HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05142014Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 14, 2014
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Judy Pruden
7 Kevin Doble Laura Christensen
8 Linda Sanders
9
10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
11 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
17 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
18
19 2. ROLL CALL
20
21 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
22
23 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the January 22, 2014 meeting are included for
24 review and approval.
25
26 M/S Doble/Sanders to approve the January 22, 2013 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (3-0).
27
28 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
29
30 6. APPEAL PROCESS
31
32 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
33
34 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
35
36 9. PUBLIC WORKSHOP
37 9A. Draft Climate Action Plan Workshop. Review and discuss the draft Ukiah Climate Action Plan,
38 hear from the public, and make recommendations to the City Council.
39
40 Planning Director Stump gave a staff report and suggested the Commission address greenhouse gas
41 reduction goals and strategies and adaptation strategies as provided for in chapter 4 of the Draft Climate
42 Action Plan for the City of Ukiah related to the subjects of'Energy', `Transportation and Land Use', `Solid
43 Waste' and `Water'.
44
45 Commissioner Sanders would like more information about the following topics and will defer discussion
46 until after the Commission hears from the public:
47
48 1) City Green Building Program
49 2) Energy Efficiency Hotline and audit. How much funding is available?
50 3) Draft Climate Action Plan, page 38, Table 4.3, How much are administrative costs?Appears to be
51 a big difference between years 2011 and 2012.
52 4) Her primary focus will be on water. Would like to know what incentives there are for water
53 conservation.
54 5) Will the Climate Action Plan limit CEQA?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 1
1 6) How does the City intend to show leadership? How will the City provide incentives?Will there be
2 consequences if leadership is not shown?
3
4 The Commissioners discussed the most effective way to conduct the workshop by first hearing from the
5 public, consider public comments/questions and provide individual Commission input pertinent to the
6 Draft Climate Action Plan rather than review the document page by page.
7
8 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:10 p.m.
9
10 Neil Davis, Walk and Bike Mendocino:
11 • The goal of his organization is to encourage people to walk and bicycle as much as possible and
12 leave their cars at home.
13 • Acknowledged to go from one end of Ukiah to another is relatively a short bicycle ride and does
14 not take much time. A two-mile bike ride takes 15 minutes.
15 • For persons that live and work in Ukiah walking and biking is a very realistic alternative. Is of the
16 opinion Ukiah is not culturally setup and does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to
17 effectively promote walkability and bicycling.
18
19 Commissioner poble:
20 • Asked if Mr. Davis had any particular comments related to strategies concerning the Draft Climate
21 Action Plan.
22 • Are there parts of the Plan that are lacking in being able to provide the infrastructure needed in
23 order for outreach programs to be successful?
24
25 Commissioner Sanders referred to Appendix D, City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan Workshop, Public
26 Survey and Results, dated April 24, 2014 and asked if Mr. Davis has had a chance to review the survey
27 results?
28
29 Related to the Climate Action Plan Workshop survey results, `Do you support this strategy?' section:
30 o No other information was provided about the participants other than 59 persons were Ukiah
31 residents, 30 persons were Ukiah business owners, 61 persons work in Ukiah and 24 persons
32 skipped the question. .
33 o Section - Transportation and Land Use, Improve or expand alternative commute options, Bike-
34 Sharing section, 20 persons responded `yes,' 53 responded `no,' and 20 persons responded
35 `unsure.' Is not certain how to interpret the persons that answered `unsure.'
36 o Section — Implement city-wide bike share program, 18 persons responded `yes,' 56 persons
37 responded 'no,' 18 persons responded `unsure.'
38 o Is hopeful associated outreach programs can assist with encouraging/promoting as well as
39 change people's thinking with regard to 'Transportation and Land Use' and proposed strategies
40 to improve/expand on commute alternatives and improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
41
42 Neil Davis:
43 • Has no particular issue with the document as it relates to strategies.
44 • Is supportive of public outreach programs such that his organization encourages persons to walk
45 and bicycle more. Encouragement also means investing in infrastructure. While there are
46 measures that can be taken to provide for necessary infrastructure, education is a key component
47 to the success of outreach programs.
48 • Acknowledged the Plan does lack information concerning how to provide for proper infrastructure.
49 • Has not reviewed the survey results. Related to the large number of negative responses, it may
50 be how the survey was structured/'framed' that triggered/prompted the type of responses given.
51 Essentially has no clue and/or understanding what people were thinking when they responded to
52 the survey questions. Really is remarkable to have that many negative responses to an outreach
53 program.
54 • It takes time/preparation and planning for an outreach program such as Walk and Bike
55 Mendocino to function properly/efficiently in accordance with its intended purpose.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 2
1 Planning Director Stump:
2 • Initial response to the public survey results is should the City develop a bike-sharing program like
3 that of San Francisco or Seattle where bicycles are available to share? The Climate Action Plan
4 does talk about City strategies for improving the bicycle network, corresponding infrastructure,
5 etc., as specifically addressed on pages 63 and 64 of the Plan relative to actions taken or to be
6 taken. One example of an action to be taken is `identify street right-of-way reconstruction
7 projects and costs for developing bike paths and lanes.'
8 • The City does have an adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that is in the process of
9 being updated this year.
10
11 Commissioner poble:
12 • It may be that grant funding is available for improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian
13 infrastructure as a safety precautionary measure.
14 • Asked about the commute options listed in the `Transportation and Land Use' section of the
15 survey. It may be the reason for the responses given were directly related to how the questions
16 were `framed' and if framed differently people might have a different opinion.
17 • Is of the opinion establishing a City-wide bike share program is a great idea event though it may
18 be lower on the list of priorities the City would undertake.
19
20 Planning Director Stump:
21 • Funding is likely available for safety reasons, but also for reasons that bicycling is a means of
22 alternate transportation.
23
24 Commissioner Sanders:
25 • Acknowledged there were several items listed under `Transportation and Land Use' for improving
26 or expanding alternative commute options to include: carpooling, public transit, bike-sharing,
27 telecommuting and guaranteed ride home program. While there were several options from which
28 to choose, was surprised bike-sharing initiated such a large negative response in the survey.
29 • Related to Transportation and Land Use, Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure section,
30 Implement Citywide bike share program, noted 18 persons responded `yes,' 18 persons
31 responded `unsure,' and 56 persons responded `no.'
32 • It is really difficult to know what the public was thinking when answering the questions. The
33 survey contains no overview and/or paragraph explanation before a person responds to the
34 survey.
35
36 Neil Davis:
37 • Related to the context of the question, it sounds like what is being asked is would you like the City
38 to invest in a bike share program. The City does not necessarily need to invest in a bike share
39 program because most of these type programs are operated as private enterprises where a
40 contract is entered into and through a variety of different mechanisms pays for the program.
41 • Comparatively speaking, it may be what the public is seeing with regard to the Transportation and
42 Land Use section questions is the least favorable of the options provided. So if the public does
43 not approve of the options, they give a negative response. There is really no way to know.
44 • Is not advocating a City-wide bike share program, but there is the possibility it could work with the
45 technologies that are continually changing such that there are technologies now available that
46 could potentially work in a town the size of Ukiah.
47
48 Chair Whetzel:
49 • Is of the opinion the public's interpretation of the aforementioned question is that the City would
50 be the primary entity/investor associated for implementing a City-wide bike share program.
51 • His experience such a program is managed by a private organization.
52 • Is of the opinion the reason for the negative responses relevant to the Transportation and Land
53 Use section is that improve/expand alternative commute options and improve bicycle/pedestrian
54 infrastructure is connected to the City. It is likely the responders thought the City would be
55 implementing the bike share program.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 3
1 Tina O'Shea, Mendocino County Public Health:
2 • Is not a Ukiah resident although she works in Ukiah.
3 • Related to possible grant funding opportunities to help the community heath-wise, finds it a huge
4 opportunity for the City Planning Commission and the Public Health Department to work together
5 to really consider` health' in our community when making planning decisions.
6 • Reduction of GHG emissions whenever possible improves our air quality and reduction of water
7 consumption helps to conserve our water supply.
8 • Related to Transportation and Land Use strategies that are talked about in the Climate Action
9 Plan not only reduce transportation needs and therefore reducing GHG emissions, but also has
10 an added element for improving the health of the community by allowing opportunities for
11 increased physical activities. The more physical activity a person receives the less risk a person
12 has for diseases, chronic or otherwise.
13 • A healthy community is a place people want to go and come back to.
14 • Supports living in a community that promotes/encourages walkability, pedestrian/bicycle-friendly
15 opportunities.
16
17 Chair Whetzel recommended the Commission review comments submitted to staff from Commissioner
18 Pruden and Jen Dalton:
19
20 From Judy Pruden:
21
22 Comment 1: Page 13 of Plan, Reduced snowpack, capitalize `March.'
23 Comment 2: Page 90, Reduced precipitation and water supply, that reads, ....... 'and a 20% decrease
24 by 2011' should read 2100.
25 Comment 3: Pages V and 32, definition of `Goal' should use General Plan's definition. It is a better
26 definition than the word `aspiration' in current proposed definition.
27 Comment 4: Page 43, bullet point section, add mention of building to local climate. In our case
28 ventilation which allows use of convection winds which cool 40 — 50 degrees in the
29 summer overnight.
30 Comment 5: Page 45, Under Strategy E.1.2, no mention of regulating the use of wood stoves or
31 fireplaces in residential units.
32 Comment 6: Page 48, DZC cited, is it 4 or 5 parking spaces for trees required? The Plan states, 'The
33 City's existing Downtown Zoning Code (2012, Article 18) requires a minimum of one
34 shade tree for every five parking spaces or trees provided to achieve 50°/o canopy
35 coverage of paved area at maturity, whatever is greater.
36 Comment 7: Page 60, would to see an incentive program for City staff that walk or bike to work.
37 Comment 8: Page 69, no mention of City of Ukiah Demolition Review Board, which has very good
38 success in helping applicants rehabilitate or recycle older buildings.
39 Comment 9: New economic development programs currently being done should be mentioned. There
40 is a new program at former police station and she is unable to recall the name.
41
42 Commissioner poble:
43 • It is his understanding with regard to energy factors within a residential structure that Title 24
44 does not give credit for the fact that windows can be opened but if on the other hand, there is an
45 opening that stays open always, you likely receive credit for it. Is of the opinion buildings are not
46 designed to have opening that is permanently open other than through the eaves and foundation.
47 • Related to energy conservation, language should say `encourage people to use their windows
48 and sliding glass doors rather than turning on the air-conditioner.' As such, this would be an
49 outreach component rather than a prescription for how a person should build his/her house. Is of
50 the opinion Comment 4 is not clear as to intent. It may be that in context, the concept in Comment
51 4 could be in reference to, an idea or something that is encouraged to consider rather than
52 prescribing it.
53 • Related to Comment 5, asked if woodstoves/appliances within the City limits are regulated by
54 Mendocino County Air Quality Control Board District? In some cities the installation of new
55 fireplaces/wood stoves are no longer allowed because of air density problems in the winter time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 4
1 Is of the opinion there are much greater things in the air that affect greenhouse gases to be
2 concerned about than wood burning appliances.
3 • As a former public employee found it rewarding to participate in an `Environmental Hero' award
4 program.
5 • Chapter 4 of the Plan suggests many strategies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that
6 are not necessarily policy-related and can be added as incentives. No money has to be
7 attached/included to allow for incentives.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • The intent of Comment 4 is to reduce energy consumption as much as possible without having to
11 use the air-conditioner.
12 • Understands that the regulating of wood burning appliances has already been dealt with by the
13 County and that no further action is necessary in the Climate Action Plan.
14 • Related to Comment 8, the intent may be to add historical reference. Could add establishments to
15 those already named that partner in the success of many GHG emission prevention strategies.
16
17 Staff:
18 • Comment 3, not a significant issue.
19 • Is of the opinion the intent of Comment 4 is limiting in that there is more to think about related to
20 our climate than just what is stated in this comment. It may be the language should be more
21 expanded/broadened specific to buildings, site layout and design/orientation of buildings,
22 awnings, and/or things that require less energy to heat/cool a building. The intent is get people to
23 think about energy conservation early on for developments. Recommends adding a general
24 statement in this regard.
25 • Comment 4, add mention that site layout and building design should address local climate
26 opportunities and challenges, such as proper orientation of buildings/awnings/windows, etc., and
27 recommends a general statement to this effect that reads, `Site layout and building design should
28 reflect local climate conditions.'
29 • Understands the City does not allow new wood burning appliances in residential areas. Staff will
30 confirm this. Likely helpful to acknowledge in Plan that new wood burning appliances are already
31 prohibited by the County Air District.
32 • Related to Comment 6, will confirm one shade tree for every four parking spaces is the rule.
33 • Related to Comment 7, Commission can recommend that the City Council consider some sort of
34 incentive for City staff that walk or bike to work.
35 • Acknowledged that Judy Pruden is correct in saying that the City of Ukiah Demolition Permit
36 Review Committee has assisted in helping applicants rehab and with promoting recycling of
37 materials for buildings that are being demolished and can add language in the Plan to this effect
38 to give recognition to the City in this regard.
39 • Related to Comment 8, there is a new tenant in the former police station building that is
40 essentially an environmental outreach occupation.
41 • Related to Comment 9, questions whether it is necessary to add new economic development
42 programs to the list of names that already partner with implementing/actions to reduce GHG
43 emissions.
44
45 Neil Davis:
46 • Important for local employers to participate in wellness programs by encourage employees to
47 walk or bike to work.
48
49 Samantha, Mendocino Public Health Department:
50 • Related to the goal of active transportation, did some analysis about the cost benefit to counties
51 for implementing active transportation programs and concluded looking at persons with chronic
52 illnesses that such persons can greatly benefit from participating in active transportation
53 programs and that there is actually a cost benefit associated. Having an active transportation
54 program would be a cost benefit to the County/City that would help persons with chronic illnesses
55 become healthier.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 5
1 • Will provide further information about the study results for those interested persons.
2 • For health reasons, really supports that people are encouraged to stay active through exercise.
3
4 Commissioner poble:
5 • Important to have the materials available to the public regarding the aforementioned analysis
6 conducted by Public Health.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Comment 1 and 2, okay.
10 • Comment 3, non-issue. No change.
11 • Comment 4, add a general statement about the intent such that it would be 'advisory' rather than
12 prescribed.
13 • Comment 5, The City has standards related to wood burning appliances. Acknowledge in Plan
14 that new wood burning appliances are already prohibited by the Mendocino County Air Quality
15 Control Board District.
16 • Comment 6, staff will confirm number of required parking spaces.
17 • Comment 7, supports having some mention of having an incentive program for City staff that walk
18 or bike to work in the Plan and/or incentive to address the strategies talked about in Chapter 4 of
19 the Plan.
20 • Comment 8, fine with adding language giving the City recognition concerning encouraging the
21 recycling of materials for buildings that are demolished.
22 • Comment 9, page 78, may be a good place to reference the City of Ukiah Demolition Permit
23 Review Committee. No further action.
24
25 From Jen Dalton:
26 • Page 64, Action TL-2.1 b: improve the bicycle network to make it friendlier for cyclists (i.e., update
27 and implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan)
28 Comment — Recommends clarifying the update to also include upgrades and repairs to current
29 bike lanes.
30 • Action TL-2.1c: Identify street right-of-way reconstruction projects and costs for developing bike
31 paths and lanes.
32 Comment— Recommends clarifying `developing'to include `improving existing' as well.....
33
34 Staff: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is being updated.
35
36 Commission:
37 • Fine with the recommendations made by Jen Dalton.
38
39 Commissioner Sanders:
40 • Referred to page 37 (Chapter 4) of the Plan that currently lists agencies that offer energy
41 reducing programs/opportunities and it may be a good idea to provide phone numbers for these
42 agencies to keep people informed, particularly the phone number for the Energy Efficiency
43 Hotline. Is of the opinion we should be promoting what we currently offer in the way of energy
44 efficient programs. For instance, a person might be interested in how to go about doing a home
45 energy audit? How does one find about energy efficiency incentive programs for
46 residential/commercial customers? How much money is available to qualified applicants? What is
47 the photovoltaic buy-down and rebate program that will end in 2017?
48 • Referred to table 4-3 on page 38 of the Plan and questioned years 2011 and 2012 related to City
49 rebates and administrative costs and noted there has been quite an increased in funding. Would
50 like more information about those years and how much of the program funding are administrative
51 costs?
52
53 Staff:
54 • Not a good idea to provide telephone numbers in this type of document because these often
55 change as do the agencies over time.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 6
1 Commissioner poble:
2 • Related to energy efficient rebate programs/energy efficient programs, is of the opinion people
3 would not be going to the Plan document to find out about specific programs. The intent of listing
4 the programs is to make people aware. Asked if there is information that needs to be included? It
5 may be that such information does not need to be mentioned in the document, but at some point
6 when the Plan is adopted/finalized some sort of a link is provided in this regard. It may be the
7 approach should be to take all of the education and outreach programs more from a global
8 standpoint and think about what the goals should be for the outreach programs like provide for
9 some sort of ineasurable standards for how staff moves forward with the outreach programs to
10 make sure the appropriate information is updated/available in the materials for public intake. This
11 could be in the form of a performance standard and/or check-off list for staff reference. What
12 typically occurs is that a lot of time is utilized putting together an education outreach document
13 only for it to become outdated/obsolete over time, such as a change in phone number/email
14 address, new replacement document or change in technology. As such, it would be a tedious task
15 to update all the information as they change. It may be for the Climate Action Plan, it should be
16 `framed' with just naming/identifying the program and stop at this without providing phone
17 numbers and/or other data/information that can become outdated over time.
18
19 Staff:
20 • Acknowledged Commissioner poble's comment and noted the Plan does discuss revisiting the
21 document every five years because data/information does change.
22 • What staff envisions is to take the document to City Council for consideration and adoption with
23 direction from the Planning Commission. If for some reason the document does not go to Council
24 by budget time, staff will be talking to Council about what the Planning Department will be doing
25 during the next fiscal year. Staff will be talking to Council about the Climate Action Plan and the
26 strategies to reduce GHG emissions and relevant education outreach programs. As such, there
27 will be programs to implement and staff will be asking for direction on how best to proceed.
28 • It is likely after the Plan is adopted staff will ask the Planning Commission to talk about the
29 document-related priorities and how to go about implementing outreach programs.
30
31 Commissioner poble:
32 • Is there any oversight to the outreach program document or is this done at staff level?
33
34 Staff:
35 • The aforementioned is up to the decision makers, City Council and the Planning Commission.
36 Staff would appreciate help in this regard.
37
38 Commissioner Sanders:
39 • The timeframe for the City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan for reduction in emissions covers 2013 to
40 2030. According to page 36 of the Plan and the associated municipal commitment the City of
41 Ukiah has relative to the amount of carbon emissions produced in our town sees that the top
42 three generators include: 48% of the carbon emissions generated from road transport; 24°/a from
43 the City landfill; 10% residential from residential energy. This is essentially the focus of her
44 feedback because it is going to take some time to reduce our carbon emissions and get some of
45 the outreach programs in place. Where is the money going to come from to reduce these carbon
46 emissions?
47 • While pleased for this climate action workshop, questions with regard to the survey results
48 whether or not the community is ready for a change. If there is no real material funding coming
49 through, it will be difficult for the City to meet its goals/objectives and questions what will occur if
50 the City is unable to meet its goals.
51 • It appears from the survey results the community is not ready for a change so it might be difficult
52 for staff to implement education outreach programs and improve infrastructure unless there is a
53 huge outpouring of partners supporting the message that change is necessary.
54 • Would like to encourage the document plan reflect that existing committees and commissions
55 support the Climate Action Plan and will rely on it for reference purposes when reviewing projects
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 7
1 or involved in policy-making decisions. Counted approximately 12 committees/commissions that
2 the City currently has from the City's website. These committees and commissions are `natural'
3 partners.
4 • Local water and water conservation have been the topic of discussion in the local newspaper and
5 at City Council meetings and noted some communities are really suffering as a result of drought
6 conditions. Is of the opinion that the issue of a tier structure for our City water rates needs to be
7 reviewed as to how we can do more systemic conservation for our water in the future because
8 the State of California historically has droughts. The City then gets concerned about generating
9 revenue because people are responsible/good citizens and start conserving their use of water
10 that results in the City raising water rates. This approach is not sustainable. Understands while
11 the City drills new wells for new water sources this is not helping the environment. Would like for
12 Council to be made aware of what occurs with regard to water rates and water conservation. The
13 City needs to have a workable/effective method having an economic benefit for conservation of
14 our water. Right now the City does not have an incentive to encourage water conservation. While
15 this incentive is in the Climate Action Plan document, is of the opinion it is not strong enough to
16 be heard with the strategies maintained to become an action plan that is realistic.
17
18 Staff:
19 • Where the money comes from is a Council discussion.
20 • The City will be pursuing an update to our general plan in a few years and sees the Climate
21 Action Plan as providing some of the foundation for this update. Once this document is essentially
22 built-in as a foundation for the general plan, it prompts the priorities.
23
24 Chair Whetrel:
25 • Views the process as having to start somewhere. Goals/objectives are necessary requiring
26 implementation measures. If funding does become available it will be used effectively to input
27 programs/strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions in our town. Bike sharing and other
28 outreach programs will come along and come out of adopting a climate action plan.
29 • Is of the opinion the City must be the lead agency in order for the Climate Action Plan to work
30 and/or be adaptive and the Planning Commission is a component/partner thereof. The Planning
31 Commission already uses City plans that have been adopted when reviewing projects.
32
33 Commissioner poble:
34 • Asked if the City is ready for change because 95% of the GHG emissions the City generates are
35 from the City landfill. The amount of GHG emissions coming from the Landfill is not quantified and
36 the Climate Action Plan provides no input about how to deal with this emission problem.
37 • `Transportation' is another large producing carbon emission category in which no strategy is
38 being addressed on how to effectively reduce this carbon emission problem.
39 • Is of the opinion the two largest GHG emissions categories are not being adequately dealt with
40 but at the same time we are asking for Code amendments and ordinances to be adopted that put
41 the burden on community members when we do not know the 'big picture yet.'
42 • While he supports the plan document and the overall intent, the big picture is not yet known. In
43 order to understand the 'big picture' the largest contributing carbon emissions categories (Landfill
44 and Transportation) articulated in Chapter 4 of the plan need to be quantified at least to the
45 degree we have sufficient information.
46
47 Staff:
48 • Acknowledged that the various City committees/commissions, i.e., for instance, Paths Open
49 Space and Creeks Commission, Traffic Engineering Committee, Demolition Review Committee
50 do take into consideration plans when making decisions and/or/creating/updating plans.
51 • Related to water conservation, the Public Works Director has indicated the City has a small
52 funding source for retrofit of and to provide for low flush toilets/shower heads to City residents.
53 This represents a starting point for encouraging replacement of inefficient water devices with
54 efficient devices.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 8
1 • City Council received a master water recycling program plan that has been approved by the State
2 such that half of the funding for phase 1 has been identified and/or secured. Phase 1 will allow for
3 recycled water from the City Waste Water Treatment Plant for agriculture use. There is an
4 implementation measure in the Climate Action Plan that talks about this and how it works.
5
6 Chair Whetzel:
7 • Agrees the City Landfill and transportation categories are the most significant generators of GHG
8 emissions in our community and a major stumbling block that will have to be dealt within the
9 Climate Action Plan.
10 • If we can reduce the City Landfill emissions without putting the burden on the residents would be
11 the ideal situation.
12 • Related to the issue of water consumption, never seems to go in favor of the bill payer.
13 • Would like the issues of the City Landfill emissions and water consumption be more closely
14 reviewed as to appropriate implementation measures.
15
16 Commissioner poble:
17 • Likes the idea of permit streamlining components and incentives, i.e., reduced parking incentives
18 for example. This type of approach encourages not only economic development but brings people
19 into the fold of green building development program that exists and is trying to flourish and/or be
20 successful and does help with climate change.
21 • Related to the issues of the City Landfill and transportation as being the largest sectors
22 contributing to the GHG emissions does not see that the City has real strategies prepared to
23 adequately address this problem.
24 • His only hesitation with recommending the Climate Action Plan be adopted today is the fact that
25 while there are strategies on how we are going to place conditions through the adoption of new
26 ordinances/regulations on citizens we do not know how much GHG emissions can really be
27 reduced overall with regard to the City Landfill and transportation because this data has not yet
28 been analyzed. It may be that such things can be encouraged rather than required if we are
29 successfully able to appropriately deal with the Landfill/transportation components and reduction
30 of GHG emissions. Is of the opinion the Plan document does not appear to be equitable where
31 more work is needed concerning the City Landfill and transportation component categories.
32 Specifically, Pages 79 and 80, Table 5-1, Implementation Summary Table of the Climate Action
33 Plan of , Landfill SW 2.1 and Transportation TL 1.3 and TL 1.4. This table essentially identifies
34 what categories have or have not been quantified.
35 • Mathematically/quantitatively speaking, taking 21% of the total GHG emissions in the area, 24°/a
36 is attributed to the City Landfill so when thinking about how those emissions can be reduced it
37 would appear that even reducing those emissions by 10% represents a significant amount. Even
38 reduction by 5%, 2% is significant for the overall area. Without figuring out how to proceed in this
39 regard would place a burden of restriction on residents and this is not fair/reasonable. Would like
40 to see more work in this area in terms of quantifying the categories of the City Landfill and
41 Transportation components and his recommendation to Council would be to take that position. It
42 may be the Plan document needs further review or may be the information is there and figured
43 out, but`not vetted out.'
44 • The other issue he has concerns water consumption. Disagrees with the statement on page 73 of
45 the document related to one of the strategies and goals to reduce community water consumption
46 by 20% by 2020 by installing low flow devices. The document states the benefit to the community
47 is that this will lower citizen's water bills. Cannot say that this statement is true because this is not
48 what happens. In reality, water bills increase when people conserve such that the community
49 leaders do not want to mandate conservation because they know down the road they will have to
50 implement a rate increase. Disagrees with the reason for implementing `low flow' devices since
51 this is not really what is going on. Supports the concept of reducing water consumption and
52 approves of the 20% reduction goal, but does 'not buy the reason' low flow devices are going to
53 lower the community's utility bill. Has the same issue with implementation measures for solar
54 because the City of Ukiah sells its own power to its residents. Is of the opinion we are in a unique
55 situation/quandary that needs to be worked out. This may require review of a rate study or a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 9
1 reevaluation of these issues he raises as well as the building-in mention of the drought conditions
2 so that there is a balanced rate structure.
3 • Although the Climate Action Plan is headed in the right direction and is generally in support of it,
4 there are few items that need to be clarified.
5
6 Staff:
7 • The aforementioned comments will be passed onto Council.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders:
10 • Water and power consumption rate schedules are structurally a 'disconnect.'
11 • Somehow we have to solve the problem that is the antithesis of encouraging conservation. There
12 is a way to do this and citied other countries that are successfully addressing climate change
13 issues.
14
15 Commissioner poble:
16 • Asked the other Commissioners if they agree with the statement that `reducing water
17 consumption by 20% by 2020' is going to lower the community's water bills? This aspect should
18 not be in the document that Council will be reviewing.
19
20 Chair Whetzel/Commissioner Sanders sees the statement as being untruthful and should not go to
21 Council as written unless this is seen as being the future goal.
22
23 Staff: Can the Commission come up with a replacement statement?
24
25 The Commission cannot come up with a replacement statement firsthand and asked why the statement
26 was not initially vetted?
27
28 Staff: This discussion is the vetting of the statement.
29
30 Commissioner poble will consider formulating a replacement statement before the Plan document goes
31 to Council.
32
33 Andrea Davis:
34 • As far as reducing community burden that may not specifically lower water bills, on the other
35 hand we are not having to build a new dam or drill for a new well somewhere so overall that
36 potential cost will go down for the community until it is necessary at which time water rates will
37 have to increase. Sees this as a far better justification for lowering of costs than saying water bills
38 will be reduced with the implementation of low flush devices. Acknowledged though future
39 watershed development and infrastructure is something that may need to be done for the benefit
40 of the community such that the community would have to share in the costs thereof since future
41 infrastructure improvements are essentially an investment in the future and representative of the
42 cost of doing business.
43
44 Commissioner poble:
45 • Agrees with the Ms. Davis. Looking at the statement in the Plan concerning water consumption
46 and costs is not what is really happening. To better justify cost increases it may be that a
47 statement should be included that future infrastructure improvements can be deferred until
48 necessary as a way to look at cost savings to the consumer as opposed to implementing low
49 flush devices, for instance, and call it a cost savings for lowering water bills when in fact this is not
50 really what happens.
51
52 Chair Whetzel:
53 • Preference would be to include a statement about deferring future infrastructure costs as a cost
54 savings as opposed to saying water bills will be lower as a result of implementing low flush
55 devices.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 10
1 • In the long term even if we do reduce water consumption and do not have to build a new dam or
2 drill a new well, there will be rate increases anyway. As such, the consumer was told a year or
3 two ago to conserve water and in turn the water rates increased because the City did not sell
4 enough water.
5 • Elaborated on County water issues, our water supply/water rights, and the interaction of different
6 agencies making decisions about our water and what essentially occurred with regard to Lake
7 Mendocino as a result and the effect on our water supply. It would appear that if there had been a
8 more aggressive push by local decision makers Lake Mendocino would now be full.
9 • The Climate Action Plan is pretty clear as it relates to CEQA review.
10
11 Staff:
12 • Has knowledge the City has funding set aside for capping the landfill and dealing with the
13 associated issue as has been discussed repeatedly over the years. May be a statement to this
14 effect should be added to the Plan to demonstrate/substantiate capping of the Landfill is a goal of
15 the City.
16
17 Commissioner poble:
18 • `Flaring' of the methane is a methodology that could be used at the Landfill. The only issue is that
19 there is no real indication of quantifying what 'flaring' might do. Carbon emissions at the Landfill
20 have gone down since 2005 to 2010 and it may be a normal occurrence for emissions to
21 decrease and important for people to be aware. As such, the mathematical curve concerning
22 emissions could continue downward, increase or level off. Again, the two largest contributors to
23 GHG emissions (Landfill and Transportation components) are not even on `the dartboard.'
24
25 Staff: These contributors may well be on the `dartboard', but more `silenY in the Plan. Staff will look into
26 this issue.
27
28 Mel Grandi, Director of Public Utilities:
29 • Talked about State mandated reports the City public utility department must complete related to
30 energy conservation issues.
31 • Talked about energy conservation programs/incentives the utility department offers to City
32 customers.
33 • Related to the Climate Action Plan supports education outreach programs that are energy-
34 conservation related.
35
36 Public Hearing Closed: 8:12 p.m.
37
38 Staff: Referred to Appendix A, GHG Inventory Methodology and the section on emissions quantification
39 methodology that contains information about the `City-operated Landfill.' While this section talks about
40 how emissions were quantified where no specific figures were given, the effort was made in the Plan
41 document to at least quantify the emissions coming from the Landfill as provided for on page A-7 of the
42 appendix. Drew attention to the fact this information is included in the methodology section.
43
44 Commissioner poble: The information does not mention the methodology of `flaring,' which is the
45 suggested strategy. Explained that the flaring process converts methane gas to COZ, thus greatly
46 reducing GHG emissions.
47
48 Commission consensus:
49 • Convey to Council that the categories relative to the City Landfill and the two transportation items
50 TL 1.3 and TL 1.4 that are not quantified need to be quantified and/or at least reflected in the
51 document that these areas will be quantified sooner or later.
52 • Convey to Council that review of the tiered rates for water may be necessary.
53
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 11
1 M/S Sanders/Doble to recommend City Council adoption of the City of Ukiah Climate Action Plan with
2 the comments/recommended changes made by the Planning Commission in the workshop as referenced
3 above. Motion carried (3-0).
4
5 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
6 Planning Director Stump:
7 • Will be no regular Planning Commission meeting on May 28.
8 • At the regular June 11 Planning Commission meeting a workshop will be conducted concerning
9 an implementation program for the MCOG Blueprint Plan that was adopted by MCOG.
10 Senior Planner Jordan provided an overview of the subject matter that will be discussed at that
11 meeting.
12 • City Council recently introduced an ordinance amendment for adoption concerning prohibition on
13 electronic moving message signs.
14 • A formal application has been filed with LAFCO for the Sphere of Influence update.
15 • A revision/update to the City's Housing Element has been submitted to the State Department of
16 Housing and Community Development in which the Commission will have the opportunity to
17 review.
18 • POSCC is working on the Doolin Creek Enhancement Plan and the Gibson Creek Canyon
19 Management Access Plan.
20 • The Planning and Building Department has implemented a new permitting software program.
21 • Reported on the new Outdoor Dining Program pertinent to businesses in the Downtown.
22 • Gave an update on the Palace Hotel violation abatement project and prospects for assistance by
23 way of a `Receivership.'
24
25 Commissioner Sanders inquired about the status of the former Wendy's site, the hospital, and post
26 offices.
27
28 Staff:
29 • Has received no development inquiries regarding the former Wendy's site.
30 • UVMC has submitted a revised application for the ED/ICU Expansion Use Permit and Site
31 Development. Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the Project.
32
33 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
34 Commissioner poble:
35 • Inquired whether City Code Enforcement is doing anything about the eyesore problems on the
36 Blue Drug property.
37
38 Director Stump: Code Enforcement is aware of the problems at the Blue Drug site.
39
40 Chair Whetzel asked about the landscaping for the new City Electrical Substation on Gobbi Street and
41 Orchard Avenue and noted there are weeds that need to be abated and asked who is responsible for
42 maintaining the landscaping which was intended as a demonstration landscape.
43
44 Staff will look into the matter.
45
46 12. ADJOURNMENT
47 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
48
49
50 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 14, 2014
Page 12