HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_11132013 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 November 13, 2013
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Kevin Doble
8 Linda Sanders
9 Laura Christensen
10 Judy Pruden
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the October 23, 2013 meeting are available for
26 review and approval.
27
28 M/S Pruden/Sanders to approve the October 23, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried by an all
29 AYE voice vote.
30
31 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
32
33 6. APPEAL PROCESS — Chair Whetzel read the appeal process. For matters at this meeting, the
34 final date to appeal is November 4, 2013.
35
36 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Confirmed by Commission.
37
38 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE - Confirmed by staff.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Hertz Car Rental Facility, 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19 (File No. 13-20-UP-PC).
42 Planning Commission consideration and possible action on Major Use Permit to allow the
43 operation of a car rental facility at 724 South State Street, APN 003-031-19. This item is
44 continued from the October 23, 2013 meeting.
45
46 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report. At the October 23, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the
47 Commission asked the applicant to:
48 • Revise the site plan to show alternative parking configurations that allows for more back up
49 space, revisions are provided for in attachment 4 that application provided Option 1-A and Option
50 1-B. Staff is requesting the Commission determine which parking option would be appropriate for
51 the site and the proposed use.
52 • Provide a color alternative to the proposed white awning and building. The applicant has
53 proposed a gray alternative as provided for in attachment 4.
54 • Applicant to provide a revised site plan that shows the location of the required bike parking. The
55 applicant has indicated on each option of the parking plan the location of the required bike
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 1
1 parking as provided for in attachment 2 and as discussed in the staff report on pages 2 and 3 of
2 the staff report.
3 • Revise the site plan to show the location of the new street tree.
4 The applicant has revised the site plan to include the location of the new street tree as provided
5 for in attachment 4.
6
7 Commissioner Sanders:
8 • Is pleased with the revised plans and comments made by Public Works. Public Works is of the
9 opinion A-1.1 B was the better configuration because with plan A it would be difficult to maneuver
10 cars into the garage opening due to the right turn.
11 • Asked about City Engineer Kageyama's comments that Plan A1 1-A will be difficult to maneuver
12 cars into the garage opening due to the right turn and therefore recommends plan A1 1-B.
13
14 Commissioner Pruden:
15 • The Building Official and City Engineer have two different opinions concerning the parking
16 configuration. The Building Official's preference was Plan A if the space between opposite
17 parking spaces is adequate for ingress and egress of the parking stalls.
18 • Her preference is A-1 1A and is of the opinion this option is the more practical solution and allows
19 for more flexibility.
20 • Requested clarification the awnings will be gray rather than white and is of the opinion this is a
21 good solution for the building.
22 • Likes that parking spaces#10 and #11 are designated compact.
23 • Recommended revising a"type o" in Condition of Approval 2A. The condition should read: `Hours
24 of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
25 Saturday and closed on Sunday.'
26
27 Commissioner poble:
28 • Preference is Plan A. Is of the opinion Plan A adequately addresses handicap accessibility.
29 • Requested clarification about the number of parking spaces.
30 • Related to Ben Kageyama's comments concerning the two plans sees the radius coming into the
31 covered spaces as being the same.
32 • Thanked the applicants for revising the site plans that shows alternative parking configurations
33 and allows for more back up space.
34
35 Staff:
36 • The applicant has given two different versions for the parking. When the application was originally
37 submitted there were 15 parking spaces and the revised parking plan indicates 14 parking
38 spaces. The original parking plan showed three compact spaces where only two are allowed.
39 Clarified the number of parking spaces is 14 rather than 15. Both parking plans A and B have 14
40 parking spaces with different configurations.
41
42 Chair Whetzel:
43 • Ask about the location of the bicycle parking.
44 • Preference is Plan A.
45 • Related to Ben Kageyama's comments, it is likely Hertz will be dealing with smaller cars.
46 • Likes that the handicap space is closer to the building.
47
48 Staff:
49 • Bicycle parking is proposed on the north end of walkway in front of the building.
50 • Confirmed the awnings will be gray. The building will be a lighter shade of gray as opposed to
51 white.
52
53 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:11 p.m.
54
55 Matt Lundbeck, Construction Manager for Architectural Construction Services, Inc.:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 2
1 • Preference is Option A also.
2 • Discussed the gray color selected for the building and would like to paint the trim white.
3
4 Commission consensus:
5 • Likes the Project as revised.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:14 p.m.
8
9 M/S Pruden/Doble to approve Major Use Permit 13-20-UP-PC with Finding 1-7 in attachment 1 and
10 Conditions of Approval 1-26 in attachment 2 with revision to Condition of Approval 2A as discussed
11 above. Motion carried (5-0).
12
13 USE PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW A
14 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
15 TO OPERATE AT
16 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
17 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
18
19 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
20 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
21
22 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
23 Plan as described in the staff report and Table 1.
24
25 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as described in
26 Table 2 of the staff report.
27
28 3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Airport Compatibility requirements for
29 the C zone based on the following:
30
31 A. The proposed project would be a rental car facility. Intensive retail uses are normally
32 acceptable uses in the C zone. The proposed project would be similar to a low intensity retail
33 use and therefore the project would be allowed in the compatibility zone C.
34 B. Compatibility Zone C allows 150 people per acre for non-residential uses, therefore given that
35 the site is .22 of an acre the maximum density cannot exceed 33 people (.22 acre site X 150
36 people/acre). The applicant has indicated that the proposed rental car facility would have
37 approximately 3 employees on a daily basis and it is not anticipated there would be more
38 than 4 customers in the store at any one time
39 C. The size of the parcel is 9,438 square feet (.22 acre). The footprint of the building is 4,650
40 square feet which leaves 51 % of open land for this parcel exceeding the 15 % minimum
41 recommended for the C zone. Based on a field survey it is staff's opinion that the proposed
42 project is similar to other existing development in the C zone.
43
44 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general
45 welfare based on the following:
46
47 A. The site was previously used for retail uses therefore based on the fact that the previous
48 retail use operated at this site without issues and that the proposed retail car facility is
49 similar in intensity to retail the proposed project would not be detrimental.
50 B. There is typically no noise related to this type of business.
51 C. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Police Department, Building Official,
52 and Public Works and any review comments from these departments have been included as
53 conditions of approval.
54 D. The project is required to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
55 E. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan C compatibility zone requirements as
56 noted in Table 2.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 3
1 F. There is adequate parking on the site for the proposed project. Five parking spaces are
2 provided at the front of the building and nine spaces would be provided inside the building.
3 The front spaces would be available to customers and employees and the parking within
4 building would be used to park the rental cars. See parking analysis in Table 3.
5
6 From the Planning Commission
7
8 G. Given that the project site is located in an existing commercial area and that the nearest
9 residential units are at least 49 feet from the rear property line of the project site. Minimal
10 maintenance of the rental cars would not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
11 Minimal maintenance is limited to vacuuming, hand washing windows and removing trash
12 from the rental vehicles.
13 H. No auto repair or washing of the renal vehicles is allowed on the site. This is based on the
14 fact that the project site is small and is not equipped with a water containment system.
15
16 5. The project approved with conditions is compatible with surrounding uses based on the
17 following:
18
19 A. The project site is located within an existing commercial area and is surrounded mainly
20 by commercial uses.
21 B. The parcel immediately adjacent to the west of the project site is developed with a
22 multifamily residential unit; however, the living units are not located directly behind the
23 project site. There is at least 49 feet between the structure on the project site and the
24 nearest residential unit. Furthermore there is a detached carport structure with no
25 opening on the rear elevation between the project site and the residential units. This
26 would create a barrier for the residential uses.
27 C. The proposed project would occupy a building which was previously used for retail sales.
28 The proposed use is anticipated to be less intensive then the past retail sales at this
29 location based on the fact that typically car rental facilities function more like a
30 professional office in terms of number of customers and the fact that the majority of
31 customers arrive by appointment.
32 D. The hours of operation would be consistent with retail business and professional offices
33 in the area which normally operate 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 P.M.
34 E. The proposed project would provide 13 parking spaces which given the operating
35 characteristics of a rental car facility would be adequate.
36 F. The proposed project would be similar in intensity to a light retail business and /or a
37 professional office. This is based on the fact that customer arrival would be staggered
38 throughout the day and are typically set by appointment. Given the function of a Hertz the
39 average number of customers on the site at one time is three and typically there are only
40 two employees on a shift at a time.
41
42 6. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
43 (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3, conversion of small structures and Section 15301
44 Class 1, Existing Facilities based on the following:
45
46 A. The total building square footage is 4,650 square feet.
47 B. The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials.
48 C. The location is not environmentally sensitive and with no drainage courses or bodies of
49 water(such as creeks or streams).
50 D. The site is developed with an existing building and parking lot, utilities and services
51 already are available at the site and no expansion of the existing building footprint is
52 proposed as part of the project.
53
54 7. Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
55 Ordinance:
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 4
1 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 11, 2013 ;
2 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 11, 2013; and
3 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on October 13, 2013
4
5 USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW A
6 HERTZ CAR RENTAL FACILITY
7 TO OPERATE AT
8 724 SOUTH STATE STREET, APN 003-031-19
9 FILE NO: 13-20-UP-PC
10
11 1. Approval is granted for operation of Hertz Car Rental Facility at 724 South State Street, APN 003-
12 031-19 as described in the project description dated October 10,2013 and shown on the plans
13 submitted to the Community Development and Planning Department, date stamped November 1,
14 2013 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
15 2. The use permit is granted subject to the following operating characteristics:
16 A. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m.
17 to 12:00 p.m. and closed on Sunday.
18 B. The business shall have five employees with three per shift.
19 C. No rental of large equipment or trucks.
20 D. No auto repair shall be performed on site.
21 E. No more than ten rental vehicles on the site at one time.
22
23 3. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
24 approval:
25 A. The location of the bike parking shall be shown on the site plan and a detail that shows
26 the type of bike rack shall be included. Inverted "U " style rack is preferred.
27 B. The area located in the front of the building directly in front of the access way to the
28 interior parking shall be marked with No Parking.
29 C. Location of new street tree.
30
31 4. The bike rack required by condition 3A shall be installed prior to occupancy and is subject to staff
32 approval.
33
34 5. Prior to installation of any signs, application for and approval of a sign permit from the Planning
35 and Community Development Department is required.
36
37 6. On plans submitted for building permit these conditions of approval shall be included as notes on
38 the first sheet.
39
40 From the Planninq Commission
41 7. At time of building permit the applicant shall submit a compliant air exchange analysis relative to
42 the parking garage. The analysis shall demonstrate that there is safe/adequate air exchange in
43 the parking garage.
44
45 8. Minor detailing of rental cars is permitted on site. Minor detailing includes vacuuming, hand
46 washing windows and interior cleaning of vehicles. No washing of rental cars is permitted on site.
47
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 5
1
2 From the Buildinq Official (David Willouqhbv)
3
4 9. A building permit is required with plans designed by a California licensed architect or engineer.
5
6 From the Fire Department(Kevin Jenninqs)
7
8 10. Two Class 2-A fire extinguishers shall be provided, and shall not be obstructed or obscured from
9 view. Location shall be determined by the Fire Prevention Officer prior to installation.
10
11 11. Exit signs shall be provided.
12
13 12. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated at all times. Signs shall be connected to an
14 emergency power system that provides illumination for not less than 90 minutes in case of
15 primary power loss.
16
17 13. Egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special
18 knowledge or effect. Exception: The main exterior door or doors are permitted to be equipped
19 with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided a sign is posted on the egress
20 side stating "This door to remain unlocked when building is occupied ".
21
22 From the Department of Public Works ( Ben Kaqeyama)
23
24 14. A street tree with grate shall be added to the southeast corner of the property, subject to staff
25 review and approval.
26
27 15. If the building permit value of work exceeds $110,519 or the proposed improvements create the
28 net addition of two or more plumbing fixture units to the building, the existing sanitary sewer
29 lateral shall be tested in accordance with City of Ukiah Ordinance No. 1105, and repaired or
30 replaced if required.
31
32 16. If additional plumbing fixtures are proposed, City of Ukiah sewer connection fees shall apply, and
33 shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
34
35 17. If the building permit value is equal to or greater than one-third of the value of the existing
36 structure, the construction, repair or upgrade of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, along the subject
37 property frontages, may be required, pursuant to Section 9181 of the Ukiah City Code.
38
39 Standard Citv Conditions of Approval
40
41 18. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit has
42 expired without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is subject to the
43 outcome of the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with any modifications,
44 conditions, or requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal.
45 19. Business operations shall not commence until all permits required for the approved use,
46 including but not limited to business license, tenant improvement building permit, have been
47 applied for and issued/finaled.
48 20. No permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
49 applicable to this application and these conditions of approval have been paid in full.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 6
1 21. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
2 regulation, specification or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
3 agencies as applicable. All construction shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing,
4 occupancy, and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building
5 Permit is approved and issued.
6 22. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all
7 building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in
8 effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued.
9 23. A copy of all conditions of this Use Permit Amendment shall be provided to and be binding upon
10 any future purchaser, tenant, or other party of interest.
11 24. All conditions of approval that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior
12 to commencement of services allowed by this use permit.
13 25. This Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
14 related to this Permit is not being conducted in compliance with these stipulations and conditions
15 of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of this
16 approval; or if the established use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been
17 suspended for 24 consecutive months.
18 26. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
19 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents,
20 officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding
21 brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set
22 aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be
23 limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted
24 by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's
25 action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the
26 part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void
27 or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall
28 remain in full force and effect.
29 9B. Myszka Place Lot 2, Minor Planned Development Amendment, APN 001-201-08 (File No. 13-
30 26-PDA-PC). Planning Commission consideration and possible action on a Minor Amendment to
31 the Myszka Place Planned Development to allow the removal of up to five trees on Lot 2 of
32 Myszka Place, 1210 Myszka Place. A Planning commission preliminary review of this project was
33 conducted at the October 23, 2013 Meeting.
34
35 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report, referred to the site plan and noted the applicant originally
36 wanted to only remove two trees (1 Redwood and 1 Atlas Cedar). One tree was located partially within
37 the building envelop and the other within five feet of the building envelop. Based on the comments from a
38 certified arborist, the request now includes removal of two addition redwood trees. As part of the project
39 the applicant is proposing to plant 6 new trees.
40
41 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:20 p.m.
42
43 Karen Keehn, Applicant, is available to answer questions the Commissioners may have.
44
45 Beth Lang:
46 • Resides in the neighborhood.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 7
1 • Supports retaining the trees and inquired whether it is possible to amend the approved location of
2 the building envelop so no trees would be removed.
3
4 Commission: To move the location of the building envelop, a variance would be required and the
5 applicant would have to reconfigure the proposed footprint.
6
7 Ernie Olson:
8 • Resides in the neighborhood.
9 • The applicant would be a good neighbor.
10 • Supports the project and noted the applicant would provide for a very nice project that would
11 highly complement the neighborhood.
12
13 Marvin Boesel:
14 • Is familiar with the property because as a child used to play in the hillsides on Highland Avenue.
15 • The applicant would be a good neighbor and would do `good things' with the property.
16 • Supports approval of the Project.
17
18 Kerry Vau, Realtor for Applicant:
19 • The proposed Project is an excellent opportunity for an infill development and is highly supportive
20 of this development type.
21 • Over the years many people had the desire to purchase the property, but could not make the
22 building footprint work to comply with the Myszka Place PD conditions of approval as it relates to
23 the trees.
24 • The applicant would provide for a very nice project and supports approval.
25
26 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:27 p.m.
27
28 Commissioner Sanders:
29 • Inquired if it is possible to review the CC&Rs for the property and if the trees were mitigation
30 measures.
31
32 Staff:
33 • The Myszka Subdivision has specific conditions of approval where each lot had a specific building
34 envelop and specific trees were required to remain. The trees to remain were part of the
35 environmental mitigation measures for the subdivision.
36 • To answer the question if the building envelop could be moved to avoid the trees, this was an
37 option but the design proposed by the applicant is what would work best to meet her needs so
38 rather than requesting a variance to move the building envelop she chose to amend the Myszka
39 Place PD conditions of approval to allow the removal of two trees.
40
41 Commissioner Pruden:
42 • Has some problem with increasing the number of trees to be removed as identified on the site
43 plan. Was okay with the original plan for the removal of two trees (1 Redwood and 1 Atlas Cedar).
44 • Would like to see the Redwood Tree grove flourish.
45 • The arborist report is not fully definitive. The arborist `is of the opinion there will not be damage to
46 the Redwood Tree colony' with removal.
47
48 PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED: 6:30 p.m.
49
50 Karen Keehn:
51 • Preference would be not to remove any of the trees.
52 • In order to make the building footprint work for her housing needs, the trees need to be removed.
53 • The Atlas Cedar is diseased and located right on the building envelop and has to be removed.
54 The Redwood Tree is actually located inside the building envelop.
55 • Referred to the 1991 Subdivision Map and noted the trees are much bigger now.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 8
1 • Discussed the reasons it is necessary to remove two more Redwood Trees as recommended by
2 the arborist. Removal is necessary because of disease and the fact that the root system would
3 conflict with the building envelop.
4 • Is planting 6 new trees on the site.
5
6 Commissioner poble:
7 • Is of the opinion the trees this close to the building envelop on the original development plan
8 should never have been counted as a mitigation measure. The trees are too close to the building
9 envelop without even taking into consideration that these trees would grow. The approved
10 development plan does not show where the dripline for the tree(s) is located. This is a problem
11 that occurs with older developments in that consideration is not given to the growth of the trees. It
12 is likely by today's standards that those trees would not be counted as a mitigation measure for
13 approval of the subdivision.
14 • While it would be great to retain all four trees understands why this may not be possible. The
15 applicant did pursue a professional opinion from an arborist who gave a recommendation. To
16 compensate for the removal of the four trees the applicant is willing to plant 6 new trees. One tree
17 is diseased and would have to be removed anyway so we are essentially talking about three trees
18 slated for removal. With the 6 new trees proposed for planting this represents a 2:1 ratio for
19 replacement.
20 • Not supportive of dictating how the trees are to be removed but it is the Commission's
21 responsibility to make certain the root system of the existing trees are protected during
22 construction by including conditions of approval that address this particular issue.
23
24 Commissioner Sanders:
25 • It is really clear the applicant will not purchase the property if the trees cannot be removed.
26 Questioned whether 4 trees need to be removed and/or whether salvaging the most southern
27 Redwood tree would be an option? If not, related to the smaller Redwood tree is it possible to
28 plant another Redwood tree in the area?
29
30 Commissioner Pruden:
31 • It is too dense of an area to replant another Redwood tree. This would likely affect the root
32 system of the existing Redwood tree colony. It is probably better to remove the sickly tree and
33 just leave the area alone. If the colony is disturbed by digging around in the area to plant a new
34 tree, this would likely compromise the root system of the existing colony.
35
36 Commissioner poble:
37 • Asked if Commissioner Sanders is suggesting another Redwood Tree be planted on the property
38 and would this be basically substituting one of the other proposed 6 tree species with a Redwood
39 tree?
40 • Is not a tree expert so does not want to specify what species of trees should be planted. Unless
41 the Commission wants to do otherwise, would support the proposal.
42 • Supports the Project.
43
44 Commissioner Sanders:
45 • Commented on the choice of replacement trees. The Dogwood is a smaller tree. Acknowledged
46 there can be some benefits associated with planting the proposed replacement trees.
47 • Wanted the opinion of the Commission concerning the optional fourth tree slated for possible
48 removal and if there is strong opinion it may be the Commission needs to request a Redwood
49 tree be planted. There is the concern about potentially planting a Redwood tree and how close
50 the existing Redwood tree grove is to the roofline. With this, would be amenable to either planting
51 6 trees from the replacement list or include a Redwood tree as one of 6 species.
52 • Would support the Project.
53
54 Commissioner Christensen:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 9
1 • Would defer her comments concerning tree removal to the arborist who is the expert as the
2 information is `pretty clear.'
3 • Supports the Project.
4
5 Chair Whetzel:
6 • Has no problem with the tree removal, as proposed, particularly with the 2:1 tree replacement
7 scenario.
8 • Is confident the City Master Tree List will provide a good choice for the proposed new trees that
9 will be planted.
10 • Is fine with the Project.
11
12 Commissioner Pruden:
13 • Concurs with Chair Whetzel's comment that the City Master Tree List is a good source for tree
14 selection.
15 • Likes that the applicant wants to protect the Redwood tree grove.
16 • Emphasized the importance of protecting the root system of the existing trees on the property.
17 • Is okay with the Project.
18
19 M/S Doble/Christensen to approve Myszka Place Lot 2 Minor Planned Development Amendment, File
20 No 13-26-PDA-PC with Findings 1-6 and Conditions of Approval 1-7. Motion carried (5-0).
21
22 FINDINGS TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE MYSZKA PLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
23 1210 MYSZKA PLACE, LOT 2
24 APN 001-201-08
25 FILE NO. 13-26-PDA-PC
26
27 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
28 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
29
30 1. As required by Z.O. Section 9168 (c) (a) the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with
31 the goals and policies of the General Plan and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Article 14,
32 Regulations in Planned Development Combining Zone Districts as described in the staff report
33 and Table 1.
34
35 2. As required by Z.O. Section (c) (b) the proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible and
36 complementary to existing and potential development in the general vicinity of the project site as
37 described in Table 3 of the staff report.
38
39 3. The proposed project as conditioned is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Zoning
40 Ordinance as described in the staff report.
41
42 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria required for approval of a
43 planned development with development plan based on the analysis included in Table 4 of the
44 staff report.
45
46 5. The proposed amendment to the Planned Development conditions of approval is exempt from
47 the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
48 Guidelines Section 153061(b)(3)the General Rule, that CEQA applies only to projects which
49 have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.Where it can be seen with
50 certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
51 the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 10
1 Notice of the proposed project was provided in the following manner as required by the Zoning
2 Ordinance:
3
4 A. posted in three places on the project site on October 29, 2013 ;
5 B. mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on October 29, 2013; and
6 C. published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on November 3, 2013
7
8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT TO THE MYSZKA PLACE PLANNED
9 DEVELOPMENT
10 1210 MYSZKA PLACE, LOT 2
11 APN 001-201-08
12 FILE NO. 13-26-PDA-PC
13
14
15 1. Approval is granted to allow the removal of four trees located at 1210 Myszka Place, Lot 2,
16 APN 001-201-08 as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning and Community
17 Development Department date stamped November 7, 2013 except as modified by the
18 following conditions of approval.
19
20 2. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around trees that are in proximity of construction
21 activities during site development. The protective tree fencing required shall be metal, a
22 minimum of 5-feet in height and secured with in-ground posts. The fencing shall be located 5
23 feet from the dripline of the tree. The approved tree fencing shall be installed prior to
24 construction/grading activities and shall remain in place until construction has been
25 completed.
26
27 3. At time of building permit for site development the required tree fencing in condition of
28 approval No. 2 shall be shown on the building permit plans and is subject to staff review and
29 approval.
30
31 4. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their
32 agents, successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
33 agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or
34 proceeding brought against any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which
35 is to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this application. This indemnification shall
36 include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness
37 fees that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the applicant, arising out of or
38 in connection with the City's action on this application, whether or not there is concurrent
39 passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any reason any portion of this
40 indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of competent
41 jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
42
43 5. Any Planned Development Combining Zone/District created after the effective date of Article
44 14 of the zoning ordinance shall expire after three (3) years from its approved date by the
45 City Council if actual construction has not occurred. A one year extension of the three (3)
46 year time period may be granted by the Planning Director if substantial progress has been
47 made towards securing a building permit. All requests for an extension must be made in
48 writing, and shall detail the progress made towards implementing the project and securing a
49 building permit. If any PD Combining Zone/District expires, the zoning (or its current
50 equivalent) which existed prior to the adoption of the PD District shall be in full force and
51 effect.
52
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 11
1 6. The property owner shall obtain and maintain any permit or approval required by law,
2 regulation, specification, or ordinance of the City of Ukiah and other Local, State, or Federal
3 agency as applicable.
4
5 7. All construction activities shall comply with all fire, building, electric, plumbing, occupancy,
6 and structural laws, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is
7 approved and issued.
8
9 10. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
10 10A. Electronic Cigarettes Store/Lounge in the Downtown Zoning Code boundaries Preliminary
11 Review, 411 South State Street, APN 002-269-08 (File No. 13-25-PRE-PC). Preliminary review
12 of a request on the sale of electronic cigarettes within the boundaries of the Downtown Zoning
13 Code.
14
15 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report.
16
17 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:55 p.m.
18
19 Susan Knopf:
20 • Are E-Cigarettes readily available in stores?
21 • Do E-Cigarettes come in different flavors?
22 • Would the Project include a tasting room?
23
24 Chair Whetzel:
25 • Many retail stores carry E-Cigarettes and cited some of them.
26 • E-Cigarettes do come in different flavors.
27 • Does not know if smoking would be allowed on-site.
28
29 Cassandra Taaning, Private Citizen:
30 • Provided the Commission with information relevant to E-Cigarettes that are included in these
31 minutes as attachment 1.
32 • Works for Mendocino County Public Health.
33 • Has done personal research on E-Cigarettes. E-Cigarettes are currently not regulated by the
34 FDA. Unlike tobacco E-Cigarettes are not taxed and as such are almost cheaper than regular
35 cigarettes. The use of E-Cigarettes has increased dramatically. The Center for Disease Control
36 (CDC) conducted a study concerning E-Cigarettes and teens and their use has doubled between
37 2011 and 2012.
38 • Tobacco products are regulated. Tobacco products that are flavored are prohibited because they
39 target children. However, E-Cigarettes have all kinds of flavors.
40 • Has concern the proposed Project would be located right near Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza where
41 young people frequent.
42 • According to attachment 1, `the World Health Organization issued a strong statement against the
43 use of E-Cigarettes and declared that until such time as a given ENDS (electronic nicotine
44 delivery systems) is deemed safe and effective and of acceptable quality by a competent nation
45 regulatory body, consumers should be strongly advised not to use any of these products,
46 including electronic cigarettes. This declaration is part of a growing trend to warn and inform
47 consumers of electronic cigarettes that the dangers are no immediately known. At the national
48 level, FDA stated that E-Cigarettes are not a cessation device and conducted initial lab test that
49 found E-Cigarettes contain detectable levels of toxic chemicals, including an ingredient found in
50 anti-freeze. Furthermore, these same lab tests found that cartridges labeled as nicotine free did in
51 fact contain traceable amounts of nicotine.'
52
53 'The Food and Drug Administration is set to release proposed regulation on E-Cigarettes by the
54 end of November, a long awaited move that has been delayed in part by struggles to better
55 understand their potential health risks and benefits. In the meantime, state and local governments
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 12
1 have been left to their own devices in regulating just where E-Cigarettes can be used and to
2 whom they can be sold, leading to a vast and at times confusing array of outcomes.'
3
4 Chair Wetzel:
5 • Related to research, the E-Cigarette has nowhere close to the amount of nicotine that a regular
6 cigarette has. It may be there is no level of nicotine.
7 • People use E-Cigarettes to quit smoking.
8 • An E-Cigarette is a retail product. We do not have the studies available that tells us a store that
9 carries E-Cigarettes is not a smoke shop.
10 • Before passing an opinion about the business, the best approach might be to understand the
11 facts, get more information, and see what the FDA says about an E-Cigarette.
12
13 Commissioner Christensen:
14 • Is there any other source of nicotine other than tobacco?Where does nicotine come from?Would
15 assume nicotine only comes from tobacco.
16 • A statement from the applicant in Attachment 1 of the staff report indicates customers over the
17 age of 18 with valid identification are able to sample the merchandise. Is there regulation about
18 sales of E-Cigarettes? Because if E-Cigarettes are not regulated it can be sold to anyone,
19 including a five year old.
20 • Is another name for an E-Cigarette a `hookah pen?'
21 • Has concern that children would see E-Cigarette as a toy. It is an interesting product and the
22 store would be located right next to Alex Thomas Jr. Plaza where children and young teenagers
23 gather. It is highly likely that children and teenagers will come into the store, legally buy
24 something, be exposed to an addictive chemical and possibly become addicted to nicotine by
25 chewing tobacco or smoking cigarettes. Sees the Project as `a stepping off point.' The real issue
26 is how to define what kind of store a smokeless cigarette/e-cigarette is. Is of the opinion since the
27 cigarette contains nicotine and nicotine comes from tobacco it is a smoke shop and still fits into
28 that category. Would have to be convinced an e-cigarette is not coming from a tobacco product.
29
30 Commissioner Sanders:
31 • Cited research she has done related to nicotine including historical information and noted nicotine
32 was widely used as an insecticide in the past. In smaller doses an average cigarette yields about
33 1 milligram of absorbed nicotine. The substance acts as a stimulant in mammals while high
34 amounts are 30 to 60 milligrams can be fatal. Nicotine is the natural product of tobacco having a
35 half-life of one to two hours. Currently, nicotine even in the form of tobacco dust is prohibited as a
36 for organic farming and is no longer listed as a pesticide in the U S because of all the other
37 insecticides we have in our country.
38
39 Commissioner Pruden:
40 • According to a recent article in the New York Times, E-Cigarettes are referred to as `vapors' in
41 Europe and have become very popular. The FDA is going to release a statement as to whether
42 E-Cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices and classify them. The article also states that E-
43 Cigarettes have not been linked to any serious public health effect, but then again there has been
44 only short-term research done to draw an opinion about potential health hazards. There may very
45 be health issues associated with the use of E-Cigarettes.
46 • Based on what she has read, it may be E-Cigarettes do help people stop smoking. It would be
47 interesting to know how E-Cigarettes are defined. The new business looks like and seems to
48 function as a smoke shop. Is of the opinion the type of business being reviewed tonight is not
49 likely the type of business we envisioned having in the Downtown. The business functions pretty
50 close to that of a smoke shop. The DZC does not allow smoke shops.
51 • Pointed out the applicant is already selling E-Cigarettes at his current business. The proposed
52 new business is an expansion of a very specialized industry. Is of the opinion, the new business
53 has all the `personality' of a smoke shop. Has observed smoke shops draw a certain type of
54 clientele.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 13
1 • More research is necessary related to E-Cigarettes and how they are regulated before an
2 informed decision can be made.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • If the DZC does not allow for smoke shops in the Downtown, why would we allow a smoke shop
6 in the Downtown?
7 • Does not buy the argument that an E-Cigarette is not a cigarette because it is called a cigarette.
8 • Is not convinced the new business is not a smoke shop.
9 • Understands tonight is a preliminary review. Does not approve of the project as currently
10 presented.
11 • Given that tonight is a preliminary review, the applicant has the opportunity to complete a formal
12 application and provide all the justification necessary that the business should be classified as a
13 retail store and not a smoke shop and have a public hearing.
14 • The real issue is whether or not the business is classified as a smoke shop.
15
16 James McKenney, Applicant:
17 • Owns the Emerald Triangle Glassworks.
18 • An E-Cigarette produces water vapor not smoke originating from combustible material.
19 • A report came out yesterday from the BBC stating that if people switched to electronic cigarettes
20 millions of lives would be saved from smoking every year.
21 • There have been studies on nicotine that note side effects.
22 • Has carried E-Cigarettes for over four years in his smoke shop that is located in the Downtown.
23 • The proposed new shop is located two doors done from his existing store.
24 • Has observed that many people have quit smoking through the use of E-Cigarettes.
25 • E-Cigarettes produce water vapor so there is no second hand smoke. E-Cigarettes are not as
26 expensive as regular cigarettes.
27 • Most all of the major retailers sell E-Cigarettes, i.e., Walmart, Walgreen, Rite Aid.
28 • To sample products, the store will not employ a lounge-style atmosphere. The products would
29 only be sampled with employee assistance.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Is Emerald Triangle Glassworks a 'head shop?'
33 • Referred to attachment 1 of the staff report that the store would carry hundreds of e-liquid flavors
34 in bottles that range in size from five milliliters to 30 milliliters at nicotine levels of 24 milligrams,
35 18 milligrams, 16 milligrams, 12 milligrams, 8 milligrams, 6 milligrams, 4 milligrams and 0
36 milligrams and the bottles would be kept behind the counter. The applicant has indicated all the
37 windows would be covered. This brings her to think that the applicant is contemplating a similar
38 business model to his Emerald Triangle smoke shop. As such, has real concern about having a
39 smoke shop in the Downtown when the DZC prohibits smoke shops in the Downtown. Noted the
40 applicant already has a smoke shop two doors down from the proposed project.
41 • When doing research, Emerald Triangle was classified as one of four head shops in the City of
42 Ukiah. It appears the applicant is expanding his model.
43 • Asked about the hours of operation for the new store.
44 • How is the proposed new business different than a head shop that the applicant currently
45 operates?
46
47 James McKenney:
48 • The proposed Electronic Cigarette Store business is not a `head shop.' The shop would only sell
49 E-Cigarettes. Again, E-Cigarettes give off water vapor not smoke. The windows will not be
50 covered open and likes to keep a `very open' shop. A person can look in the windows of Emerald
51 Triangle. No smoking accessories are displayed in the windows. It is a very open/clean and nice
52 environment.
53 • The intent with expanding his business is because those persons who used to smoke cigarettes
54 do not want to go into a shop that sells cigarettes and/or smoking-related accessories.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 14
1 • The proposed new store will sell E-Cigarettes, which is not a tobacco product and makes more
2 sense for this item to be in its own separate space.
3 • Emerald Triangle Glassworks is a retail smoke shop. Does not have knowledge about the
4 definition of a `head shop.'
5 • Emerald Triangle Glassworks sells a lot of smoke accessories, vaporizers, clothing and other
6 articles.
7 • Confirmed flavoring of cigarettes has been banned to discourage children from smoking. There
8 are, however, flavored cigars and chewing tobacco.
9 • Related to sales, the intent of the shop is to get people off of cigarettes. The point of allowing
10 customers to sample the products is simply to make sure customers are satisfied with the product
11 before making a purchase. While the product is not regulated, he would have to check to see if
12 the product can legally be e sold to anyone. Related to his store no one under 18 would be able
13 to sample or purchase the product. E-Cigarettes are available in most retail stores.
14 • Again, the proposed new store would clearly not be categorized as a smoke shop because it will
15 not sell any smoking accessories or tobacco products.
16 • E-Cigarettes are considered a regular retail good and there is no need for a tobacco license since
17 E-Cigarettes are not a tobacco product. Many consumers have successfully used E-Cigarettes to
18 wean themselves off of nicotine altogether by gradually moving to lower nicotine levels in the e-
19 liquids. An E-Cigarette consists of a battery and a metal glass or acrylic cartridge /tank which is
20 filled with a flavored e-liquid containing vegetable glycerin, flavoring and nicotine. The liquid is
21 heated to a relatively low temperature and vaporized producing no smoke.
22 • There have not been long term studies on E-Cigarettes and potential health effects. Because E-
23 Cigarettes have become popular, more studies are being conducted.
24 • A hookah pen is not the name of an electronic cigarette.
25 • An e-cigarette is not a tobacco product. It contains 99.9% lab grade nicotine in the mixes. The lab
26 grade nicotine is made from tobacco.
27 • Operates a very respectful business and would continue to do the same for the new shop.
28 • Sees his new business that would be located in the Downtown core as a `retail store' and not a
29 smoke shop and should be classified as such.
30
31 Planning Director Stump:
32 • Clarified if the Commission finds a link between tobacco and nicotine where a conclusion is
33 drawn between those lines, the business is clearly a smoke shop by definition of the DZC. A
34 smoke shop carries tobacco products. If this link cannot be made, then the business is simply
35 classified as retail.
36 • If the business is classified as a smoke shop by definition, the applicant cannot apply for a use
37 permit because a smoke shop is prohibited in the DZC.
38
39 Chair Whezel:
40 • Further research and information is necessary before any decision can appropriately be made
41 whether or not the store constitutes retail or is defined as a smoke shop.
42
43 Commissioner Sanders:
44 • It is clear that nicotine is derived from tobacco whether or not it is distilled chemically.
45 • Is of the opinion there is no gray area and that the E-Cigarette business would constitute a smoke
46 shop.
47 • Some of the Commissioners serving currently on the Planning Commission spent two years
48 formulating the DZC as to what uses would be appropriate in the Downtown area.
49
50 James McKenney:
51 • As an alternative would it be possible to expand his existing smoke shop in the Downtown since
52 he is more or less `grandfathered in.'
53
54 Planning Director Stump:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 15
1 • Under the DZC regulations, the applicant would not be able to expand his business. As it is, the
2 existing business is legal non-conforming. An expansion may be legal but it would be non-
3 conforming with the DZC regulations.
4 • Would encourage the applicant to do further research as there is more information to be gained.
5 E-Cigarettes is a new concept about which little is known.
6 • If the applicant were to file an application for a Use Permit tomorrow, staff does not have
7 sufficient information and/or the appropriate direction to say an application cannot be filed.
8 • It appears some Commissioners are finding the business has a direct link to tobacco and have
9 concluded the store is a smoke shop.
10 • Recommends continuing the discussion whether or not an E-Cigarette store use fits in the
11 Downtown based on the appropriate definitive information about this product.
12
13 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:09 p.m.
14
15 11. NEW BUSINESS
16 11A. December Meeting Schedule. Planning Commission review and determination of the December
17 2013 meeting schedule.
18
19 The Commission reviewed the schedule and agreed with staff's proposal to have a Planning Commission
20 meeting December 11, 2013 to review the Major Site Development Permit for the Costco Project.
21
22 On November 21, 2013 Planning Commission will review certification of the FEIR, Rezoning of parcels
23 and Statement of Overriding Considerations with a possible recommendation to Council.
24
25 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
26 • Building Permit numbers are up compared to last year at this time.
27 • There is interest in community development projects.
28 • Staff is working very hard on implementation of the new Citywide software system.
29 • Would like to get back to having training money available in the budget for the Planning
30 Commission.
31 • The Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update is underway. The consulting firm has been
32 selected.
33 • The Rail Trail Phase I from Gobbi Street to Clara Street will begin during next construction
34 season. This project is fully funded and ready to move forward with a nice rail trail from Gobbi
35 Street to Clara Street along the railroad tracks.
36 • The City has received additional funding for the State Street Streetscape project.
37
38 Commissioner Sanders:
39 • Asked about the cyclone fence that came out where the former Wendy's fast food restaurant
40 used to be and asked if this was a potential property to be developed.
41
42 Planning Director Stump:
43 • Has no knowledge for any potential development for this property at this time.
44
45 Staff/Commission discussion about the Blue Drug property and with it being a public eyesore and code
46 enforcement issue.
47
48 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
49 Commissioner Sanders asked if there are other Commissioners interested in attending the planning
50 training at Sonoma State University on December 7.
51
52 14. ADJOURNMENT
53 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
54
55 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2013
Page 16
The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing ��.�� ����� � /
What we don 't know — E-Cigarettes
Jul 22, 2013 —Lindsey Freitas
Recently, the World Health Organization issued a strong statement against the use of E-Cigarettes . It declared
that " Until such time as a given ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems) is deemed safe and effective and
of acceptable quality by a competent national regulatory body, consumers should be strongly advised not to
use any of these products, including electronic cigarettes. "
This declaration is part of a growing trend to warn and inform consumers of electronic cigarettes that the
dangers are not immediately known. At the national level, the FDA stated that e-cigarettes are not a cessation
device and conducted initial lab tests that found e-cigarettes contain detectable levels of toxic chemicals,
including an ingredient found in anti-freeze. Furthermore, these same lab tests found that cartridges labeled as
nicotine free did in fact contain traceable amounts of nicotine.
A recent article in the SF Chronicle, also touched on this idea, but with a very different conclusion. According
to the author, until further research is done, the legislature should stand back and wait. But many local cities
and counties in our state recognize the potential harm that these products could have on their citizens, and
have taken steps accordingly.
Although the Chronicle article reaches a different conclusion, it is based on the same premise that there is not
enough information to determine the safety of e-cigarettes. The World Health Organization and the FDA have
both taken the stance that these products could pose a risk. And there is evidence that later this year, the FDA
could begin to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. Until then, cities and counties across California are
taking steps to ensure the safety of their citizens by adopting regulations that require a license to sell them, or
even prohibiting their use in certain public areas . End story-----------------------------------
�The Food and Drug Administration is set to release proposed regulations on electronic cigarettes by
the end of November, a long awaited rnove that's been delayed in part by struggles to better
understand their potential health risks and benefits. In the meantirne, state and local governrnents
have been left to their own devices in regulating just where e-cigarettes can be used and to whom
they can be sold, leading to a vast and at times confusing array of outcomes .
A total of 24 states and a growing number of counties, cities and towns currently have laws on the
books restricting e-cigarette sales, many of which are aimed at keeping the products away from
people under the age of 18 . Electronic "vaping" may be a gateway to traditional smoking, the
argument goes. A recent st��dy from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that e-
cigarette use also doubled among teens from 2011 and 2012 . — End story-----------------
• New Jersey has voted to have e-cigarettes put into the same category as tobacco cigarettes, and
the same restrictions apply to them both under the New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act.
• As of July 2010, e-cigarette sales to minors in New Hampshire became illegal.
• Arizona is currently working on bai�uluzg the sales of e-cigs to minors.
� King County, Washington has banned both the use of e-cigarettes in public places as well as the
sale to minors. Pierce County, Washington, on the other hand also has banned sales to minors.
They do allow e-cigarettes to be used in public areas such as workplaces and bars though.
• Maryland has banned sales to minors.
• Iowa does not have specific e-cigarette bans, however the retail sale of them has been restricted
fo a certain degree . They are considered tobacco products, and in order to sell them in a retail
setfing, one must have a retail tobacco license.
• New York banned the sale of e-cigs on January 1, 2013. As of September 2012, New York also
banned the use of e-cigarettes within 100 feet of the entrance to any public or private school. ;
