HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_06112014Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 June 11, 2014
3 M i n utes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair Kevin Doble
7 Linda Sanders
8 Judy Pruden
9 Laura Christensen
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
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 Commissioner Pruden reported the California flag in front of City Hall is in `tatters.'
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—The minutes from the May 14, 2014 meeting are included for review
26 and approval.
27
28 Commissioner Sanders made the following corrections:
29
30 Page 1, line 53, change `consumption'to `conservation.'
31 Page 5, line 13, change `City'to `County.'
32 Page 12, line 25, revise sentence to read, `Commissioner Sanders inquired about the status of the former
33 Wendy's site, the hospital, and post offices.'
34
35 Commission deferred approval of the May 14, 2013 minutes to the next regular meeting.
36
37 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
38
39 6. APPEAL PROCESS
40
41 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
42
43 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
44
45 9. PUBLIC WORKSHOP
46 9A. Implementation of the Vision Mendocino Blue Print Plan 2030 Local Food System Goals.
47 Review and discussion of the implementation of the local food system goals identified in the
48 Vision Mendocino 2030 Blue Print Plan.
49
50 Naphele Barrett, MCOG:
51 • Gave a project background/current effort overview concerning a State funded regional Blue Print
52 plan developed for Mendocino County and corresponding implementation strategies of the Vision
53 Mendocino 2030 Blue Print Plan Local Food System goals the contents of which are
54 incorporated into the minutes as attachments 1 and 2.
55 • Will answer any questions the Commission may have.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 1
1 Cliff Paulin, Mendocino County Food Policy Council:
2 • Gave an overview concerning MCOG Blueprint 2030 Local Food Initiative as described on page
3 1 of attachment 3 of the staff report also referred to in the minutes as attachment 3.
4 • Will answer any questions the Commission may have.
5
6 Commissioner Sanders:
7 • Related to the Blue Print grant expiring June 30, 2014, will there be a position funded with the
8 remaining available funds?
9 • What persons/groups/agencies make up the Mendocino County Food Policy Council?
10 • Would like to hear more about the preferred scenario/final plan relative to the local food system
11 where after browsing through the corresponding website found the overall grade for the local food
12 system to be a C- and inquired why this is being looked at now as a priority when this appears to
13 have a time constraint and there is not a lot of money to move forward in the other areas that
14 were graded higher.
15
16 Naphele Barrett:
17 • The grant amount was $60,000 and was used for work on the final phase of the blueprint
18 planning process that focused on the implementation of the plan that could not begin until Phase
19 III was completed. The funding was essentially used for costs associated with MCOG/local
20 agency staff time, training, direct costs and consultant services. As of June 30th, the funds will be
21 expended with no remaining funds for any type of funded position(s).
22 • Related to the rating system in the Blue Print plan, this was an exercise undertaken for Phase III
23 for the different growth scenarios that were developed and reviewed by the public. Some system
24 was needed for comparing the scenarios to each other and this is the reason the report card
25 system was formulated so that each scenario was graded in the different areas. The C- received
26 in `proximity to the local food source', measured new households that live within two miles of a
27 local food source where certain data was analyzed in this regard. What the results shows is not
28 necessarily a grade for level of importance, but rather shows there is room for improvement.
29 • Based on public feedback two scenarios emerged as the most supported and they include: 1)
30 Infill Growth Scenario; 2) Sustainable Local Resource Based Economy Scenario where a
31 mixture/hybrid of these two scenarios was created as the preferred scenario. The `Preferred
32 Scenario' received an `A' for its limited/little impact to resource lands and city and community
33 development meaning infill growth would be promoted and much of the new residential growth
34 would be focused in existing communities and cities, near transportation alternatives such as
35 transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities where development would occur in a manner that
36 would support and encourage growth in sustainable natural resource industries. The resource
37 lands themselves would be maintained, but development would occur nearby to promote active
38 use of the lands.
39 • According to the growth scenarios, some scenarios were strong while others were lacking. Those
40 lacking are the local food system and impacts to water districts where in areas that are
41 developed, the water systems are nearing their capacity so to allow and/or promote infill growth
42 impacts to water districts would have to be addressed.
43 • Of the guiding principles that support the preferred scenario in the Vision Mendocino 2030 plan,
44 the `Local Food System' requires the most work and improvement. The guiding principles and
45 corresponding Vision Mendocino 2030 implementation strategies address economic vitality,
46 natural resource conservation, focused development, transportation choices, adequate housing
47 supply community character and design, plan for future infrastructure and local food system.
48
49 Cliff Paulin:
50 • Mendocino County Food Policy Council is comprised of a broad spectrum of stakeholders that
51 include members of government (County Agricultural Commissioner/Public Health etc.), and
52 people in the non-governmental sector such as farmers/ranchers, and persons/agencies that
53 work with food and population related issues associated with low-income persons/families.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 2
1 • MCOG has contracted with Mendocino County Food Policy Council (FPC to assist in
2 implementation of enhancing the local food system and promoting sustainability and these efforts
3 also compliment the work of the EPC as identified in the Food Action Plan (FAP).
4
5 Commissioner Sanders:
6 • Related to the survey results and an appendix in the Final Plan, found the Countywide top
7 priorities very telling. Focusing on Ukiah, transportation, roads, jobs and public transit were of
8 high priority. For Willits, local food system and sustainability and water quality conservation were
9 of high priority. For Fort Bragg, the local food system and sustainability and alternative
10 transportation were rated high.
11 • Finds the survey results noteworthy and interesting where communities that were developed are
12 located. Calpella and Ukiah are among those communities.
13
14 Naphele Barrett:
15 • The `mapping' of communities was the result of public workshops, online exercises, etc., where
16 the highest Blue Print plan priorities were selected and rated for each of these communities,
17 Countywide.
18 • Specific to Ukiah, the highest priority was improving transportation and road infrastructure,
19 followed by providing more or better jobs, improve public transit, improve housing supply choices
20 and affordability, and preservation of agricultural resources.
21 • The data received from County outreach efforts was used to build the concepts of the scenarios
22 where 2030 Blueprint Plan identified five priority issues for Mendocino County: 1) provide more
23 or better jobs; 2) enhance the local food system; 3) improve alternative transportation; 4) improve
24 housing supply choices and affordability; 5) improve water quality and encourage water
25 conservation. These priorities are reflected in the report card system that was established for the
26 growth scenarios. The intent is to incorporate those priorities into the alternate growth scenarios.
27 When talking about data and mapping, some things are easier to map than others.
28
29 Commissioner Sanders:
30 • Sees that enhance the local food system is a level II priority of the five top priorities established
31 as a whole, Countywide.
32
33 Commissioner Pruden:
34 • Listened to a lengthy discussion from Jen Daulton regarding the blueprint planning effort and
35 asked if Mendocino County Food Policy Council was an appointed and/or grassroots council and
36 where does funding come from? When the MCOG grant funding ends June 30t"' how will
37 Mendocino County Food Policy Council be affected?
38
39 Cliff Paulin:
40 • Confirmed Mendocino County Food Policy Council is a `grassroots' council. There was some
41 funding that came through Mendocino County Public Health at one point to fund staff. Jen
42 Daulton is the Council coordinator so this is the Council's only staff support person. This funding
43 will be coming to a close later on in the year.
44 • The Council is seeking additional funding from a number of sources. The existing contract does
45 not affect the ongoing operations since the Council is contracted on a short term basis to provide
46 assistance to MCOG relevant to implementation strategies of enhancing the local food system
47 and promoting sustainability. There will be no effect on the ongoing work of the Council when this
48 contract expires. Other than Jen Dalton, Mendocino County Food Policy Council is a voluntary-
49 based council.
50
51 Commissioner Sanders referred to attachment 3 of the staff report and asked questions related to
52 `Cottage Food Operations.'
53 • What are `listed non-hazardous foods?'
54 • How might a cottage food operation impact a residential neighborhood?
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 3
1 Cliff Paulin:
2 • Listed non-hazardous foods were initially outlined in the California Homemade Food Act. There
3 was a list of foods that was considered non-hazardous meaning at a low risk for contamination of
4 botulism and that list is being expanded by the California state legislature over time. Provided the
5 Commission with a current list of non-hazardous foods.
6
7 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report:
8 • Mendocino County Food Policy Council (FPC) has met with planning staff from Fort Bragg,
9 Willits, Ukiah and the County of Mendocino to identify priority areas needing work. Four primary
10 topic areas were identified as part of a work plan. The identified areas of interest and importance
11 for local agencies that were determined to be feasible for implementation within the grant
12 timeframe were: 1) State law for cottage food operations 2) community gardens 3) backyard
13 animals 4) urban produce stands. Since the grant funding ends shortly, the workshop tonight is
14 the only opportunity to put forth some ideas in response to other public/local agency discussions
15 concerning the four primary topics identified above and determine whether or not these topics are
16 of sufficient interest and importance such that possible City code amendments that involve public
17 noticing processes, and review by the Planning Commission and City Council would be
18 necessary.
19 • `Cottage food operations' is not addressed at all in the Zoning Ordinance. The FPC in attachment
20 3 provides a summary of the discussions related to each of the four aforementioned primary
21 topics. Attachment 4 of the staff report includes the closest City zoning information related to
22 these four primary topics.
23 • Staff receives inquiries from people that have an expressed interest in these topics.
24 • The Planning Commission as land use decision makers or that makes recommendations to
25 Council, has the opportunity to provide feedback regarding these topics before the grant expires
26 June 30th. Essentially what the available grant funds provide is an opportunity to potentially
27 amend existing City codes to implement Vision Mendocino 2030 Blue Print and to address areas
28 of interest that have been expressed by public members and decision makers.
29 • Staff requests the Commission review and discuss the information and provide direction to staff.
30
31 Cottaqe Food Operations
32
33 Chair Whetzel:
34 • There is likely a lot of cottage food operations already occurring in the community where people
35 are preparing food at home and selling it without it being codified.
36 • Supports that people can legally do in-home food preparation for retail sale.
37
38 Commissioner Pruden:
39 • Language in paragraph 2 of attachment 3 states, `grant a nondiscretionary permit to use a
40 residence as any cottage food operation that complies with local ordinances prescribing
41 reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning spacing and concentration,
42 traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to those homes,' and commented we do not use
43 the term `nondiscretionary permit.' The most common term is `ministerial permiY which does not
44 require the discretionary act.
45 • The language in paragraph 3 of attachment 3 states, `Require any cottage food operation to apply
46 for a permit to use a residence for its operation,' refers to the permit process and agrees with the
47 concept in this regard. The Zoning Administrator would review minor use permits and the
48 Planning Commission would review major use permits.
49 • Mendocino County Environmental Health ensures that food safety handling procedures are met
50 where a permit to operate must be obtained. The Planning Commission has no regulatory power
51 over County Environmental Health.
52 • It may be the threshold defining Cottage Food Operations has already been set with the quantity
53 of food that can be produced and net sales, etc. Once a business goes past this threshold, it
54 creates other affects, such as bigger kitchens that would likely require a use permit and/or some
55 type of review process. It may be if a cottage food business is small initially, it would not create a
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 4
1 problem for a neighborhood. Is of the opinion the most important element related to `Home
2 Occupation' is that the residential character of the neighborhood is not disrupted.
3
4 Senior Planner Jordan:
5 • Related to allowance of Cottage Food Operations (CFOs) under zoning regulations and the three
6 options for how to treat CFOs this could be a nondiscretionary/discretionary permit or through the
7 ministerial process with the point being is if that business meets the requirements there is no use
8 permit required. While our authority is somewhat limited it may well be that the law would require
9 a discretionary permit to operate.
10 • The feedback staff is asking for is how permissive or regulatory does the Commission think we
11 should be related to this particular use.
12 • Supports the approach to be taken for Cottage Food Operations similar to how certain uses are
13 treated in the DZC and this is if the use complies with all the requirements, the use would be
14 allowed by right.
15 • If the Commission sees a value in requiring a use permit for CFOs this should be discussed. If the
16 Commission has concerns about certain impacts that this use could create in neighborhoods the
17 potential impacts should be identified.
18
19 Chair Whetzel:
20 • Asked if there was already a definition for a cottage industry/cottage food operation such that this
21 language could be modified and incorporated into as the City's requirements related to Cottage
22 Food Operations.
23
24 Commissioner Christensen:
25 • Would like to have a better understanding of what is being asked of the Commission here tonight
26 with regard to attachment 3, MCOG Blueprint 2030 Local Food Initiative.
27
28 Senior Planner Jordan:
29 • Is asking the Commission to determine how CFOs should be treated with regard to
30 rules/regulations. Does the Commission approve of the use? Does the Commission want to be
31 permissive about how this use should be treated and provide for a set of standards that cottage
32 food operators must comply with or does the Commission want to have more oversight, public
33 notice and require a use permit?
34 • In the context related to cottage food operations does the Commission have concerns about how
35 this use may positively/negatively impact or not impact the neighborhood? Cottage Food
36 Operations is considered an accessory use in a residential area.
37
38 Commissioner Sanders:
39 • Is generally fine with having Cottage Food Operations but has concerns about how this use could
40 impact neighborhoods, particularly with regard to parking in neighborhoods that are really dense.
41 • Buying homemade food at a particular residence is certainly an option.
42 • Expressed concern how CFOs could impacUaffect the Farmer's Market. Would competition be
43 encouraged between a home-retailer versus sales at the Farmer's Market?
44
45 Chair Whetzel:
46 • Related to Cottage Food Operations, does not see people coming to a house buying homemade
47 food off the front porch.
48
49 Senior Planner Jordan:
50 • If Cottage Food Operations were competitive with the Farmer's Market would this be considered
51 a negative?
52
53 Commissioner Sanders:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 5
1 • Would like to hear from people that run the Farmer's Market about their opinion on the potential
2 for Cottage Food Operations. Has no knowledge whether or not people that run the Farmer's
3 Market have been part of the discussions.
4 • Has no opinion at this point about whether CFOs should require a use permit.
5 • Likes that State law governs CFOs. Has concern if cottage food businesses became so popular
6 how this would be addressed and the other concern is what options do the neighbors have.
7 • Asked about public noticing?
8
9 Commissioner Pruden:
10 • Under State law can food be shipped via internet? We should know what ingredients go into the
11 food. A chocolate chip cookie looks like a chocolate chip cookie, but what is in it?
12 • Views cottage food industries the same as `Home Occupations.' With Home Occupations, the
13 intent is to not detract from but rather to preserve the character of the neighborhood by carefully
14 looking at traffic, signage, and/or any potential nuisance issues. A cottage food operation would
15 not really differ from that of a CPA home occupation with clients coming in a few times a day. The
16 City currently allows Home Occupations. Would like cottage food industries to be subject to the
17 discretionary review process that could be a minor use permit so that the public has the
18 opportunity to express their concerns.
19 • Sees Cottage Food Operations as a doable kind of business.
20 • Cottage Food Operations is a new use. Restaurants are prohibited as a home occupation in
21 residential areas. The DZC prohibits food handling/processing/packaging. In terms of Cottage
22 Food Operations being a new use would like to begin with a more conservative approach and
23 make this a separate use from that of Home Occupation having discretionary review to make
24 certain the use is not creating a problem and once any/all issues are addressed it may be
25 `Cottage Food Operations' would be looked the same as `Home Occupation.' Regardless, a
26 business license must be obtained the same as for a Home Occupation.
27 • Referred to Zoning Ordinance section 9278, Home Occupations, definitions and noted this
28 section would likely have to be modified should CFOs become a legitimate and recognized use.
29
30 Cliff Paulin:
31 • There are two types of Cottage Food Operations that are permitted under State law regulating
32 this use: 1) Class A operations (Direct Sales only) and Class B operations (indirect sales also
33 allowed) and explained how these work.
34 • Currently food cannot be shipped via the internet and/or sales by mail and is a discussion that is
35 happening within districts, statewide including with environmental health directors. There are
36 differing interpretations of state law as to whether internet sales or sales by mail should be
37 permitted or not.
38 • Related to CFOs acknowledged there is the issue of addressing traffic in the neighborhood and in
39 terms of whether the Farmer's Market would be supportive or not is not known. People selling
40 their food there would have to follow the same procedures as that of any vendor at the Farmer's
41 Market.
42
43 Commissioner Christensen:
44 • Related to non-hazardous foods, asked about regulations for edible cannabinoids, such as
45 homemade cookies, candy. This is something the Commission should think about.
46 • A person working in the cottage food industry trying to create edible food to sell in a dispensary
47 he/she would likely have onsite oils or quantities of marijuana, etc. Would have to think about how
48 the City has handled marijuana growing operations. While somewhat permissive about this type
49 of cottage food industry operation would want to make certain neighborhoods stay safe. `A
50 chocolate chip cookie looks like a chocolate chip cookie' to a child. Children are very susceptible
51 to ingesting such items. It is not the Commission's job to solve that particular problem, but if we
52 are going to allow cottage industry food production the subject of cannabinoids, cannabis oils
53 etc., and marijuana will come up and people will have concerns in this regard.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 6
1 • Has concern about impacts to neighborhoods such as parking, traffic that must be looked at if
2 code amendments are to occur. Is of the opinion residential neighborhoods and citizens should
3 be protected from having their neighborhoods inundated with cottage food industries.
4
5 Cliff Paulin:
6 • The Homemade Food Act does not currently speak to edible cannabinoids/marijuana. To become
7 a cottage food operator one has to go to County Environmental Health and list what foods are
8 going to be produced for sale. Has no knowledge whether County Environmental Health has
9 made a determination about edible cannabinoids and is of the opinion edible cannabinoids would
10 not likely be permitted.
11 • The intent for CFOs is to develop requirements similar to Home Occupations that are consistent
12 with State law while ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses and development and
13 compliance with City code related to noise, grease trap/water waste, parking requirements and
14 development standards.
15 • Currently, Under section 51035 of the California Homemade Food Act local jurisdictions have
16 three options for how to treat CFOs under zoning regulations that are outlined in attachment 3
17 concerning Cottage Food Operations. Should an entrepreneurial Cottage Food business become
18 successful and expand, the business would have to go to a larger commercial kitchen facility.
19 • With the criteria to be considered relative to CFOs, the driving factor related to allowing them is
20 that the residential quality of the neighborhood must always be maintained.
21
22 Senior Planner Jordan:
23 • Related to the discussion of possibly requiring a minor use permit and/or treating Cottage Food
24 Operations like that of `Home Occupations,' the City does not require a minor use permit for
25 Home Occupations. Instead, there are certain requirements that must be looked at related to the
26 benefit and purpose of allowing a particular Home Occupation in a residential neighborhood.
27 • Would not recommend putting CFOs into the Home Occupation definition that we have. A better
28 approach might be to do something closer to what the DZC requires related to Home Occupation.
29 Under the DZC, if a business complies with all the requirements that are intended to address the
30 potential impacts associated with a particular use, the use would be allowed by right. Utilizing this
31 approach eliminates the need for a use permit until which time certain thresholds are reached
32 where, for instance, a business owner might have to expand his/her residential cottage food
33 operation to a commercial business and/or for some other type of opportunity that may require a
34 use permit.
35 • As far as tonight's objective, is asking if the Commission approves of the path taken with regard
36 to CFOs information that is being presented and considered in terms of the level of permitting as
37 opposed to a discussion about which City codes to modify and how. We are not there yet.
38 • Staff will be looking at different code sections to determine which are relevant to CFOs.
39 Accordingly, the approach staff will likely take is to have applicants complete a form as to what
40 food(s) will be produced and how this would work, including a floor plan. City Public Works,
41 Planning and Building and Fire departments would also review this application. The Planning
42 department would review the project for consistency with the applicable standards required for
43 this use. County Environmental Health and Public Health would also review the project.
44 • Currently for a Home Occupation, no public noticing is required and a person applying for a
45 business license to operate, is asked briefly to describe what is being done in the residence in
46 checklist format and the Planning department advises of what the limitations are associated with
47 the use and signs off on the business license. There are no other requirements.
48
49 Commissioner Pruden:
50 • The DZC would have to be amended because food handling/processing/packaging is not
51 allowed.
52
53 Senior Planner Jordan:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 7
1 • Clarified that food handling/processing/packaging does not pertain to the home industry but rather
2 intended for a use that is the primary use. Cottage food industries are accessory uses for
3 residential areas.
4 • A business license would be required for a cottage food business in a residential area.
5 • Cottage Food Operations is a new type of use that some people choose not to pursue. Since the
6 use is new not all of the requirements have been worked out by the governing agencies.
7
8 Chair Whetzel:
9 • Preference would be to have some type of discretionary review although it appears this is
10 covered.Would like the Zoning Administrator to review cottage food business permit applications.
11 • Inquired about the procedure and whether the checklist asks whether the applicant has approval
12 from County Environmental Health and Public Health and obtained a City business license?
13 • Again, would like to see some sort of oversight with regard to CFOs.
14
15 Senior Planner Jordan:
16 • The Zoning Administrator reviews minor use permits and asked if this is the objective Chair
17 Whetzel has in mind?
18 • For a non-discretionary use permit we create the standard. An application form can be created
19 where various questions are asked related to information that demonstrates how he/she is in
20 compliance with the requirements. There would be a section where each relevant City
21 department or County agency can review the application and sign off or not. The non-
22 discretionary approach does not involve the Zoning Administrator and means that some member
23 of the Planning staff which could be the Director of Planning reviews the information provided and
24 requirements for compliance with the zoning regulations and signs off or not on that form.
25
26 Commissioner Christensen:
27 • It appears the Commissioners are going with Option 2 of attachment 3 and asked if the
28 Commission were to go with Option 1, that there is really nothing the applicant has to do where
29 he/she can just start baking?What about enforcement of standards?
30
31 Chair Whetzel:
32 • With the handling and inspection classifications would a Class B require a higher level of review?
33
34 Senior Planner Jordan:
35 • Related to Option 1, regulation of the use is essentially whether or not the applicant complies with
36 the rules set forth in the standards. The standards include approval from County Environmental
37 Health and County Health, as well as various City departments.
38 • Related to Option 2, the value in this is people are more serious about what they are doing having
39 to complete a form/checklist with approval from various agencies and city staff.
40
41 Ciff Paulin:
42 • A Class A or Class B represents the level of review Environmental Health has to do.
43
44 Commission consensus:
45 • Is fine with non-discretionary approach (Option 2 of attachment 3) provided the applicant
46 complies with the required standards such that if a person is in violation with a standard that has
47 been established this would be a code enforcement issue that would have to be addressed.
48
49 Communitv Gardens:
50
51 Senior Planner Jordan:
52 • The City has community gardens and all have gone through the use permit process.
53 • Community gardens in the DZC are allowed by right subject to compliance with specific
54 requirements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 8
1 • The intent would be to allow community gardens by right in appropriate zoning districts
2 throughout the City and to use the existing requirements for community gardens included in the
3 DZC as specifically provided for in attachment 3 relevant to the community gardens section.
4
5 Commission consensus:
6 • Community gardens are good for the community and highly support the concept.
7 • Supports staff recommendation to model the DZC requirements for community gardens in all
8 zoning districts.
9
10 Backvard Animals
11
12 Senior Planner Jordan:
13 • The City receives regular inquiries about having chickens in backyards. The City currently allows
14 chickens, rabbits and one bee hive per parcel with approval of a minor use permit and prohibits
15 roosters, turkeys, ducks, geese, and swine and referred to Zoning Code section 9182: Animals
16 within the City.
17 • The City of Fort Bragg recently adopted an ordinance for certain animals that are allowed subject
18 to specific regulations, i.e., for example setbacks, minimal parcel sizes:
19 o Bees
20 o Fowl, aviary, poultry(roosters are prohibited)
21 o Hogs and swine
22 o Cows and horses
23 o Small animals (chinchillas, rabbits, other small animals)
24 o Goats, sheep, pot belly pigs
25 o Large animals (emus, Ilamas, miniature horses, donkeys, ostriches, other similar
26 animals)
27 • Asked the Commission to identify the types of animals that would be appropriate in the City.
28
29 Chair Whetzel:
30 • Okay with beekeeping, fowl, small animals, goats, sheep depending upon parcel size.
31 • Not okay with hogs and swine, cows and horses, large animals.
32 • Preference would be for the applicant to complete a form identifying the type of animals he/she
33 wants to have and what they would use the animals for.
34 • While allowing a goat for purposes of milk would be acceptable, having a horse on a City lot
35 would not. Could see having a horse on an acre lot.
36 • Would be inclined to go with an `Option 2 scenario' like that of the cottage food industry having a
37 non-discretionary permit.
38
39 Commissioner Pruden:
40 • Agrees with Chair Whetzel.
41 • Has chickens that actually predate the City code in this regard. City residents are allowed six
42 hens and no roosters.
43 • Just about any kind of fowl is noisy. Chickens are acceptable, but other types of fowl such as
44 turkeys would be too noisy in a residential neighborhood.
45 • Would defer to two city staff that keep bees as to how this is done. While beehives are excellent,
46 bees do swarm.Would need to know more about the swarming of bees.
47 • Has no problem with small animals (chinchillas, rabbits, other small animals).
48 • Goats have quite a bit of odor. Have to be cognizant of animals that make noise, which would not
49 be appropriate in neighborhoods.
50 • Miniature horses are identified under the ADA laws as an acceptable ADA service animal. Sees
51 no problem with a person having an ADA horse provided there is adequate acreage. An ADA
52 horse would be acceptable in the hillside district. Hillside districts require discretionary review.
53 • Adequate acreage would be also be necessary for hogs and swine, cows and horses, goats
54 sheep, pot belly pigs.
55 • The animals could be kept as pets or for food.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 9
1 • Weavers keep rabbits for purposes of harvesting their fur.
2
3 Senior Planner Jordan:
4 • Some people might want to have sheep for wool purposes.
5 • The average lot size in the City is 6,000 sq. ft. Asked the Commission to think about what type,
6 how many, humane treatment and/or factors associated with backyard animals that would be
7 appropriate on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot with certain requirements. Further asked the Commission to
8 keep in mind what animals are currently allowed in the zoning code.
9 • The City does have some larger lot sizes where some of the animals on the Fort Bragg model of
10 acceptable backyard animals could be considered as acceptable.
11
12 Chair Pruden:
13 • Has a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, and while her chickens are grandfathered in because of having raised
14 them for so long before codification in this regard, does comply with lot setbacks. Will say that by
15 the time the setback requirements are met it is difficult to provide for a chicken coup of sufficient
16 size.
17 • Rabbits would require a hutch that would not take up too much space. However, any other type of
18 animal that needs to be penned would need at least 100 sq. ft. The animals have to live in a
19 humane environment.
20
21 Commissioner Sanders:
22 • Would like more information about the keeping of backyard animals. Notes the City of San
23 Francisco has very specific requirements about the keeping of backyard animals since the
24 neighborhoods are very dense. Would like to see what the policies are for backyard animals in
25 other jurisdictions in terms of the numbers and type of animals allowed.
26 • Asked if feedback from the County Agriculture Commission was part of the process for Fort
27 Bragg. What kind of research did Fort Bragg use to come up with the number and type of animals
28 for its backyard animal ordinance?
29 • Related to responsible caretaking of animals asked if the City of Fort Bragg discussed how
30 backyard animals in neighborhoods were going to work.
31
32 Cliff Paulin:
33 • The City of Fort Bragg recently updated its land use code to address backyard animals and
34 explained the requirements.
35 • Jurisdictions treat the keeping of backyard animals differently. The most applicable jurisdiction to
36 the City of Ukiah would be the Fort Bragg standards established for backyard animals.
37 • Related to the animals allowed in the zoning districts, would need to specify the number allowed,
38 locational requirements in terms of setbacks from property lines, minimum parcel sizes and
39 other/or related possible requirements to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and
40 development and compliance with City code.
41 • Does not know if the County Agriculture Commission was involved with the City of Fort Bragg
42 land use code update related to backyard animals. It is likely Fort Bragg looked at other
43 jurisdictions and codes related to backyard animals where the corresponding Planning
44 department came up with code requirements that made sense.
45 • Does not know if the zoning code specially addresses the humane treatment of animals. Local
46 and State law would likely address this issue. Also, any complaint from a neighboring property
47 owner about living conditions and/or treatment would be investigated by the appropriate agency.
48
49 Chair Whetzel:
50 • Is unable to continue chairing the meeting and asked Commissioner Pruden to chair.
51 • Likes the standards the City of Fort Bragg has adopted for the keeping of backyard animals.
52 • Related to the topic of `Urban Produce Stands,' there may be some conflict with the Farmer's
53 Market. Important to look at what produce stands would be appropriate and to make certain the
54 standards developed comply with surrounding uses and development and City code relative to
55 noise, parking, and development standards.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 10
1 • Would like to see the same type of review for`Urban Produce Stands' as that of the Cottage Food
2 Operations where an applicant must complete a form/checklist. The applicant would be required
3 to disclose what type of produce is being sold, the location, the size of the stand, parking/people
4 driving to the stand, and/or other relevant information for Planning staff to review in terms of
5 potential impacts to the neighborhood and compliance with City code standards. Want to keep
6 our neighborhoods quiet and happy by making sure all impacts are addressed even though the
7 produce stands may occur infrequently/seasonally.
8
9 Commissioner Christensen:
10 • Is concerned about backyard animals having sufficient living space.
11 • If someone were keeping chickens or rabbits for meat purposes in a residential neighborhood
12 what about the oversight as to how they are butchered?
13
14 Acting Chair Pruden:
15 • It may be that people are prohibited from disposing of certain kinds of carcasses with the local
16 garbage company.
17 • Likes Fort Bragg's approach noting it to be reasonable. Sees no purpose in keeping animals that
18 do not produce, such as milk or eggs or where fur is harvested or to allow people to keep unusual
19 pets, such as an ostrich.
20 • In addition to quantifying the size of the flock, determining the size of the lot for larger animals, do
21 not allow animal species that do not produce something. Some of the animals listed do not make
22 sense in the City limits, such as Ilamas. Llamas make sense in the County on property where
23 there is sufficient acreage. There is a point where certain animals do not fit in an urban setting,
24 such as emus, Ilamas, donkeys, and ostriches. These kinds of animals can get lose in town
25 where time and money is spent dealing with the problem.
26 • Cows and goats in particular are milk producing animals. However, there may be a problem with
27 the local garbage company about the disposing of carcasses if animals are being kept for meat.
28 This needs to be checked on.
29 • The humane treatment of animals is very important.
30 • Related to the Fort Bragg model of animals allowed in residential area, some would serve no
31 purpose other than to satisfy someone's ego.
32 • Would be okay with allowing some of the larger animals on the model list on large size parcels,
33 but that the amount of acreage needs to be clearly established.
34 • Cited a person that resides in the hillside zoning district who brings in goats from time to time to
35 eat the grass. Does not have a problem with this.
36
37 Cliff Paulin:
38 • Law that governs slaughtering is related to where the animal is destined for. Meat intended for
39 home consumption are subject to rules for ranch/facility slaughter and state inspections. There is
40 no prohibition and/or state law against people processing animals for their own home use. This
41 might be something the Commission would want to consider.
42 • It is unlikely the slaughtering of backyard animals would generate much additional noise.
43 • Added there is a distinction between animals that are permitted and animals that reside on a
44 temporary basis, such as for vegetation control.
45 • The City of Willits has language in their zoning code that addresses sheep and goats being
46 brought in for temporary vegetation control and is allowed for no more than four weeks in a six
47 month period.
48
49 Acting Chair Pruden:
50 • It may be the City of Ukiah should also have zoning code language that addresses having
51 animals for temporary vegetation control.
52
53 Cliff Paulin:
54 • The distinction is related to the number of animals. If there is a larger herd of goats that come in
55 for a short period time, it is likely to have a smaller impact on the neighborhood than the number
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 11
1 of goats residing on a permanent basis. Placing a distinction on the number of animals and
2 acreage is worthy of consideration.
3 • City of Ukiah can certainly modify what the City of Fort Bragg has done relevant to the keeping of
4 backyard animals, but the intent for Fort Bragg was to establish a set of standards that did not
5 require so much time of staff to process the permit application. The City of Fort Bragg depending
6 upon what type of parcel and the zoning allows specific animals as a permissive use. Of course
7 for areas of higher density for certain uses a permit would be required. While looking at the lot
8 size and type of animal is important, looking at the level of staff time oversight is required to
9 process the use permit is also important. More often than not a $500 application fee does not
10 really cover staff time.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders:
13 • Is not convinced that expanding on what we are currently doing with regard to backyard animals
14 other than fowl is the way to go. As far as miniature horses, pot belly pigs would need more
15 information.
16
17 Acting Chair Pruden:
18 • It is likely that when the standards are established most of the lots in Ukiah will not qualify.
19 • Related to keeping chickens, the $500 fee to process the use permit is the reason the City does
20 not see more chickens in residential areas.
21 • Finds having chickens to be very beneficial in so many ways.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan:
24 • For chickens, if certain standards can be made related to parcel size, number, and location for a
25 pen or coup, and people are able to comply with the standards created there may an opportunity
26 to legalize having chickens by right without a use permit and associated fee. This approach would
27 lessen staff time to process the use permit.
28
29 Commissioner Consensus:
30 • Develop standards similar to that of Fort Bragg related to parcel size, number, type of animal and
31 locational requirements to allow specific backyard animals by right without a use permit as
32 discussed above. The standards developed will determine what animals will be allowed by right
33 and those requiring a use permit.
34
35 Urban Produce Stands
36
37 Acting Chair Pruden:
38 • There is one illegal produce stand that operates in the Wagonseller Neighborhood. Is of the
39 opinion produce stands should be temporary and seasonal. Produce stands are a great idea.
40 • Is of the opinion, people would not frequent a produce stand in the winter. It may be that a person
41 could put up a table under his/her porch to sell produce.
42 • Would find it strange if a person were selling apricots in February. This would indicate the
43 produce came from somewhere else. As such, there should be a context as to what is sold and
44 when.
45 • A produce stand does not have to be more than an umbrella and table. It does not have to be a
46 structure.
47 • Asked if the Nelson Ranch that sells fresh fruit is regulated? Any fruit not sold at the end of the
48 day is thrown away and/or donated.
49 • Is interested in seeing produce stands in the community.
50 • The City regulates the number of garage sales that can occur in a residential neighborhood so we
51 can regulate the amount of time a produce stand is open or can sell. The selling of produce
52 needs to be in context with the season appropriate to that particular vegetable or fruit.
53 • Would not want to see a permanent structure because some people might set it in a place that
54 could impede line-of-site for traffic. Preference would be a table and umbrella. Rule could require
55 the structure be easily removed.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 12
1 Senior Planner Jordan:
2 • Should distinguish between temporary and seasonal. Some people can grow produce year round.
3 What is the frequency of temporary?What is seasonal?
4 • Related to what is being sold and when, there may be a benefit to having an application form that
5 is reviewed. This would distinguish whether or not the produce is grown onsite.
6 • Asked the Commission about the statement that produce is grown on or `near the location of the
7 stand.' This has been a conversation the Commission/staff has had before where the majority is
8 of the opinion the produce needs to be grown on the parcel. The question comes up what about
9 the person who grows produce but does not want to operate a produce stand, but the neighbor
10 next door does. How should this be treated? Should a neighbor or someone on your block be
11 able to share a produce stand?
12
13 Commissioner Christensen:
14 • How do you regulate having a produce stand where produce comes from other locations and not
15 just from the garden of the person selling the produce?
16
17 Cliff Paulin:
18 • The City has the opportunity in crafting regulations related to an urban produce stand to require
19 that all produce being sold be produced onsite.
20 • California state law allows for produce stands that are permitted to sell fresh produce produced
21 on or near the location of the stand.
22 • Under California law, there is a distinction between a produce stand and a farm stand. A produce
23 stand sells produce and shell eggs. A farm stand is more of roadside stand that in addition to
24 produce sells homemade foods and beverages. Related square footage in this regard would be
25 dedicated to non-farming activities.
26 • Establishing produce stand rules would allow people who have backyard gardens to sell their
27 excess produce.
28 • There may be the potential for some competition by allowing urban produce stands. Sees this as
29 the healthiest form of competition. It may be that produce stands in residential neighborhoods
30 would be located far enough away from the Farmer's Market.
31 • Urban Produce Stands provide the opportunity for the sale of excess produce and shell eggs
32 grown in residential areas to be sold onsite. The advantage is that fresh produce is available in
33 neighborhoods that might not otherwise have access to fresh fruits, vegetables, eggs.
34 • It is likely the Nelson fruit stand is regulated as a produce stand.
35
36 Commissioner Sanders:
37 • Does California law require building a structure for a produce stand?
38 • Could everyone in a neighborhood have a produce stand? A person could have a mini Farmer's
39 Market in his/her neighborhood. We should probably look at the element of potential competition
40 between Farmer's Market and neighborhood produce stands.
41
42 Cliff Paulin:
43 • State law does not mandate any particular structure or what it has to look like. The County of
44 Mendocino has a rule about size limitations/placement for roadside structures that sell produce in
45 relation to roadways. It may be the size/height of a stand should be a consideration so as not to
46 aesthetically detract from the characteristics of the neighborhood.
47 • The temporary and seasonal sales can be addressed in different ways.
48
49 Acting Chair Pruden:
50 • Is fine with the concept of sharing a produce stand provided there is some logical connection.
51 • 63% of Ukiah residents grow gardens leaving 37% as consumers.
52 • It may be that rules concerning `number and distance' are necessary. Really cannot see Ukiah
53 saturated with zucchini stands.
54 • Preference would be the garage sale type of approach where a table/umbrella is used rather
55 than a structure.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 13
1 • Has never seen a produce stand that was overly attractive.
2
3 Senior Planner Jordan:
4 • Everyone in a neighborhood could conceivably have a produce stand and this is the reason for
5 the discussion. The regulations developed will determine what can or cannot occur. The number
6 of stands within a neighborhood block could be limited. For example, the DZC only allows a
7 Large Family Daycare in certain locations.
8 • Competition is a planning consideration.
9 • Related to a produce stand structure, staff is talking about the possibility of having a structure
10 limited to a certain size that when not in use needs to be removed as opposed using a table and
11 umbrella. During the season when produce is being sold, there would be a structure in a
12 person's yard. What is meant by a structure is like that of a lemonade stand.
13
14 Commissioner Christensen:
15 • Would there be setback/building code requirements associated with the structure?
16 • To keep the structure temporary and not compete with the Farmer's Market is to require the
17 structure be removed every night and only allow so many days per year.
18
19 Senior Planner Jordan:
20 • Likely no setback/building code requirements are necessary for the structure. Such a structure
21 may not meet the square footage threshold for a building permit. The structure does not have to
22 be large. The structure could be made from one sheet of plywood.
23 • What would be the concern if a person wanted to leave the stand up overnight for the season?
24
25 Commissioner Christensen:
26 • To build something sturdy enough to stand for months at a time, the structure would be
27 substantial and might block the line-of-sight for traffic or view. Neighbors might not want to stare
28 at such a structure for a long period of time. The structure could be dangerous and blow over on
29 someone for instance.
30
31 Senior Planner Jordan:
32 • It appears the Commission supports selling produce in a front yard, but that the structure needs
33 to be removed at night and possibly limited to a table and an umbrella such that anything that is
34 an actual structure is not strongly supported.
35
36 Commissioner consensus:
37 • Develop standards that ensure compatibility with surrounding uses/development and complies
38 with the zoning code.
39 • Preference would be a temporary structure to be removed at night that is a table and umbrella
40 using the garage sale approach.
41 • Generally okay with neighbor selling another neighbor's produce/sharing the produce table. May
42 not be a problem.
43 • Produce should reflect what is in season at the time.
44 • Produce should be produced on or near the location of the stand. `Near the location of the stand'
45 should be a reasonable distance and not trucked in from miles away.
46 • Okay with produce stand in the front yard area.
47 • Look at limiting number of stands like that for garage sales.
48
49 It may be the Commission may need more information regarding Vision Mendocino 2030 Blue Print Plan
50 since the Plan extends out into the future.
51
52 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
53 • Will advise the Commission of the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
54
55 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 14
1 12. ADJOURNMENT
2 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
3
4 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2014
Page 15
�Y �'���,.�a�t��t # �
; 1S1 ��1 2030
°, 131ueprirrE l'lan MCO�
Project Background& Current Efforts
Background
Regional bluepiint planning is a process t11at has been occuri�ing in regions a�ound the state fundecl
through fecleral grants specificall�r for that purpose. Tl�e put-p�se of blueprint planning is to conduct
scenaiio planning in order to develop a communit�r/public driven�Tision for sustainable gro�vth and
strategies to implement that�Tision.
The Mendocino Cauncil of Go�Ternments (MCOG) is cur�ently in its fourt�i and final phase of
blueprint planning. The fi�st phase of our project, called Visian Mendocina 2030, facused on
development of data to be used in the GIS blsed land use modeling program that is an integral part
of the blueprint process. The second phase of tl�e project focusecl on a visionulg process which
included extensive public and stakeholder outreacl� to iclentify priority goals and values for the
�egion.
Growth Scenarios
In Phase III, the model was used to develop alternate gro�uth scenarios based on thase priority
values—Localized �ra�uth Scenario, Infill Gro�vth Scenario, Sustainable Local Resource Based
Economy Scenario, and a Water Capacity Scenario. In addition, a "business as usual" scena�io was
modeled to demonsttate the effects of growth under current trends and practices. The scenarios
compare growth patterns in the county ove� a 20 year period, with different emphasis areas. All
scenarios assumed the same amount of growth countytivide, an increase of 10,211 (from 88,001 in
2010) over 20 years,or about 0.5 °fo per year (based on Depa�ttnent of Finance projections). Growth
in specific areas of the count�r varied from c�ne scenario to another based on different att�action
weighting in each scenario. These scenarios �vere presented to the public in a series of tivorkshops in
Octobex and Novembei 2012 and in January and I'ebt-uar�� 2013 to the Cit�r Councils and Baard of
Super�risors. The scenarios and an inteiacti�re exeYCise we�e also a��ailable on tl�e project website.
Preferred ScenaYio &Final 1'lan
Based on the feedback recei�red at tivorkshops, ;presentations, and from the project website; tzuo
scenarios emerged as the most supported a�ound the region—the Infill Growth Scenaiio and the
Sustainable Local Resource Based Economy Scenario. � hyb�id of these two scenarios was cieated
as the preferred scer�ario.
Under t11e preferred scenario, infill gro�uth would be promoted, and much of the new residential
growth cvould be focused in existing communities and cities, near transportation alternatives such as
transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. t�t the same time,de�jelopment would occur in a manner
that would suppoxt and encourage gro`vth in the sustainable natural Lesource industries. The
resoutce lands themselves would be maintained, but development would occur nearby to promote
active use of the lands.
t� set of guiding principles was developed that suppo�t the preferred scena�io and the priorities
identified through the�risioning process:
�► Natural Resou�ce Conservation
• Focused Developinent
• Transportation Choices
• r`ldequate Hausing Supply
• Ecoizomic Vitality
• Gommunity C,haracter&Desigiz
• Plan for Future Infrastructure
• Local Tood System
For each of the guiding principles, a numbe� of st�ategies were created u1 order to implement the
principles.
In December of 2013, the MCOG Board adopted the Vision Mendacino 2030 Regional Blueprint
Plat1,which itZCluded the preferred scenaria,principles, and supportiilg strategies.
Im�lementation Efforts
This final phase of the blueprint planning process focuses on implementation of the plan. �'�gtant
in the amount of$60,000 was awarded in 2011,however,work on this phase could not begin until
Phase III�vas complete. Gosts include funding for l�'1COG staff time,local agency staff time,
training, direct costs, and consultant services.
The list of implementation strategies is very lengthy,and we knew we needed to choose whe�e to
focus our efforts for this phase. Through meetings cvith local planning staff,it�vas determined that
there is a izeed for futther planning and policy analysis in regards to local food systems. We decided
to ditect our efforts for this implementation phase in this area. Steengthening local food s�rstems
supports the follo�ving principles from the Vision Mendocino 2030 plan:
Economic Vitalit�7: In this rural, agticulturally rich area,bettei planning to sup�ort local
food s5�stems can lzelp to lieep dollars from leaving our county as well as bring ne�v money
inta the region,ai�d improve the fmancial viability of local farmu�g and food pxoduction.
Natural Resource Conservation: Plan�ing to support local food systems,including
addressing regulatory obstacles experienced by local produce�s and increasing the jriability of
local food production,�vill act as incentive to increase active agricultural uses of local
resource lands, and reduce con�retsion of these l�nds to non-agricultural resources.
Local Food S,s�: Further planning and improved palicies to su��ort a vibrant local foad
system can improve the health and quality of life of local residents.
It�vas determined that consultant services�ve�e needed to assist in this process. After a coinpetitive
process, a consulta�t contract for tke pYOject was awarded in the amount af$15,000 to the Food
Policy Council. Tasl�s in this phase include review of current relevant policies,research of best
practices and development of model policies,�ecommendations for proposed policy and code
changes, and preparation of educational materials. These efforts, as they relate to the City of Ukiah,
will}�e discussed tonight.
r`ldditional information, including complete �roject reports, can be found on the project �vebsite,
��vw.visionmendocino2D3Q.oxg.
����������t�f ��
Vision Mendocina 2030
, Imp�ementation Strategies
Economic Vitatity
Support resource-based industries based on the wealth of Mendocino's natural resources, such as
agriculturallands, forests, and coastal lands, to create sustainable economic development. Resource-
based industries that can be nourished in Menclocino include environmental clean-up, restoration,
-sustainable harvesting, value-added,products, and eca-tourism. Ensure such industries occur in
proximity to e�risting transportation corridars to'prevent sprawl. Support efforts, such as expa�ding
secandary educatian opportunities,'to train County residents to oecupy locally available jabs.
* Provide incentives to promote economic aetivity�elated to e�vironmental restoration,
sustainable harvesting,value-added products,eco-tourism and,agri-tourism.Encourage
publio-private partnerships.
• Wo�k with Economic Development&Financing Corporation(EDFC) to implement the
Blueprint Plan in conjuncrion with the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,
which was prepared in 2Q10 for the Gounty of Mendocino.
+ Suppart efforts to train County residents to fill locally available jabs.`
+ Foste�businesses that serve loeal needs,including grocery stores,neighborhood retail, and
services:
• Support efforts ta attract, train, and retain a quality workforce; Provide better educatian and
employment opportuniries for young people by strengthening the local higher education
system (i.e. two'and four-year college systems) and suppo�ting sta.rtup companies,youth '
entrepreneurship edueation,or networking programs to connect the young workforce to
local employers.
• Foster economic activity and diverse busi�esses thraugh rhe pravision of adequate public
services and facilities. : ;
• Work with develapers,stakeholders,property owners,and planne�s to ensure a p�edictable
planning and perrnitting process and fle�ble zoning requirements that are responsive to
mark�t demands.
Natural Resource Conservation
Preserve �attiral resaurces, including water, tixnb��-land3 agr�c�altural lan�, habitats, and +�pen space.
Limit new development to e�sting urbanized areas and the areas that marginally impact resources.
Encourage all ;new develapment `to incorparate wate� conservation pracrices and low impact
development. Ensure adequate buffers between urbanuses and natural habitats or agricultural land.
• Iclentify resource la�ds,including active agricultural lands and wilcllife habitats,and protect
them from development through buffer zanes, fee structures,'land acquisition,and zoning
policies.
• Suppart the viability of the resource economy in the caunty by encouraging investment in
value-added farm and forest products processing. Support establishing community-owned
forestry businesses that help landowners make value-added products in a sustainable
manner.
� Develop a regional water management plan to address adequate water supply and
infrastructure for future growth in the courtty.
� Promote the use of renewable energy resources,such as solar,wind, and geothermal pawex.
Provide incentives to businesses that use renewable energy resources.
• Encou�age the development of energy-efficient buildings. Consider incentivizing LEEL}-
certified projects and green builclings that meet standards that are more stringent than the
C.ALGREEN Code through fast-track permitting or plan review, or tax credit programs.
• Educate residents on the importance of resource conservation,including reuse and recycling "
of resources.
• Explore use of county- or state-wide programs that preserve or enhance natural resources
and ecosystems,enabling them ta be genefators of economic benefit into the future.
Examples include Purchase of Development Rights or Transfer of Development Rights
programs to m�ni+„i7e permanent development on high quality�esource lands.PDR '
pYOgrams preserve'lands autright,while'TDR programs allow buyers to i�crease allawable '
development in appropriate areas;by purchasing the develapment rights of designated lands
to be preserved. Examples af successful programs can be found in the Tahoe Basin and in
counties in Washington State.
Focused Development
Support infill development and direct new development primarily towards existing communities to
utilize e�sting infrastructure systems. Encourage a miY of uses and development intensities that
support pedestria�,bicycle, transit,and other non-motorized transpoxtation modes.
� Focus growth and development within'existing communiries to preserve natural resources
outside urbanized areas:Exp�ore best practices to effectively preveizt sprawl and protect
rural and natural resource lands.
• Update zoning and land use policies to incentivize infill and mi�ced use development even
more than already achieved,in order to support pedestrian,bicycle,transit, and other non-
motorized tra�sportation modes, as well as ma�mize e�sting nan-transpartation
i�frastructure.
a I'ro�ot��,mu�tur�af uses near town centers to create a sustainable community that
p�ovides far all needs, such as housing,jabs,public services,and retail amenities. Such
mixed uses should also offer appropriate housing and employment options to local workers
to Yeduce commute times and distanees.
• Incentivize the redevelapment of underutilized sites and campact building designs that use
land and resources mare efficiently by streanllining the development process or provicling
tax b�eaks.
Transportatiora Chaices
Promote reliable, efficient transportation alternatives to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas
ernissions, promote public health, and enhance quality of:life. Encourage walking and biking as
transportation aptions.
* Update the Regianal Transportation Plan to be consistent with the Blueprint P1an.�
* Continue regional transportatio�planning to increase regional connectivity between
established communities and job'centers and to focus improvements along transpartarian
corridors. The Caunty and Cities should work together to balance growth and infrastructure'
at both local and regionallevels.
• Encourage all communities to implement the Mendocino County'Ra.il-with-Trail Corridar
Plan,which would provide rnulti-use trails alang e�sting railroads to increase regional
connectivity.�
+ Encourage all Cities to adopt a complete street palicy ta promote safe routes for all roadway
users.
• Promote pedestrian-oriented development near bike or transit corridors through zaning
updates and incentives,including'expedited permittisig. '
a Support Ciries and sc�iool'districts to implement their Safe Routes ta School Plans that
en�ance safety around schools and encourage school-age children to walk of bike to schooL
• Promote the establishment of freight service,when feasible,utilizing e�sting rail lines.
Ad�quate Housing Supply
E�and housing options for people of all ages and incomes. Provide housing options proximate to
public transit,jobs, foad sources, services,parks,and other amenities.
• Ensure land use policies a]low far adequate housing supply in e�sting communities and near
job centers.
� E�and housang options for people of all ages,incomes, and family structure. Ensure
communities,provide a range of housing types,including small cottages,accesso�y dwelling
units,live-wa�k units, and multifa.mily apartments to accommodate changing population
<structure. Fc�r the s�nior nopul�.tic�n,which is growi�ag i�a M�ndacano, the County�nd Cities
should encaurage sufficient senior housing{bath affordable and market-rate) proxirnate to -
public transit,food sources, services,parks, and other amenities. -
e Ensure jurisdictions are updating their Housing Elements on time and praviding suitable
land for housi�g needs.
• Dist�ribute affardable housing throughout the county,pro�mate to public transit,jabs, food -
sources, setvices,parks,and other amenities as set out in the Preferred Growth Scenario.
The Cities and the County should wark together ta encoueage pravision of adequate housing
stock for low-to medium-incame c�orl�ers in Mendocit�a.
* Take advantage af State and federal funding opportunities fa� affordable housing
development by submitting app]icatians and working with affordable housing developers.
• Educate cammunities to reduce opposition to affordable hausing and infill development.
e Plan for suppo�tive infrastructure for new housi�g development. (See Plan for Future
Infrastructure Principle on page G3.)
Community Character and Design
Enhance the unique characteristics af existing communities and quality of life. Fc�ster a sense af
place with a vibranf walking and biking environment. Ensure future development fits inta
Mendocino's rural, small town feeling through building design anc�placement.
• Implement e�sting community plans and continue pla�ning efforts where needed.
• Update zoning'and land use designations to allow and'incenrivize infill and mixed-use
development in existing communities.
• Encourage cornmuniiies to develop design sta.ndards or farm-based codes to promote high
quality building and community desi�,m.Well-designed ground-floor retail and public spaces
in combinaiion with compact housing development can increase the number of people on
the street, enhancing the vitality and security of the community.
o Develop neighborhood centers that appeal to diverse population groups, such as a family-
friendly center with good child care and school faciliries,and a retiree-friendly center with
health ca�e and recreational amenities.
Ptan for Future Infrastructure
Address inf�astructure deficiencies'and plan for future infrastructure, including pravision of road,
railroad, water,'sewer,'stormwater,`solid waste, telecommunication'faciliries, and public services, to '
support future growrh and attract and encourage businesses. Multiple jurisdictions should `
parricipate in infrast.�ucture plan�ing to ensure it is a comprehensive regio�al effort.
• Cantinue implementing a long-term infrastructu�e plan that assesses e�sting deficiencies,
adcl�esses neecled improvements,a�d recommends fmancial strategies to support future
growth.Financial strategies should address a financial structuYe that pays for needed
imp�ovements:
� Call for Capital Improvement 1'lans that address short-te�n imp�e�vemen�s f�r public
infrastructure,including roads, sidewalks,and water, sewer,and drainage systems.
• Develop a regio�al water management plan ta address`adequate water supply and
infrastructure fo�future growth in the county through water co�servation strategies and
impact fees.Work with the County and Ciries to address regionalinfrastructure issues. '
• Con�ue working with the Broadband Alliance'of Mendocino County to improve access to
local and regional Internet broadband service across the counry. Support efforts that identify
underserved areas,promate the expansion of private pxoviders,and increase high-speed
Internet service in public areas.4
��cat Food System
Pravide local foad sources in close praximity to housing and promote food processing indust�ies ta
benefit the local economy:Support streainlined connections between locai proclucers and local food
consumers through farmers markets, delivery services, grocery stores, and local restaurants.
Promote community gardens to provide access to affordable, fresh food sources, as well as create
social gatheri�g places.
• Enhance local food production,including farms and fisheries, by protecting active farmlands
and caastal areas an� supporting the sale and distribution of locally grown foods.
+ Encourage local food sources in close proximity to housing,including farmers markets,
delivery services,grocery stores,and lacal restaurants.Expedite approval processes or
provide incentives to attract local gracery stores or restaurants that would serve local
produce and healthy foods. Pramote produce delivery services, such as community-
supported agriculture (CSA), through community events,advertisements, c�r educatio�
seminars.
• Update zaning and land use palicies to alloW for community gardens.Allow the use of
vacant lots or public lands for temparary gardening and support sales af p�oduce from small
community gardens.
• Update zoning ordinances and establish:an urban agriculture licensing system that allows
urban farrning,including tize small-scale culrivatian af crops and animals.Allow farmers
markets in more zone districts ta enhance access to healthy foads.
� Promate partnership programs to encourage loeal food production, food processing,such as
slaughterhouses,and education. For instance,a small garden on a locai schoal's property can
be a gaod resaurce far food production as well as education.
• Encourage each community to develap an Urban Greening Plan to idenrify potential lands
for gardening ar food productian and to create a strategy for developing the implementation
prflcess and funding sources,in support af the Food Action Plan that promotes community-
supported gardens throughout the caunty.5
.�'��c�hm�nt �` �
MCOG Blueprint 2030 Local Food Initiative
Prepared by Cliff Paulin
Mendocino County Food Policy Council
Blueprint Background :
The Mendocino Council of Governments (MGOG) received grant funding in 2012 to create the
Mendocino Blueprint 2030 Planning Document. The purpose of this process has been to identify
land use policy changes.
Vision Mendocino 2030 is a long-range, community-driven vision for sustainable change in
Mendocino County through the year 2030. This vision will integrate planning for housing, jobs,
transportation, and the environment in the County. Vision Mendocino 2030 is part of a statewide
regional Blueprint Planning program funded by the California Deparhnent of Transportation
(Caltrans).
The 2030 Blueprint identified 5 priority issues for Mendocino County; they are:
1 . Provide more or better jobs
2. Enhance the local food system and promote sustainability
3 . Improve alternative transportation (pedestrian, bike, equestrian, and transit)
4. �Improve housing supply/choices/affordability
5 . Improve water quality and encourage water conservation
MCOG has contracted with the Mendocino County Food Policy Council (FPC) to assist in
implementation of enhancing the local food system and promoting sustainability. These efforts
also complement the work of the FPC as identified in the Food Action Plan (FAP). The FAP is a
comprehensive and integrated set of goals and actions created through a community stakeholder
engagement process.
The FPC has conducted a series of ineetings with planning staff from Fort Bragg, Willits, Ukiah,
and the County of Mendocino to identify priority areas of work. In the incorporated cities four
primary topic areas have been identified. These are Cottage Food Operations, Community
Gardens, Backyard Animals, and Urban Produce Stands.
This document is intended to provide background on these topics for discussion at the June 11
Ukiah Planning Commission meeting.
1