) a _e 4 v ~ LL~ M C t 7 r- %I U) W 0. C (,7 .S S N~• 7 ~ t5 t3 a a •.-r~ri- 4 11 wi i ~:1 I I I I I ~ iLi [T: IL Ma C c Jp_ I L_- z L) 019 Drag 2W9 59 Kim Jordan From: jlazaro@pacific.net Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:39 AM To: kerri.vau@coldwellbanker.com Subject: Important Email From Coldwell Banker Mendo Realty, Inc. Attachments: I mpor001. pdf Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you by Coldwell Banker Mendo Realty, Inc. Sent by: [jlazaro@pacific.net] Number of Images: 2 Attachment File Type: pdf For more information visit our website, www.mendocinocountyproperties.com Or Call: Coldwell Banker Mendo Realty, Inc. 707-462-5400 FAX 462-3857 i %!:Ate. Laveft+ Kim Jordan From: Jim Mayfield [mayfield@rainbowag.com) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:19 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: RE: Workshop #4 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Kim, I am very confused by this section. Does it mean that we no longer meet the new form base code if the building is more than 50 years old? I won't be able to attend this session but this section seems to contradict the intent of the entire effort. Do you want to maintain the Holz building on the foot of clay street? What about the dragons lair building or Curry's furniture. Maybe I'm missing something. Jim Mayfield From: Kim Jordan [mailto:kjordan@CityofUkiah.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:05 AM To: A Oliver; Aaron Markins; Alan Nicholson; Allan & Anabel Barahal; Ann Campbell; Ann Kelly; Anne Molgaard; Anne Newport; Anne Oleveri; Antonio Andrade; Arthur Itu; B Budke; Barbara Ostler; Bec Kageyama; Ben Stough; Benj Thomas; Bob Theis; Bruce Poma; Brunni Kobbe; Cathleen Moller; Chamise Cubison; Charlene Holbrook; Christine Dektor; Chuck Yates; Cliff Paylin; Connie; Cratty; Cynthia Coale; Daniel Stitzel; Daphne Macneil; Dave Smith; David Carter; David Nelson; David Willoughby; Denise Ridley; Diane Hershey; Diane Zucker; Don Larsen; Donna Berry; Donna Mecca; Dori Kramer; Dotty Coplen; Doug Crane; Douglas Messenger; Edith Lucas; Elaine Richard; Energy Realty; Estelle Clifton; Evan Johnson; Felipe Mendoza; Finn Alden; Ford Street; Frank McMichael; George Husarek & Katehrine Elliot; Hillegas; Holly & Scott Cratty; Howard Egan; hrgan@sonic.net; James McKenney; James Montgomery; Jan Bell; Janet Mendell; Jason Brennen; Jay Twigg; Jim Mayfield; Jim Mulheren; Jim Plank; Jody Cole; John Bogner; John Leung; John Mayfield; John McCowen; John Moon; Joy Beeler; IT Wick; Judy Pruden; Julie Price; Kate Magruder; Katie Mintz; Kevin Marshall; Kitatlaw; Leah Didelston; Leslie Batz; Linda Helland; Lisa Mammina; Liz Kirkley; Lori Rosenburg; Madeline Holtkamp; Mardi Boettcher; Mari Rodin; Mary Ann Villock; Mary Anne Landis; Mary Misseldine; Maureen Taylor; Melanie Lightbody; Mendocino County; Michael Kisslinger; Mike; Mike Nordyke; Mitch Fam; ML Wade; Mo Mulheren Wattenburger; Nick Thayer; Omara Consulting; Pete Bushby; Phil Baldwin; Pinky Kushner; Poma TV; R. Shoe; Raxt; Richard; Richard Johnson; Richard Kadesli; Richard Moser; Rick Sands; Rob M Casey; Robert Werra; Ron Epstein; RW Merritt; Sage Sangiacomo; Sandy Turner; Shannon Riley; Sheila Jenkins; Sherrie Dersi; Steve Rugg; Susan Baird; Susan Sher; Sylvia Tendick; Ted Mayfield; Terry Israel; Thomas Hise; Tom & Debbie Johnson; Tom Liden; Tony Clarabut; Trent Taylor; Ukiah Chamber of Commerce; Vicki Patterson; Wynd Novotry Subject: FW: Workshop #4 Workshop #4 is scheduled for tonight's (8/26) Planning Commission meeting. The agenda is attached and the item is #96. However, since item 9A may be quite long, we may not get to Item 96. The links to Section 7 is provided below. We are working to re-establish the link to Section 5. If you do not have a copy of Section 5 and would like one, please let me know and I will email a copy to you. http://www.citvofukiah.com/pdf/planning/Section7 historical building standards.pdf If you have any questions or would like to provide any comments on Sections 5 and 7 of the Downtown Zoning Code, please contact me. 4 7cifn/ or~xn Senior Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax website: www,cityofukiah.com Public 4vvaw4 Kim Jordan From: Len Garrison [len-gpp@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 12:47 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: New Downtown Zoning Code Map Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Kim, Pear Orchard Associates LLC, owners of the Pear Tree Center and the vacant parcel at E. Perkins and N. Orchard, objects to inclusion in the New Downtown Zoning Code Map and re-classification to the newly proposed Urban Core District. The proposed New Downtown Zoning Code Map creates a restricted thoroughfare from the highway to the Downtown Core District. The Pear Tree Center has always been treated as a separate business district from the downtown center. Restricting business outside the downtown core for the benefit of the Downtown Core District is unfair. The Pear Tree Center is oriented to highway and local commerce and the vacant parcel at E. Perkins and N. Orchard is ideally situated for a fast food restaurant, and would not interfere with the Downtown Core District, if it was to be developed for that usage. To change the zoning diminishes the property's value. Your review and reconsideration of the re-zoning would be appreciated. Retha Sprofera Property Manager Pear Tree Center Garrison Pacific Properties 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 285 San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: (415)479-7300 Fax: (415)479-4710 PEAR ORCHARD ASSOCIATES LLC 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 285 Tel: 415/479-7300 San Rafael, CA 94903 Fax-'415/479-471 0 April 1, 2011 Ms. Mary Anne Landis City Council City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Proposed New Downtown Zoning Code Zoning Map Dear City Council Member, Pear Orchard Associates LLC, an owner of certain parcels that have been added to the proposed New Downtown Zoning Code Map, respectfully objects to inclusion in the re-zoning. The Pear Tree Center has always functioned as a separate entity from the downtown business district. It draws traffic regionally and is oriented to highway commerce as well as local business. The new Downtown Zoning Code Zoning Map appears to be specifically and only zoned for the benefit of Downtown Core businesses by creating a restricted thoroughfare from the highway to downtown. This re-zoning diminishes our property value and property owner rights. The city council has a responsibility to objectively make decisions for the entire City of Ukiah, not just for the benefit of a certain special interest district. The Pear Tree Center generates as much, or more, revenue than the downtown district and should be able to attract business also. Unnecessarily, restricting business outside the downtown core district only deters future business development and growth, which is crucial to the City's welfare. The vacant lot at the northwest corner of E. Perkins Street and N. Orchard Avenue should also not be included in the new Downtown Zoning Code Zoning Map and restricted from attracting a formula fast food restaurant, it should be viewed as an opportunity to increase revenue for the City and bring people into Ukiah to generate more revenue for the City. Realistically, restricting a fast food restaurant from opening on the corner of E. Perkins and N. Orchard, will not force people downtown, instead they will go where one is located or get off at another exit. We kindly request Pear Tree Center and adjacent vacant lot parcels affected by the proposed new Downtown Zoning Code Zoning Map be excluded from this re-zoning map. Your thoughtful consideration is requested. Thank you. Yours truly, Rethy Sprofera ' Pea Tree Center Property Manager Kim Jordan From: Charley Stump Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:17 AM To: Jennifer Faso; Kim Jordan Subject: FW: smith street Did we respond to Rob Gitlin? From: Rob Gitlin Finailto:robgitlin(&hotmail.coml Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:31 AM To: Jennifer Faso; Charley Stump; robgitlin@hotmail.com; torn brigharn Subject: RE: smith street Hi Jennifer, I am in receipt of a map that you mailer this past week. My property on Smith Street is not a part of it. Please clarify the City position. Was this just a clerical error? Am I just reading the Map incorrectly? Thank-you in advance for your timely response. Sincerely, Rob Subject: RE: smith street Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:46:01 -0800 From: ifaso CityofUkiah.com To: robgitlin@hotmail.com; cstump@cityofukiah.com Rob, The revisions to the Fagade Improvement Program are almost complete. Your property on Smith Street is included in the proposed new boundaries. The complete revised program will be going to RDA for final approval in March and we will be able to take applications starting April 4th. When you are ready to make your application please feel free to contact me to get the forms. If you have any other questions please let me know. Jennifer Faso Associate Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6206 (707)463-6204 fax Email ifaso@cityofukiah.com website www.citVofukiah.com From: Rob Gitlin jmailto:robaitlin(&hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, February 25, 20118:40 AM To: Jennifer Faso; robgitlin(&hotmail.com; Charley Stump Subject: smith street Hi Jennifer and Charley, I was recently contacted by the appraiser for the state regarding the status of the facade improvement for the Smith street property. I was last left with the impression, I believe, that we were waiting for the property to be included in the Redevelopment district before we could make application. Is that correct? Please clarify. Thank you in advance for your prompt response as the appraisal process for the courthouse is only awaiting this last piece of information. Kim Jordan RAVA i o Cw.vna.+ From: Pinky Kushner [pinkykushner@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:11 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: trees and more trees Attachments: downtown tree suggestions.doc; ATT12663.txt Hi Kim, I hope your thanksgiving was as pleasant as mine. First, let me thank you for our long and fruitful discussion last week. I appreciate very much your tenacity to get into a constructive relationship with me. Here is a document on the downtown tree list(s), perhaps not complete, but what I have come up with to date. You and I spoke about my doing more, I am sure. I returned from a (rather exhausting baby sitting) trip to Los Angeles last night and travel to in Philadelphia at the crack of dawn tomorrow. I will be in email contact, however, and am most willing to do more---especially the research on the root structures. f see the granddaughters I ask that you take a look at what I attach and give me a notion of what was on my list beyond what this document contains. Sincerely, Pinky Urban Street Trees- Urban street trees should define the street space, provide shade in the summer and create great environments for sidewalk interactions. Alternate Street Trees List ---critcisms Fastigiate English Oak (Columnar English Oak) Shape, limited canopy, springtime leaf fall, short trunk, very slow grower "English oak is a majestic tree with a very wide spreading crown, a short sturdy trunk, and deeply fissured gray brown bark. It can grow to 140 ft (42.7 m) tall with a rounded spread of 80 ft (24.4 m) or more, but is usually smaller in cultivation." http://local.floridata.com/En lg ish Oak Healdsburg`CA-rl 189752-Healdsburg CA.html http://www.floridata.com/ref/Q/quer rob.cfin European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus'Fastigiata' Very "full" due to dense branching; central co-dominant branches decline and die, due to closely-packed competitive side branches like Pyrus calleryana ('Bradford'), eventually leading to central wood decay and pest/pathogen invasion. From: http://hcs.osu.edu/hes/TMI/Plantlist/ca tulus.html For shape, see also: http://www.dicgingdog.com/pages2/plantpages.php/T-0004 Callery Pear Tends to split with age, because of tight crotch angles. Suffers limb breakage from wind. Callery pear and the crepe myrtle may be useful trees for side streets in the DTZ, where sidewalks are narrow, but should be discouraged elsewhere. Replacements for Alternate Street Trees The below trees are found in Ukiah* along streets already and demonstrate good size, reasonable growth rates, and nice shapes or are found in the Davis Master Tree List+. *Poplar Tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera) Fast growing, large, shade providing, grows well in Ukiah *California Walnut (Juglans californica) California native, fast growing, shade providing, not that tall +Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis) For street corners, although it is not clear to me why corners need short trees when it is precisely at corners where trees can stretch out and get large. This tree is on the Davis Street Tree List. http://selectree. calpoly. edultreedetail.lasso?-MaxRecords=50&-SkipRecords=0&- Op=bw&rid=345 Required Parking Lot Tree List ---criticisms Chinese Elm In Ukiah's climate, mostly evergreen, fast growing, but short lived. Gingo biloba Very brittle when young and therefore easily damaged. Exceedingly slow growing. Very easily wind shaped. Will not provide shade in a parking lot due to the wind shaping and slow growth. Mulberry Shallow roots: "Plant away from pavement or buildings to provide adequate room for the shallow roots that grow extensively near the soil surface around the trunk." Lots of root sprouts that can be a nuisance. Red Oak This oak doesn't seem to have any advantage over our native oaks, and some disadvantage in that we don't know how it will age in our valley. Suggested Replacement for Required Parking Lot Trees White oaks (Oregon, valley or blue) Any of these oaks are good replacements for the red oak. They have the same growth characteristics, but are known to do well in the Ukiah Valley. Ulmus wilsoniana Elm hybrid that is on the Davis tree list. This may be a suitable replacement for the Chinese elm and the mulberry. http://www.advancedtree.com/tree prospector htm The below comment regarding the new cultivars of elm is from: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/nursery/metria/metrial I/warren/elm.htm "George Ware has now released five cultivars of mostly Asian heritage, drawing largely on Ulmus wilsoniana and Ulmus japonica. These tough, hardy parent species come close to duplicating the American elm in form. A hybrid of these parent species, 'Accolade' looks like it will be outstanding, giving us the first real "look-alike" of the American elm, and it has excellent horticultural and nursery characteristics. 'Accolade' should have a very bright future in the nursery trade, and I anticipate strong demand. Promising cultivar releases of non-hybrid U. wilsoniana and U. japonica have been made by others and are now becoming available as well. These parent species impart the added advantage of resistance to the feeding of the elm leaf beetle." Perkins Street Entry Gateway Tree List - criticism Dwarf southern Magnolia The placement of a short tree at a street corner seems to present more problems than it solves. Pedestrians seek shade as they cross an intersection. Short trees provide little or none. Drivers of vehicles, motorized and non, want visibility. Short trees block visibility. A good replacement might be the desert willow (see above). Perkins Street Entry Gateway Alternative Tree list criticism Washington Hawthorne This tree has the same advantages/disadvantages as redbud, except that it is not drought tolerant. For this reason, it could be eliminated. Main Street Tree List-criticism Red Oak This tree has no advantage over the Valley Oak and is of slow growth. There are no examples of aged red oak trees in the valley, making the use of this species very speculative. Main Street Alternate Tree List-criticism Fastigiate English Oak (Columnar English Oak) Shape, limited canopy, springtime leaf fall, short trunk, very slow grower "English oak is a majestic tree with a very wide spreading crown, a short sturdy trunk, and deeply fissured gray brown bark. It can grow to 140 ft (42.7 m) tall with a rounded spread of 80 ft (24.4 m) or more, but is usually smaller in cultivation." http://local.floridata.com/English Oak Healdsburg_CA-rl189752-Healdsburg CA.html http://www.floridata.com/ref/Q/quer rob.cfm European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus'Fastigiata' Very "full" due to dense branching; central co-dominant branches decline and die, due to closely-packed competitive side branches like Pyrus calleryana ('Bradford'), eventually leading to central wood decay and pest/pathogen invasion. From: http://hes.osu.edu/hcs/TMI/Plantlist/ca tulus.html For shape, see also: http://www.diggingdog.com/pages2/plantpag_es.php/T-0004 Fruitless Olive Replace with desert willow. State Street Alternate Tree list Flowering Pear Breaks easily, difficult to train when young, Grecian Laurel Evergreen, too dense and short for an intersection. A better short selection would be the desert willow. http://selectree. calpol . edu/photos:lasso?rid=804&- session=selectree:43A94A081 d52d227F5 WKV42F 1765 Five Step Pruning Guide for Young Trees (from U.C. Davis) 1. Remove broken, injured, dead, diseased, or dying branches. 2. Select leader stem. Cut back and remove competing leaders. 3. Select and establish lowest permanent branch. A permanent branch should be 1/2 the diameter of the main stem and well attached. 4. Select scaffold branches, cut back or remove competing branches. Vertical spacing for short growth trees is 12 inches. Vertical spacing for tall growth trees is 18 inches. Scaffold branches should be spaced radially up the central leader. 5. Select temporary branches below the permanent branch. Cut back so that two to three buds remain. Kim Jordan From: Pinky Kushner [pinkykushner@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:29 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: trees and more trees Hi Kim, Finally sometime in January after my horrendous battle with H1N1, I remembered that I had an appointment with you in December. I am so very sorry and hope that you found the extra time on your hands useful. I will not make the meeting tonight, but I did want to share a few comments about some of the species. We discussed most of this when we did meet in November. English Fastigiate Oak---NARROW, THICK, COLUMNAR, NOT SO GOOD IN FRONT OF BUSINESS European Hornbeam----SMALL, SPREADING, BUT NOT ARCHING, NOT SO GOOD AS STREET TREE Fruitless Olive---SMALL, SPREADING, LOW BRANCHES, BLOCKS VISIBILITY--NOT SO GOOD AS INTERSECTION TREE Washington Hawthorne ---LOVELY _ COLOR, SUBJECT TO DISEASE, NOT A GOOD SHADE TREE. Grecian Laurel---EVERGREEN, DARK, "Grecian laurel is generally grown as a screen, small tree, or background shrub" http://vAvw.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/GARDEN/PLANTS/uecian.html Dwarf Southern Magnolia---SMALL, SPREADING, LOW BRANCHES, DARK BECAUSE OF THICK LEAVES THAT ARE EVERGREEN Red Oak, Quercus rubra---OK, BUT WHY DO THIS VARIETY WHEN A NATIVE OAK COULD BE USED AS WELL AND HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN THE UKIAH VALLEY FOR CENTURIES? Redbud, Cercis reniformis SMALL, SPREADING, PRETTY WHEN BLOOMING, BETTER AS A BUSH THAN A TREE. Chinese Elm Ginkgo Biloba---VERY SLOW GROWING, DOES NOT MAKE GOOD SHADE TREE Mulberry, Morus alba---ROOT SPROUTS, SMALL Common Hackberry Japanese Pagoda Tree Madrone, Madrona, Arbutus x Marina---SMALL, SPREADING, EVERGREEN, STRANGE BRANCH STRUCTURE (LOOKS LIKE A BUSH GRATED ONTO A LONG STEM)--very popular tree with city government these days. Not so sure why. In 10 years when the trees are looking ragged because of the problems with trimming them (much the same as Bradford pear), I suspect they won't be so popular. When they are allowed to grow in an open, non-side-walk constrained area, they branch out from lower portions on the trunk and look fine. (They are some near the entrance of the AIDS Grove, in Golden Gate Park, in SF. Not exactly around the corner, but these are the only specimens I have seen that have decent growth patterns. Hope this information helps. I do wish I could be there, but there will be others besides me to speak and discuss. Pinky &blfe. 6nVVW4 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Kim, An issue that relates to my even Keel property at 213/215 South Main Street and Rainbow AG is the "required" extension of Stephenson from Main to the Railroad Property. This extension would take the driveway and chop off my auto repair building and the garage apartment behind it and narrow the lot and ruin our $90,000 facade renovation, and parking lot and sidewalk improvements, and effectively make the property useless, when now 5 apartments and an auto repair business employ and house people and provide both shelter and livelihood. Rainbow Ag to our rear, which may be the largest sales tax generator and employer in the downtown core besides Savings Bank and government, would have its industrial uses bisected and be deeply impacted. If you look at the map in the document, Stephenson is still shown connecting from School St. to State St., when in fact it disappeared when Alex Thomas Plaza was built. It just doesn't make sense to extend it now. I believe the widening of Clay and the additional at grade crossing to link with Peach on the east side of Leslie should be the primary "required" modification of this whole program. Whether an additional at grade crossing is achieved or not, it's simply the best choice. It's interesting how the new plan has ignored the AB1693 business assesment area which is/was the primary Main Street Project area. This includes School St. south to Mill and over to Main and all the way up to Norton at the north end. There are a number of existing buildings, businesses, and properties in this area that would lend themselves better to a pedestrian oriented environment than hacking new streets to the railroad property. A parking garage structure at the existing lot on Standley and Main north of the Library would be far more suitably located and better accessible from the freeway than at the north end of School St. I'm not sure that the proposed lot at the southwest corner of the railroad property would appeal to many pedestrians for downtown use either. Please disinclude the one block of Stephenson "required extension" from the document. There are far more suitable properties in the walking sphere to utilize the form based zoning. Sheridan Malone 422 Jones St Ukiah CA 95482 707-463-1102 http://www.sheridanmalone.com From: Sheridan Malone [smalone2k@yahoo.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:02 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Re: Downtown Zoning Code 1. d March 29, 2011 To: Ukiah City Council Members Mari Rodin Doug Crane Phil Baldwin Mary Ann Landis Benji Thomas Even Keel Inc, the corporation legally owning 213 and 215 South Main St., wishes to file a strong objection to the inclusion of a "required street extension" designation of Stephenson St. between Main and the railroad tracks in the proposed Downtown Zoning Code: Section 11.050-B. The first point is that the plan document map contains an egregious error. It shows Stephenson Street as existing between School and State St. This block is actually Alex Thomas Plaza and that section of Stephenson Street was removed when the plaza was built. Does the plan really propose destroying one of the few civic features in Ukiah that was established with a substantial donation by one of its citizens? The reality is that the "extension" of Stephenson St would be turning a one-block long street into a two-block street. We do not think that the City of Ukiah could prove that 1) this project is necessary or 2) that the project is located in such a manner as to offer the greatest public benefit with the least private detriment. This proposed extension would cut through the property of Even Keel, which includes one commercial and five residential rental units, and would bifurcate the property of Rainbow Agricultural Services, causing both owners to lose the major value of their businesses. It is hard to understand what reasoning process was involved in proposing to put Rainbow Ag out of business since it is one of the highest sales tax revenue producers in the downtown area. Just the designation of "required street extension" will substantially reduce Even Keel's property value since any prospective buyer will not have a reasonable expectation of a long-term income stream. Investment in a rental property usually includes little or no profit in the early years of ownership, with increased profits in the later years. Without the expectation of uninterrupted usage of the property, the "required street extension" makes our property virtually unsalable. We respectfully request that the proposed street extension be removed and the planning map be revised to reflect that Stephenson Street IS NOT a through street. There is no logical reason to destroy two viable businesses and several residences to create a one-block connection to the railroad property, particularly in a city that already has dozens of empty buildings within the existing downtown area. There is no justifiable reason for this "extension". It would indeed be a road to nowhere. Even Keel Inc. Linda and Sheridan Malone Valerie and Dexter Keehn Kim Jordan From: Sheridan Malone [smalone@rain bowag.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:18 PM To: Kim Jordan Subject: Re: Downtown Zoning Code Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Kim, Thanks for sending Jim Mayfield the tables of Uses. I searched for the Ag equipment sales and rental in the document and I guess my search didn't come up with the tables. Another issue that relates to my own property and Rainbow AG is the "required" extension of Stephenson from Main to the Railroad Property. This would take the driveway at 213/215 South Main and chop off my auto repair building and the garage apartment behind it and narrow the lot and ruin our $90,000 facade renovation, and parking lot and sidewalk improvements, and effectively make the property useless, when now 5 apartments and an auto repair business employ and house people and provide both shelter and livelihood. Rainbow Ag to our rear, which may be the largest employer in the downtown core besides Savings Bank and government, would have its industrial uses bisected and be deeply impacted. If you look at the map, Stephenson is still shown connecting from School St. to State St., when in fact it disappeared when Alex Thomas Plaza was built. It just doesn't make sense to extend it now. I believe the widening of Clay and the additional at grade crossing to link with Peach on the east side of Leslie should be the primary "required" modification of this whole program. It's the best choice. It's interesting how the new plan has ignored the AB 1693 area which is/was the primary Main Street Project area. This includes School St. south to Mill and over to Main and all the way up to Norton at the north end. There are a number of existing buildings, businesses, and properties in this area that would lend themselves better to a pedestrian oriented environment than hacking new streets to the railroad property. A parking garage structure at the existing lot on Standley north of the Library would be far more suitably located and accessible from the freeway than at the north end of School St. I'm not sure that the proposed lot at the southwest corner of the railroad property would appeal to many pedestrians for downtown. Sheridan Malone Kim Jordan From: Kim Jordan Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:59 AM To: 'mayfield @ rainbowag.com' Subject: RE: 4/27/2011 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for the Downtown Zoning Code I just want to let you know that the map on the back of the notice illustrates the proposed boundaries of the DZC and the Zoning designations of each parcel. The streets that are included in the Circulation Map that we have discussed previously will remain on the map during City Council and public review of the draft DZC in order to provide clarity as to what is proposed. Ultimately, City Council will have to decide how to address this issue and provide direction to staff. As we discussed there are several options regarding the street extensions included in the Circulation section including: ■ removing them from the map & retaining only the text; ■ removing them from both the map and text; ® identifying the street extensions as recommended in the text in order to provide guidance and clarity as to the preferred approach to circulation, block perimeter requirements, and pedestrian orientation; etc. and ■ other options not yet identified/discussed. I hope this helps. If you have any questions, need additional information or want to send in your comments, please contact me. I hope to see you at the workshop on 4/27/2011. %ifnjrVr4aft Senior Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax website: www.cityofukiah.com From: Jim Mayfield [mailto:mayfield@rainbowag.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 20119:50 AM To: Kim Jordan Subject: RE: 4/27/2011 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for the Downtown Zoning Code Thanks for removing the "streets" Jim From: Kim Jordan [mailto:kjordan@CityofUkiah.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 20118:32 AM To: A Oliver; Aaron Markins; Alan Nicholson; Allan & Anabel Barahal; Ann Campbell; Ann Kelly; Anne Molgaard; Anne Newport; Anne Oleveri; Antonio Andrade; Arthur Itu; B Budke; Barbara Ostler; Bec Kageyama; Ben Stough; Benj Thomas; Bob Theis; Bruce Poma; Brunni Kobbe; Cathleen Moller; Chamise Cubison; Charlene Holbrook; Christine Dektor; Chuck Yates; Cliff Paylin; Connie; Cratty; Cynthia Coale; Daniel Stitzel; Daphne Macneil; Dave Smith; David Carter; David Nelson; David Willoughby; Denise Ridley; Diane Hershey; Diane Zucker; Don Larsen; Donna Berry; Donna Mecca; Dori Kramer; Dotty Coplen; Doug Crane; Douglas Messenger; Edith Lucas; Elaine Richard; Energy Realty; Estelle Clifton; Evan Johnson; Felipe Mendoza; Finn Alden; Ford Street; Frank McMichael; George Husarek & Katehrine Elliot; Hillegas; Holly & Scott Cratty; Howard Egan; hrgan@sonic.net; James McKenney; James Montgomery; Jan Bell; Janet Mendell; Jason Brennen; Jay Twigg; Jim Mayfield; Jim Mulheren; Jim Plank; Jody Cole; John Bogner; John Leung; John Mayfield; John McCowen; John Moon; Joy Beeler; IT Wick; Judy Pruden; Julie Price; Kate Magruder; Katie Mintz; Kevin Marshall; Kitatlaw; Leah Didelston; Leslie Batz; Linda Helland; Lisa Mammina; Liz Kirkley; Lori Rosenburg; Madeline Holtkamp; Mardi Boettcher; Mari Rodin; Mary Ann Villock; Mary Anne Landis; Mary Misseldine; Maureen Taylor; Melanie Lightbody; Mendocino County; Michael Kisslinger; Mike; Mike Nordyke; Mitch Fam; ML Wade; Mo Mulheren Wattenburger; Nick Thayer; Omara Consulting; Pete Bushby; Phil Baldwin; Pinky Kushner; Poma TV; R. Shoe; Raxt; Richard; Richard Johnson; Richard Kadesli; Richard Moser; Rick Sands; Rob M Casey; Robert Werra; Ron Epstein; RW Merritt; Sage Sangiacomo; Sandy Turner; Shannon Riley; Sheila Jenkins; Sherrie Dersi; Steve Rugg; Susan Baird; Susan Sher; Sylvia Tendick; Ted Mayfield; Terry Israel; Thomas Hise; Tom & Debbie Johnson; Tom Liden; Tony Clarabut; Trent Taylor; Ukiah Chamber of Commerce; Vicki Patterson; Wynd Novotry; Al Betrami, North Coast Builders Exchange; Anne Molgaard; Bill Steele; Cynthia Coale; Dori Kramer; Jason Brenner; Jessica Pearson; Laura Hall; Linda Helland; Linda Malone; Linda Sanders; Mendocino County Employers Council; Mike Whetzel; Rita, Pear Orchard Assoc.; Rob Burgess; Robert Gitlin; Ron Meaux; Sheridan Malone; Steve Scalmanini; Tammy Ingle; Tony Shaw; Ukiah Main Street Program Cc: Estok Menton; Nick Thayer; Jason Brenner Subject: 4/27/2011 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for the Downtown Zoning Code The City Council and Planning Commission will be holding a joint workshop to review, discuss, and receive public input and comment on the draft Downtown Zoning Code that resulted from the Planning Commission workshops held over the past 12 months. The workshop will be held on Wednesday April 27, 2011 from 6 pm to 8 pm at the Conference Center (see attached notice for more details). Attached is the public notice for the workshop and the link to the document is included below. You want to select Downtown Zoning Code 4/6/2011 as this is the date of the document that is being reviewed. http://www.cityofukiah.com/pageserver/?page=form based zoning 4-27 If you have any comments on the draft DZC, please send them to me so that I can include them with the public comment received to date and pass them on to the City Council and Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding the draft DZC, please feel free to contact me. 76ifn. Jor4xn Senior Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax website: www.citvofukiah.com Kim Jordan From: Jim Mayfield [mayfield@rainbowag.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:50 AM To: Kim Jordan Subject: RE: 4/27/2011 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for the Downtown Zoning Code Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks for removing the "streets" Jim From: Kim Jordan Imailto:kjordanC&CityofUkiah.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 20118:32 AM To: A Oliver; Aaron Markins; Alan Nicholson; Allan & Anabel Barahal; Ann Campbell; Ann Kelly; Anne Molgaard; Anne Newport; Anne Oleveri; Antonio Andrade; Arthur Itu; B Budke; Barbara Ostler; Bec Kageyama; Ben Stough; Benj Thomas; Bob Theis; Bruce Poma; Brunni Kobbe; Cathleen Moller; Chamise Cubison; Charlene Holbrook; Christine Dektor; Chuck Yates; Cliff Paylin; Connie; Cratty; Cynthia Coale; Daniel Stitzel; Daphne Macneil; Dave Smith; David Carter; David Nelson; David Willoughby; Denise Ridley; Diane Hershey; Diane Zucker; Don Larsen; Donna Berry; Donna Mecca; Dori Kramer; Dotty Coplen; Doug Crane; Douglas Messenger; Edith Lucas; Elaine Richard; Energy Realty; Estelle Clifton; Evan Johnson; Felipe Mendoza; Finn Alden; Ford Street; Frank McMichael; George Husarek & Katehrine Elliot; Hillegas; Holly & Scott Cratty; Howard Egan; hrgan@sonic.net; James McKenney; James Montgomery; Jan Bell; Janet Mendell; Jason Brennen; Jay Twigg; Jim Mayfield; Jim Mulheren; Jim Plank; Jody Cole; John Bogner; John Leung; John Mayfield; John McCowen; John Moon; Joy Beeler; JT Wick; Judy Pruden; Julie Price; Kate Magruder; Katie Mintz; Kevin Marshall; Kitatlaw; Leah Didelston; Leslie Batz; Linda Helland; Lisa Mammina; Liz Kirkley; Lori Rosenburg; Madeline Holtkamp; Mardi Boettcher; Mari Rodin; Mary Ann Villock; Mary Anne Landis; Mary Misseldine; Maureen Taylor; Melanie Lightbody; Mendocino County; Michael Kisslinger; Mike; Mike Nordyke; Mitch Fam; ML Wade; Mo Mulheren Wattenburger; Nick Thayer; Omara Consulting; Pete Bushby; Phil Baldwin; Pinky Kushner; Poma TV; R. Shoe; Raxt; Richard; Richard Johnson; Richard Kadesli; Richard Moser; Rick Sands; Rob M Casey; Robert Werra; Ron Epstein; RW Merritt; Sage Sangiacomo; Sandy Turner; Shannon Riley; Sheila Jenkins; Sherrie Dersi; Steve Rugg; Susan Baird; Susan Sher; Sylvia Tendick; Ted Mayfield; Terry Israel; Thomas Hise; Tom & Debbie Johnson; Tom Liden; Tony Clarabut; Trent Taylor; Ukiah Chamber of Commerce; Vicki Patterson; Wynd Novotry; Al Betrami, North Coast Builders Exchange; Anne Molgaard; Bill Steele; Cynthia Coale; Dori Kramer; Jason Brenner; Jessica Pearson; Laura Hall; Linda Helland; Linda Malone; Linda Sanders; Mendocino County Employers Council; Mike Whetzel; Rita, Pear Orchard Assoc.; Rob Burgess; Robert Gitlin; Ron Meaux; Sheridan Malone; Steve Scalmanini; Tammy Ingle; Tony Shaw; Ukiah Main Street Program Cc: Estok Menton; Nick Thayer; Jason Brenner Subject: 4/27/2011 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for the Downtown Zoning Code The City Council and Planning Commission will be holding a joint workshop to review, discuss, and receive public input and comment on the draft Downtown Zoning Code that resulted from the Planning Commission workshops held over the past 12 months. The workshop will be held on Wednesday April 27, 2011 from 6 pm to 8 pm at the Conference Center (see attached notice for more details). Attached is the public notice for the workshop and the link to the document is included below. You want to select Downtown Zoning Code 4/6/2011 as this is the date of the document that is being reviewed. http://www.citvofukiah.com/pageserver/?page=form based zoning 4-27 If you have any comments on the draft DZC, please send them to me so that I can include them with the public comment received to date and pass them on to the City Council and Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding the draft DZC, please feel free to contact me. Senior Planner City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 463-6207 (707) 463-6204 fax website: www.cityofukiah.com Puuzo 6mmtow Kim Jordan From: kaderli@juno.com n1tilm uS& Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 20114:02 PM To: Kim Jordan 6 Subject: Fwd: Noise issues vex Petaluma mixed-use area - SRPD - 20110403 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Kim, Would you forward this on to the other commissioners in the near future as I know you are very busy getting ready for tonight's CC. The noise issue might come up tonight or in the future so I thought you would appreciate the heads up. Linda S. Forwarded Message From: Dotty Coplen <dcoplen@pacific.net> To: Philip Baldwin <felipe@pacific.net> Subject: Fwd: Noise issues vex Petaluma mixed-use area - SRPD - 20110403 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:40:11 -0700 Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Scalmanini <sscalmanini@yahoo.com> Date: April 6, 20112:07:44 PM PDT To: Subject: Noise issues vex Petaluma mixed-use area - SRPD - 20110403 Just a watch-out-for regarding mixed use development. Steve Noise issues vex Petaluma mixed-use area By LORI A. CARTER THE PRESS DEMOCRAT Published: Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 3:00 a.m. Last Modified: Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 9:20 p.m. ht!p://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110403/articles, Both sides in a noise dispute in the Petaluma River warehouse district agree they love their mixed-used neighborhood. But some residents in a nearby condominium complex complain that Cowgirl Creamery and Three Twins Ice Cream are creating so much racket they can't enjoy the ambiance of their diverse, walkable neighborhood. Creamery owners counter their manufacturing operations comply with the city's noise limits and say they've already undertaken hugely expensive measures to muffle the sounds in an effort to be good neighbors. The clash illustrates the thorny issues that can arise when businesses and homes share close quarters, something most Sonoma County cities are encouraging with infill development and mixed-use projects. So far, the city has supported the businesses. But residents of Celsius 44 condos, across First Street from the creameries, are appealing a unanimous planning commission-ruling-in-favor of Cowgirl -Creamery-co-owner-Sue Conley. - Some suspect the city is going overboard to appear "business friendly" to the creameries in response to heat its leaders have taken over the controversial Target and Lowe's projects. Cowgirl Creamery has been at the site for about three years and the condos were built in 2008. Three Twins began leasing space in 2010. Neighbors say the addition of cooling equipment installed near the street last year has made the situation untenable. "We lived across the street from Cowgirl Creamery for years and we were fine with it because at 5 o'clock, everyone stopped the noise," said Anne Hiatt, who lives with her husband directly across from the creameries' shared loading dock. Today, it's different, she said. "It's just 24/7, nonstop," Hiatt said. When he sleeps with his windows open, neighbor Larry Tracey said, he is awakened in the wee hours when machinery cycles on and off. Conley and Three Twins founder Neal Gottlieb said they have spent a combined $80,000 to baffle the sounds with a partial enclosure and a sound-deadening wooden gate. Their multiple noise studies show sound levels fall below the city's 60-decibel outdoor limit, even with every piece of equipment on, "which never happens," Conley said. "I don't know what else to do," she said. Conley is also on the hook to pay for Wye city planning consultants' time, which 6, ie said has already cost $18,000. "I feel like this neighborhood we're in is a model for the future of mixed-use. I think it's a way we have to live, and we have to learn how to get along and be courteous to our neighbors," Conley said. "I feel like we've done everything we can do to minimize our impact. And there's nothing more we can do." Gottlieb is even more emphatic: "If you look at the hundreds of people who live in the vicinity, very few complain - and they're being very unreasonable." The loudest equipment, a cooling tower, isn't used overnight, he said. Resident Gail Odom, whose second-floor window overlooks the creameries, wants the city to revise the "smart code" that governs the area's eclectic uses, which include restaurants, cafes, homes, condos, a recycling center, a granite fabrication shop and the creameries. "To make mixed-use succeed requires being fair to residential uses as well as factories," she said, noting that Conley has wide support from those in Petaluma's ag community. Neighbors contend the creameries' impacts are greater than anticipated or approved by the city. They dispute the creameries' noise studies, saying their sound readings have shown noise as high as 62 decibels. "There's the noise ordinance and there's the right to the quiet enjoyment of your home, which is a much broader law," Hiatt said. "We all knew what we were moving into," Tracey said. "Nobody here wants Cowgirl Creamery to go away, or even Three Twins. We just want silence after working hours." Gottlieb said the $60,000 he's spent on the sound enclosure equals the amount he started his fast-growing company with. "We've gone above and beyond what's reasonable," he said. "We always have, and they continue to harass us." You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com. GrouponTM Official Site 1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best! Groupon.com Page 1 of 2 pressdemocratrR This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation- ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears above any article. Order a reprint of this article now. Noise issues vex Petaluma mixed-use area By LORI A. CARTER THE PRESS DEMOCRAT Published: Sunday, April 3, 2011 af3:00 a.m Both sides in a noise dispute in the Petaluma River warehouse district agree they love their mixed-used neighborhood. But some residents in a nearby condominium complex complain that Cowgirl Creamery and Three Twins Ice Cream are creating so much racket they can't enjoy the ambiance of their diverse, walkable neighborhood. Creamery owners counter their manufacturing operations comply with the city's noise limits and say they've already undertaken hugely expensive measures to muffle the sounds in an effort to be good neighbors. The clash illustrates the thorny issues that can arise when businesses and homes share close quarters, something most Sonoma County cities are encouraging with infill development and mixed-use projects. So far, the city has supported the businesses. But residents of Celsius 44 condos, across First Street street from the creameries, are appealing a unanimous planning commission ruling in favor of Cowgirl Creamery co- owner Sue Conley. Some suspect the city is going overboard to appear "business friendly" to the creameries in response to heat its leaders have taken over the controversial Target and Lowe's projects. Cowgirl Creamery has been at the site for about three years and the condos were built in 2008. Three Twins began leasing space in 2010. Neighbors say the addition of cooling equipment installed near the street last year has made the situation untenable. "We lived across the street from Cowgirl Creamery for years and we were fine with it because at 5 o'clock, everyone stopped the noise," said Anne Hiatt, who lives with her husband directly across from the creameries' shared loading dock. Today, it's different, she said. "It's just 24/7, nonstop," Hiatt said. When he sleeps with his windows open, neighbor Larry Tracey said, he is awakened in the wee hours when machinery cycles on and off. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs. dll/article?AID=/20110403/articles/ 110409860... 4/11/2011 BETH SCHLAiVKER/ PD Neal Gottlieb, left, the owner of Three Twins Ice Cream and Sue Conley, the co-owner of Cowgirl Creamery, stand next to a jointly used cooling tower, which is surrounded with walls designed to reduce noise, at their production facilities in Petaluma, on Thursday, March 31, 2011. Page 2 of 2 Conley and Three Twins founder Neal Gottlieb said they have spent a combined $8o,ooo to baffle the sounds with a partial enclosure and a sound-deadening wooden gate. Their multiple noise studies show sound levels fall below the city's 6o-decibel outdoor limit, even with every piece of equipment on, "which never happens," Conley said. "I don't know what else to do," she said. Conley is also on the hook to pay for the city planning consultants' time, which she said has already cost $t8,ooo. "I feel like this neighborhood we're in is a model for the future of mixed-use. I think it's a way we have to live, and we have to learn how to get along and be courteous to our neighbors," Conley said. "I feel like we've done everything we can do to minimize our impact. And there's nothing more we can do." Gottlieb is even more emphatic: "If you look at the hundreds of people who live in the vicinity, very few complain - and they're being very unreasonable." The loudest equipment, a cooling tower, isn't used overnight, he said. Resident Gail Odom, whose second-floor window overlooks the creameries, wants the city to revise the "smart code" that governs the area's eclectic uses, which include restaurants, cafes, homes, condos, a recycling center, a granite fabrication shop and the creameries. "To make mixed-use succeed requires being fair to residential uses as well as factories," she said, noting that Conley has wide support from those in Petaluma's ag community. Neighbors contend the creameries' impacts are greater than anticipated or approved by the city. They dispute the creameries' noise studies, saying their sound readings have shown noise as high as 62 decibels. "There's the noise ordinance and there's the right to the quiet enjoyment of your home, which is a much broader law," Hiatt said. "We all knew what we were moving into," Tracey said. "Nobody here wants Cowgirl Creamery to go away, or even Three Twins. We just want silence after working hours." Gottlieb said the $6o,ooo he's spent on the sound enclosure equals the amount he started his fast-growing company with. "We've gone above and beyond what's reasonable," he said. "We always have, and they continue to harass us." [END_CREDPI'_o]You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com. Copyright © 2011 PressDemocrat.com - All rights reserved. Restricted use only. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110403/articles/ 110409860... 4/11/2011 Citk~ ATTACHMENT Planning and Community Development A Survey of Formula Business Regulations June 2011 JURISDICTION ORDINANCE NOTES Calistoga, CA Prohibits formula restaurants and Unchallenged formula visitor accommodations (hotels/motels Cotati, CA Prohibits formula fast food Strong community support. restaurants in the historic Unchallenged. downtown core. Limits total number in City to 8. Only so many allowed in specific zoning districts. No more than one of any kind in City (i.e. only 1 Burger King, 1 Starbucks, etc.), minimum 60 foot separation between formula fast food establishments. Arcata, CA Allows no more than nine (9) Unchallenged formula restaurants in the City at an one time. Sausalito, CA Requires a Use Permit for Unchallenged formula retail and formula restaurants. Must determine that they will promote diversity and variety to ensure a balanced mix of commercial uses - and will not result in an over-concentration of formula businesses. Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA Prohibits fast food, drive-in and formula restaurants Pacific Grove, CA Prohibits formula food Unchallenged establishments/restaurants Solvang, CA Prohibits formula restaurants Unchallenged because they would conflict with the uniqueness that makes Solvan "world famous." San Francisco, CA Requires a Use Permit for formula businesses subject to a case-by-case review. The Commission must consider the concentration of formula businesses within the neighborhood, compatibility, retail vacancy rates, whether similar goods are already available in the neighborhood, etc. Coronado, CA Requires a "Major Special Use Challenged as violating the Permit" to open or expand a Federal Constitution's Commerce formula retail business by more clause - Superior Court found no than 500 square feet. merit to the challenge. State Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. Islamorada, Florida Prohibits formula retail stores Invalidated by US Court of Appeals - Failure to indicate a legitimate local purpose. McCall, Idaho Limits formula businesses to no Unchallenged more than ten percent (10%) of the total number of like businesses in town (i.e. no more than 10% of restaurants, 10% of clothing stores, etc.) Bristol, RI Prohibits formula businesses larger than 2,500 square feet from its downtown. Smaller ones are allowed if the town determines that they will not detract from the uniqueness of the downtown or contribute to the "nationwide trend of standardized downtown offerings." Port Townsend, Washington Restricts formula businesses to a single highway commercial zone and, within that zone, limits them to no more than 3,000 square feet. Bainbridge Island, WA Prohibits formula fast food restaurants York, ME Prohibits formula restaurants because they would detract from the "unique and historic character and collective identity as a community." ATTACHMENT 4 Lot Line Adjustments Purpose. This chapter prescribes the procedures for the preparation, filing, processing, and approval or denial of Lot Line Adjustment consistent with the policies of the General Plan, the requirements of this Code, and the requirements of California Subdivision Map Act Section 66412 (d). This Chapter also prescribes the procedures for voluntary parcel mergers. Applicability. As provided by Map Act Section 66412(d), the Lot Line Adjustment procedure is for the purpose of relocating lot lines between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not created. For the purpose of this Chapter, an "adjoining parcel" is one that directly touches at least one of the other parcels involved in the adjustment. Application and Processing. A Lot Line Adjustment application shall be prepared, filed, and processed as prescribed by this Section. Application content. A Lot Line Adjustment Application shall include a completed application form and all information and other materials required by the Public Works Department. Processing. Lot Line Adjustments shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be processed in compliance with the procedures specified by Chapter... Environmental Review. No environmental review shall be required, in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notice. No public notice is required as the lot line adjustment application is a ministerial action. Approval or Denial of Adjustment. The City Engineer shall determine whether the parcels resulting from the adjustment will conform with the applicable provisions of this Code and the Ukiah Municipal Code. The City Engineer may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Lot Line Adjustment in compliance with this Section. Required Findings. A proposed Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved if the City Engineer finds all of the following: The adjustment will not create a greater number of parcels than existed prior to the adjustment; The adjustment will not result in an increase in the number of non-conforming parcels; The adjustment will not increase the non-conformity of any parcel; and All of the parcels resulting from the adjustment are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Building Code and Ukiah Municipal Code. Conditions of Approval. In approving a Lot Line Adjustment, the City Engineer shall adopt conditions only as necessary to conform the adjustment and proposed parcels to the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, Airport Master Plan or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. Appeal. The decision of the City Engineer may be appealed to the City Council. Said appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the date of the decision, shall state the reason(s) for the appeal, and be accompanied by the appeal fee, if any, established by the City Council from time to time by resolution. Completion of Adjustment. Within 12 months after approval, the Lot Line Adjustment process shall be completed in compliance with this Section through the recordation of a deed, after all conditions of approval have been satisfied. Completion by Deed. A Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effectively or finally completed until recordation of a grant deed or deeds signed by the record owners. The applicant shall submit deeds to the City Engineer for review and approval in compliance with Subsection B below, along with the payment of review fees, before recordation of the grant deed. The legal descriptions provided in the deeds including accompanying plat shall be prepared by a qualified registered civil engineer, or a licensed land surveyor licensed or registered in the State. Review and Approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall: Examine the deeds to ensure that all record title owners and lien holders have consented to the adjustment; Verify that all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily completed and that the deeds are in substantial compliance with the Lot Line Adjustment as approved by the Review Authority; Verify that the property owners have either obtained partial reconveyances from any mortgagor or other lien holder for any portion of a parcel being transferred to an adjacent parcel and that any liens covering the adjacent property have been modified to cover the newly created larger parcel; If satisfied that the deeds comply with the above requirements, place an endorsed approval upon the deeds; and After approval of the legal description, assemble the deeds and return them to the applicant's title company for recordation. Expiration. The approval of a Lot Line Adjustment shall expire and become void if the adjustment has not been completed as required by this Section within 12 months of approval. 20-42.160 Sidewalk cafes. Page 1 of 4 Santa Rosa City Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Title 20 ZONING Division 4 Standards for Specific Land Uses Chapter 20-42 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES 20-42.160 Sidewalk cafes. Caf6 A. Purpose. This Section provides the conditions and requirements under which a sidewalk caf6, may be permitted to operate by Minor Conditional Use Permit and encroachment permit on a public sidewalk within the City. B. Permit requirements. A sidewalk caf6 shall require the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and an encroachment permit. C. Review authority. A sidewalk cafe may be approved by the Zoning Administrator if it is determined by the Zoning Administrator that the proposed caf6 is in conformity with all of the requirements of this Chapter. An encroachment permit must thereafter be obtained from the City Engineer. D. Limitations and requirements. The following limitations and requirements shall apply to all sidewalk caf6s: 1. Where permissible. A sidewalk caf6 may be permitted only in a zoning district that allows indoor restaurants, and then only if the sidewalk cafe is situated adjacent, as specified below, to an indoor restaurant and the sidewalk caf6's operation is incidental to and a part of the operation of such adjacent indoor restaurant. See Figure 4-1. a. A sidewalk caf6 may be located on the public sidewalk immediately adjacent to and abutting the indoor restaurant which operates the caf6, provided that the area in which the sidewalk caf6 is located extends no farther along the sidewalk's length than the actual sidewalk frontage of the operating indoor restaurant and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter are fulfilled; or Ra#amrant ,lea mdawalk Charance 2' Clear zam~ 1'rrtaar~~sie~~ca~i~ F~cattata~ Only a location is pe-mdUed per =id - as area Smfte4 to 3+996 rafs*kawa& Wr'd ff 00N. i i BefiaFft Tie" or &trWffa"&?s Dm- to d Ow SUV Figure 4-1-Allowable Sidewalk Cafe Locations b. A sidewalk caf6 may be located on an area of the public sidewalk that is not immediately http://gcode.us/codes/santarosa/view.php?topic=20-4-20_42-20_42_160&frames=on 7/12/2011 20-42.160 Sidewalk cafes. Page 2 of 4 adjacent to and abutting the indoor restaurant which operates the cafe, provided the following requirements are met and all other applicable provisions of this Chapter are fulfilled: (1) The service of alcoholic beverage to customers using the sidewalk caf6 is prohibited by the Minor Conditional Use Permit; and (2) The majority of the area in which the sidewalk cafe will be located is situated on the public sidewalk directly in front of the indoor restaurant which operates the caf6. That area of the public sidewalk which would be enclosed by a perpendicular projection of the indoor restaurant's sidewalk frontage over the sidewalk shall be considered as being "directly in front of the indoor restaurant" for the purposes of this subsection. 2. Number of sidewalk cafes. An indoor restaurant may be permitted to operate only one sidewalk caf6 and each sidewalk caf6 shall be confined to a single location on the sidewalk. 3. Sidewalk clearances. A sidewalk caf6 may be permitted only where the sidewalk is wide enough to adequately accommodate both the usual pedestrian traffic in the area and the operation of the proposed caf6. A sidewalk caf6 shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the sidewalk's width at any point and not less than eight consecutive feet of sidewalk width at every point shall be kept clear and unimpeded for pedestrian traffic. The following minimum sidewalk clearances shall be implemented within the Downtown Commercial and Transit Village-Mixed Use zones: a. Minimum clearance along 4th Street between B Street and E Street: (1) North side of the street: Eight feet. (2) South side of the street: Six feet. b. Minimum clearance along 4th Street between E Street and Brookwood Avenue: Four feet. C. Minimum clearance for all other streets zoned Downtown Commercial: Four feet. d. Minimum clearance for all streets zoned Transit Village-Mixed: Four feet. 4. Table and chairs, location and requirements of furniture, signage. a. All tables and chairs comprising a sidewalk caf6 shall be set back not less than two feet from any curb and from any sidewalk or street barrier, including a bollard, and shall not be situated within eight feet of any designated bus stop. b. The dining area shall not impede or diminish use of public furnishings such as lighting, benches, parking meters, etc. C. A minimum of 48 inches of unobstructed space shall be maintained for ingress/egress between all doorways and the pedestrian traffic corridor, or as required by the Uniform Building Code, whichever is greater. d. A minimum of 60 inches of unobstructed space shall be maintained between emergency exits and any furniture or fixtures related to outdoor dining, or as required by the Uniform Building Code, whichever is greater. e. All outdoor dining furniture, including tables, chairs, umbrellas, and planters, shall be movable. f. Umbrellas must be secured with a minimum base of not less than 60 pounds, and shall leave a vertical clearance of seven feet from the sidewalk surface. g. Outdoor heaters, music, or speakers shall be prohibited. h. No signing shall be allowed at any outdoor caf6 except for the name of the establishment on an awning or umbrella fringe and as required by this Chapter when the service of beer and/or wine is authorized by the Minor Conditional Use Permit. http://qcode.us/codes/santarosa/view.php?topic=20-4-20_42-20_42_160&frames=on 7/12/2011 20-42.160 Sidewalk cafes. Page 3 of 4 5. Maintenance. All outdoor dining furnishings shall be maintained in good condition, and all exterior surfaces within the outdoor dining area shall be kept clean and free of debris at all times. 6. Food and beverages. A sidewalk cafe may serve only food and nonalcoholic beverages prepared or stocked for sale at the adjoining indoor restaurant; provided, however, that the service of beer or wine, or both, solely for on-premise consumption by customers within the area of the sidewalk cafe may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator as part of its Minor Conditional Use Permit approval if each of the following requirements are met: a. The sidewalk caf6 is situated immediately adjacent to and abutting the indoor restaurant which provides it with food and beverage service. b. The area in which the sidewalk caf6 is authorized is identified in a manner, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, which will clearly separate and delineate it from the areas of the sidewalk which will remain open to pedestrian traffic. C. One or more signs, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, are posted, during all times the sidewalk caf6 is in operation, which shall give notice to the cafe's customers that the drinking of beer or wine or the carrying of any open container which contains beer or wine is prohibited and unlawful outside the delineated area of the sidewalk caf6. d. The sidewalk caf6 operation is duly licensed, or prior to the service of any beer or wine at the cafe, will be duly licensed, by state authorities to sell beer or wine, or both, for consumption within the area of the sidewalk caf6. 7. Service requirements. The outdoor preparation of food and busing or service stations are prohibited at sidewalk cafes. The presetting of tables with utensils, glasses, napkins, condiments, and the like is prohibited. All exterior surfaces within the caf6 shall be easily cleanable and shall be kept clean at all times by the permittee. Restrooms for the caf6 shall be provided in the adjoining indoor restaurant and the caf6 seating shall be counted in determining the restroom requirements of the indoor restaurant. Trash and refuse storage for the sidewalk caf6 shall not be permitted within the outdoor dining area or on adjacent sidewalk areas and the permittee shall remove all trash and litter as they accumulate. The permittee is responsible for maintaining the outdoor dining area, including the sidewalk surface and furniture and adjacent areas in a clean and safe condition. 8. Days and hours of operation. Sidewalk cafes may operate on days whenever fair weather would enhance outdoor dining. The hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Tables, chairs and all other furniture used in the operation of an outdoor caf6 shall be removed from the sidewalk and stored indoors at night and whenever the cafe is not in operation. E. Power to prohibit operation of sidewalk caf6. The City shall have the right and power, acting through the City Manager or designee, to prohibit the operation of a sidewalk caf6 at any time because of anticipated or actual problems or conflicts in the use of the sidewalk area. Such problems and conflicts may arise from, but are not limited to, scheduled festivals and similar events, or parades or marches, or repairs to the street or sidewalk, or from demonstrations or emergencies occurring in the area. To the extent possible, the permittee shall be given prior written notice of any time period during which the operation of the sidewalk caf6 will be prohibited by the City, but any failure to give prior written notice shall not affect the right and power of the City to prohibit the cafe's operation at any particular time. F. Findings and conditions. In connection with granting approval for a Minor Permit for a sidewalk caf6, the Zoning Administrator shall make findings that the proposed operation meets the limitations of this Chapter and the Zoning Administrator may impose conditions in granting its approval as deemed are needed to ensure that the proposed operation will meet the operating requirements and conditions set forth in this Chapter and to assure that the public safety and welfare will be protected. G. Modification. In the event the Zoning Administrator determines during the operation of an approved http://gcode.us/codes/santarosa/view.php?topic=20-4-20_42-20_42_160&frames=on 7/12/2011 20-42.160 Sidewalk cafes. Page 4 of 4 sidewalk cafe that additional or revised conditions are necessary, he/she shall refer the matter to the Commission which shall hold a public hearing and thereafter decide the matter in compliance with Section 20-54.090 (Permit Revocation and Modification). The Commission may make the continuation of the use subject to such additional and revised conditions and requirements as it deems appropriate or necessary. H. Revocation. The Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a sidewalk caf6 may be revoked by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with Section 20-54.100 (Permit Revocation and Modification), upon finding that one or more conditions or the permit or this Section have been violated or that the sidewalk caf6 is being operated in a manner that constitutes a nuisance, or that the operation of the sidewalk cafe unduly impedes the movement of pedestrians past the caf6. The Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke a permit for a sidewalk caf6 may be appealed to the Commission in compliance with Chapter 20-62 (Appeals). (Ord. 3962 § 2, 2011; Ord. 3711 § 1 Exh. A (part), 2005; Ord. 3677 § 1 (part), 2004) http://qcode.us/codes/santarosa/view.php?topic=20-4-20_42-20_42_160&frames=on 7/12/2011 JoAnne Currie From: Mary Anne Landis [malandis@pacific.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 9:58 AM To: JoAnne Currie Subject: Fwd: RE: could you comment on my summary of our conversation at BALLE? Hello JoAnne, Would you please forward this document to all CC members. Please cc staff involved with DZC too. And I guess then this would be made available to the public at the door tomorrow evening. Call me if you have questions. MAL Original Message Subject:RE: could you comment on my summary of our conversation at BALLE? Date:Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:38:41 -0400 From:Michael H. Shuman <shuman@igc.org> To:'Mary Anne Landis' <malandisgpacific.net> Mary Anne, Very nice to have seen you at BALLE, and I appreciate, again, your effort to find a decent path forward for your community that is simultaneously pro-business and pro-local business. A couple of small amendments to your report of my thoughts: It's Shuman, not Schuman (Russian, not German). It's not just the need for competition, it's that we want local businesses to rise to the competitive pressures and be better than the chains. Chains (like Starbucks) sometimes improve the lure of a destination, which inures to the benefit of local businesses. I also worry that tough zoning restrictions can trigger lawsuits. I think that you could add an economic-impact component to your zoning process, without necessarily requiring it. That is, you could allow both supporters and opponents of a given business to come forward with their evidence and require that decision-makers take it into account. That may give the locavores something they value, without imposing undo costs on new businesses. Anyway, good luck with all this. Cheers, Michael Michael H. Shuman Dirnrtnr of Recearrh anal Frnnomir nizvalnmmant RAI I F twww Iiyingeconomies nra 1 Director of Research and Marketing, Cutting Edge Capital (www.cuttingedgecapital.com ) Fellow, Post-Carbon Institute (www.postcarbon.org ) 2203 Quinton Rd. Silver Spring, MD 20910 202-669-1220 shuman@igc.org From: Mary Anne Landis [mailto:malandis@pacific. net] Sent: Friday, July 08, 20118:12 AM To: Michael Shuman Subject: could you comment on my summary of our conversation at BALLE? Hello Michael, I'm putting together some thoughts for an upcoming City Council in which we will discuss what I spoke briefly to you about at BALLE the exclusion, limitation or free reign of small formula businesses in Ukiah's new Downtown (Form-based) Zone code. The specific businesses that a majority of our planning commission recommended be excluded are bakeries, coffee shops, candy stores and hot dogs. At first it was for public health reasons but now it has turned into a debate about corporate business vs local business. I get the difference, but our conversation at BALLE reinforced my perceptions that a middle road about these particular types of businesses would be wiser, particularly in light of very slow activity in our downtown and reticence on the part of older store owners to keep stores open after work and on weekends. There's a considerable part of the pie that isn't being considered by our merchants I want to maintain our sense of place, want to encourage the multiplying effect of local ownership and I think that a cap of some sort could restrict the proliferation of these kinds of businesses (of which we have none, right now) and our form-based code would tell them how they have to look from the street, so we don't get a purple and orange dunkin' donuts. Did I capture your thoughts from our conversation correctly in my notes below, so if I mention our conversation it represents your viewpoint accurately? 1. I spoke with Michael Schuman at BALLE who said he was wary of excluding all formula businesses in a downtown, in part due to the current economic climate, the need for competition and that other methods existed that could control a cookie cutter downtown. He proposed considering requiring an economic impact study for these stores, but reflected quickly that that would be cost prohibitive in terms of supporting new economic activity. Then said that other methods that were more quantifiable would probably work better - among those, caps on % of formula businesses or number of such businesses in a given block or area of the downtown. I appreciate your time at BALLE and, again, your superb job presenting compelling arguments against the conversion of the Masonite industrial property here to a mall. Thanks, Mary Anne Landis Creating Downtown My proposal is that we need to adopt planning policies that support local economies. When studying the Economic Value of independent businesses, researchers look at employment and dollars spent, product choice and merchandize diversity for a particular locale, community involvement, and maintaining local character. It can be confusing to say the least, but all studies show that formula chain stores, what ever they sell, drain the city of dollars as well as driving local business out. Many towns and cities have been successful in keeping and revitalizing their downtowns. Some elements of success include: • concentration of stores and activities: a downtown should have clear and limited boundaries; • solidifying two or three roles (government, finance, culture and arts, specialty retail, legal and business services) in which it excels and that attract workers and visitors; • access to circulation roads and parking; ® visual attractiveness, with historic renovation, consistency of signs, sidewalks and benches for pedestrians; • unified marketing and image; and residences nearby or built into downtown. Business priorities are changing: Many massive, globe-spanning corporations are now trying to figure out how they can be "local" too. Starbucks, a company that has spent untold millions developing one of the most recognizable brands on the planet, is now beginning to un-brand some of its outlets. The first of these just reopened as "15th Avenue Coffee and Tea" in Seattle and, unless you read the fine-print on the menu, you would quite easily assume it was an independent coffee house. These companies spend enormous sums on market research and they would not be doing this unless they had detected a sizeable shift in public attitudes. It's frankly astonishing that the merchant groups are willing to see their neighbor coffee shops go out of business in favor of corporate owners. To quote Dave Smith of Mulligan Books; "Peet's at Peet's or Peet's at Schat's? The Peet's Corporation has asked the Ukiah City Council not to ban it from downtown. The choice could not be clearer. People have access to Peet's fresh-brewed coffees at Schat's Bakery downtown, owned by Zachery Schat and his family. Now the Peet's Corporation, traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange, wants the right to move into the Ukiah downtown." To quote Marvin Trotter; "Certainly, we already have more than enough fast food restaurants per capita. It's difficult even to walk a mile without running into one. At the least, by barring fast food chain growth downtown we can promote healthier lifestyle choices, support locally-owned businesses and nourish our sense of pride in what makes Ukiah unique." While local public officials, time and again, fall for the temptations and political appeal of national chains, they often fail to consider the greater and real losses to the community that occur when the local business base is undermined. Locally owned businesses reinvest in the local economy at a 60% higher rate than formula chain retailers. City leaders and policy makers can encourage local businesses through zoning and permit procedures, business subsidies, and city purchases. If you look at all the desirable cities of the state, country or world, it is the Cities that are keeping the Formula Chains out that are the most prosperous and desirable cities to live in and visit. Go to Marysville to see what chains do. Go to Healdsburg, Sausalito, Carmel, La Jolla to see what a City with principles and a vision with backbone do for the local economy. Why are these communities appealing and different? Because the policy makers realized they had a jewel and acted to protect it. There are many economic studies which amply illustrate these words with facts; I can find no studies that substantiate the economic or character value of formula chains. Let us not forget the lessons learned at our "Citizen U" economic workshop several years ago. There are other aspects to 'Shop Local' besides tax dollars and jobs: consider what drew you in the first place to the neighborhood or city you reside in; what is the type of community you want to live in? Do we want to preserve our community's one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character? Are we interested living in a city or town that has chains that are run by ever-rotating managers rather than long-time owners who know many customers by name? We will have a stronger local economy for not allowing formula chains into the downtown core. That not having a Chevy's or Haagen-Dazs is better than having one, downtown; let them battle it out in Redwood Business Park, or up with our popular Taco Bell neighborhood. There can be no exceptions in the downtown core. I humbly submit a simple border to define our downtown "Local Area Zone". Please see the attached map. Alan Nicholson July 25, 2011 Downtown Zoning Code Se ction 3 Zo ning (6 dW y~' Oa 3wO i I rn G d / C) N Q N o 3~b °aeH~aO oLL L N ; CO m Q p of_ U E m bQ V113 13 cal N E - V p F ; J' N a-°i o CO 4.' 0 N c~ a O c Q J x y n Z) .N M _ b° N3a216M - Q w m co E C 2 l CL ® o E c r, O E C W E W O l7 C > ®L'ESL'IE'ST. ' _4w LL ~ O` i 4 1 . a (U CU 0 0 2J ° lHl SOH > o ~ o 0 o 0 c v E ® v O S NoSbW z tm V M Y ■ O F m U) C Q N a ® x CL O ¢ t .2 7 Y a v N N W W rn m Y m N J "a C C w 3 i Z ® N W a rn tlp O c I T. E m ~ 00 ° E (n "N Ln , z O. Q N a W 2 y~ a, STATE ST. 0 W V T ~ us ■ O ~ v °J S Orr C> ■ C" U C PEI 1--m F- CJ o -2 -Q 3 u, - a e m o i W ii ® o -W J U)■ N _ 1. s.~•d o I o 10 ~ W 6 Fffl, 0 N all City Council Draft 04062011