HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_10142015 Final 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 October 14, 2015
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Chair
7 Christopher Watt
8 Mark Hilliker
9 Laura Christensen
10 Linda Sanders
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kevin Thompson, Principal Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Michelle Johnson, Assistant Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Whetzel at
19 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the September 9, 2015 meeting are included for
26 review and approval.
27
28 M/S Sanders/Hilliker to approve September 9, 2015 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried (5-0).
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS
33
34 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
35
36 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
37
38 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
39 9A. Project Status Reports. Staff will provide verbal reports on a number of large projects.
40
41 General Plan Housinq Element Update
42
43 Principal Planner Thompson:
44 • SB2 has been implemented for the establishment of a zoning overlay district that will provide a
45 location where a homeless shelter can be established by right, with no discretionary approvals.
46 • Compliance with SB2 will allow certification of the City's Housing Element where the next step in
47 the process is for the City to adopt the Housing Element for certification by the State Department
48 of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
49 • Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the Housing Element on December 9,
50 2015 prior to final review by City Council.
51
52 Zoninq Code Amendments (creek setbacks, fence heiqhts, liqhtinq standards, tree protection
53 fencinq, etc.)
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 1
1 Assistant Planner Johnson:
2 • The intent of formulating Zoning Code amendments is to essentially modernize the City code to
3 reflect current zoning and building code standards as it relates to creek setbacks, fence heights,
4 lighting standards, tree protection and the like.
5 • Creek setbacks:
6 ■ The process is in the preliminary stage where research is necessary.
7 • A possible acceptable standard for development would be to require a 25-foot setback from
8 the riparian vegetation along the creek bank or from the top of the creek bank. The question
9 is where to start taking the measurement that can be made overly simplified or overly
10 complicated. The intent in this regard is to find a 'balance' and not make it overly
11 complicated.
12
13 Commissioner Watt:
14 • Will the standard be in the form of a narrative or will mapping be included that shows the
15 setbacks? Preference would be to include maps.
16
17 Commissioner Sanders:
18 • Related to the process, will the Planning Commission have the opportunity to review the
19 proposed new creek bank standard?
20 • Will the Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission (POSCC) be able to provide input?
21 Supports POSCC has the opportunity to review/comment on a zoning amendment for creek
22 setbacks.
23
24 Principal Planner Thompson:
25 • The standard will primarily consist of a narrative. There may be some mapping of flood plain
26 areas. The intent is to establish a standard that can be `generally applied' on a case-by-case
27 basis so that a setback standard can be in place.
28 • Confirmed establishment of a creek setback standard is in the research process. There will likely
29 be different options/scenarios once the standards are brought forward for review/consideration.
30 • Explained the process that will likely include three public hearing meetings and possibly some
31 workshop(s).
32 • POSCC could comment and it is probably a good idea, noting the Planning Commission typically
33 has purview over zoning-related matters.
34
35 Assistant Planner Johnson:
36 • Fence Heights:
37 ■ The 2013 California Building Code allows for a seven-foot maximum fence height as opposed
38 to the former height standard of six feet such that a code amendment needs to be made for
39 planning department consistency with the building department where the intent is to
40 incorporate this standard into a zoning code.
41
42 Principal Planner Thompson:
43 • It used to be a building permit was required for the construction of a fence that exceeded six
44 feet height and now this has been increased to seven feet that does not require a building
45 permit.
46
47 Assistant Planner Johnson:
48 • Lighting Standard:
49 ■ Staff is also looking at formulating a code amendment for lighting. Currently for projects,
50 conditions of approval related to lighting are required to comply with International Dark Sky
51 Association standards where the intent is to incorporate this standard into a zoning code.
52
53 Assistant Planner Johnson:
54 • Tree Protection Fencing:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 2
1 ■ Intent is to incorporate a tree protection fencing standard into a zoning code that can be
2 applied to projects as a standard condition.
3
4 Planning Permit Streamlininq
5
6 Principal Planner Thompson:
7 • The streamlining of planning permits requires a zoning code amendment.
8 • The intent for streamlining certain types of planning permits is to make the process less
9 cumbersome in terms of costs and time for applicants.
10 • Staff is in the process of discussing/defining/identifying what types of projects could be
11 streamlined. It may be some of the more 'simplified/smaller projects would not require any
12 discretionary review provided the applicant complies with the standards established for this type
13 of project and/or if discretionary review is required it can be done at the Zoning Administrator
14 level rather than the more complicated review level of the Planning Commission.
15 • The direction given by the Planning Commission at the recent workshop concerning streamlining
16 of planning permits was helpful.
17 • The Planning Commission will again have the opportunity to review staff's recommendations
18 concerning the streamlining of planning permits at the regular October 28, 2015 meeting.
19 • The purpose of streamlining of planning permits is to make certain projects are adequately
20 reviewed.
21 • What is being considered as part of the streamline planning permit process is if a project meets
22 the criteria for streamlining and discretionary review is not necessary there would be no public
23 noticing, but if a particular project needs to go through discretionary review whereby public
24 noticing is required, if no comments and/or objections are received by staff there would be no
25 public hearing. As such, information about the project would be posted on the City's website for
26 better understanding/clarification purposes.
27 • Cited a project that was minor in nature involving a retail use in a C2 zoning designation that
28 could have been streamlined without having to go through the minor use permit process of review
29 by the Zoning Administrator.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Understood that the Planning Permit Streamlining would come back to the Planning Commission
33 in another workshop format.
34
35 Principle Planner Thompson:
36 • Will confirm the type of format for the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission review of the
37 Planning Permit Streamlining matter. The project is in the preliminary stages and not at a point
38 where a recommendation would be made by the Planning Commission to City Council. The
39 format will likely be some type of informational workshop, more updated and more specific than
40 the previous workshop.
41
42 Mobile Food Vendinq Requlations
43
44 Assistant Planner Johnson:
45 • On October 1, 2015 staff conducted a community workshop regarding Mobile Food Vending
46 where the participants were local restaurant owners and/or other interested persons. The
47 workshop was well attended.
48 • Provided the Commission with audience comments from the workshop that are incorporated into
49 the minutes as attachment 1.
50 • Related to logistical concerns expressed in attachment 1, noted no community kitchen exists to
51 store food where this issue would be more related to County Environmental Health.
52 • Talked about attachment 1 in more detail related to `Pros,' `Suggestions,' and `Concerns from
53 Existing Restaurant Business Owners.' It may be that food trucks may be an opportunity for a
54 person to get started in the food industry for persons that do not have the financial means at this
55 time to start/own his/her personal restaurant.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 3
1 • The local restaurant owners in attendance at the workshop are not supportive of having food
2 vendors operate in the City because they have an existing infrastructure they are paying for and
3 do not want to experience competition particularly during slow periods that would draw from their
4 livelihood they would hard to earn and maintain. It was pointed out food trucks do not have the
5 overhead costs that 'brick-and-mortar' restaurant owners have.
6 • Three ideas/comments derived/established from the workshop:
7 1) Provide for one location for food trucks to operate that is zoned for this type of use.
8 It may be food truck vendors should not be allowed to operate in the Downtown area such
9 that an area can be designated where food trucks would be allowed. It may be food trucks
10 can be allowed on the `outskirts' of town. Designating a time when food trucks can operate
11 can be a consideration. Santa Rosa allows food trucks to operate in the downtown area on
12 Mondays that are typically slow days for restaurant. In this way, the food trucks would not
13 take away business/compete with the restaurants.
14 2) Formulate regulations that govern how and where food truck vendors can operate. It may be
15 that truck food vendors can operate at events and orchestrate events so more vendors would
16 be willing to participate since vendors operating in Ukiah would not likely make the kind of
17 money they would in larger cities like San Francisco. In order to attract food vendors to this
18 area, local events must be large enough and happen more frequently to make it monetarily
19 worth their while.
20 3) Prohibit food trucks altogether within the City limits.
21 • It may be the regulations governing food truck operations should be less constraining/limiting.
22 Presently, food trucks require approval of a major use permit where applicants must go through
23 the discretionary review process.
24 • Other issues that require consideration when allowing food trucks to operate is encroachment into
25 the public right-of-way with regard to access and circulation and street parking.
26 • What about the issue of allowing persons to sell fruit on street corners? How should this be
27 treated?Where does this operation fall into food vending?
28
29 Commissioner Watt:
30 • Asked what the food truck vendors say they needed to make this type of business work.
31 • Supports sending out a survey asking how citizens view food trucks as to whether or not they
32 should be occur in the City limits or if so how frequent and where.
33 • Is of the opinion it would not be appropriate to formulate regulations that solely focuses on
34 protecting restaurant owners and discourages food truck vendors from operating.
35
36 Chair Whetzel:
37 • Cited other cites that allow for a food truck vendor court.
38 • Asked about the next step in the process of looking at food trucks.
39
40 Commissioner Sanders:
41 • Supports the concept of conducting a survey particularly for those persons that were
42 uncomfortable expressing themselves at the last workshop where current restaurant owners have
43 also expressed concerned about allowing the competition.
44 • Sees a parallel with regard to food trucks and 'outdoor dining' that was initially a controversial
45 topic, particularly with the way in which it went through the approval process where one local
46 business received preferential treatment. Now looking at the requirements for `outdoor dining' is
47 of the opinion they are strong and good and this might be what will occur with regard to food
48 trucks where they are initially controversial, but that good comes out of the process. Is hopeful a
49 balance occurs between the needs/livelihood of restaurant owners versus the needs/livelihood of
50 food truck vendors in connection with the `freedom' to develop their cooking arts.
51
52 Commissioner Christensen:
53 • Asked if the County has rules regulating food trucks in the event such businesses are banned
54 from operating in the City limits.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 4
1 • Asked about the breakdown of persons attending the workshop in terms of restaurant owners and
2 those persons promoting food venders and/or potential entrepreneurs in this regard.
3
4 Mo Mulheren, Ukiah Councilmember:
5 • Supports issues that may be controversial in nature be reviewed first by Council to make certain
6 there is an interest in possibly pursuing the matter further on in the process.
7
8 Principal Planner Thompson:
9 • The potential and/or food truck vendors in attendance did not really speak up very much.
10 • The reason for having a workshop is there have been a lot of planning inquires about food trucks
11 and the process thereof.
12 • It may be the citizens of Ukiah will have to decide whether or not the matter of food trucks is
13 something Ukiah wants in general.
14 • It may have been persons attending the food truck workshop were not comfortable speaking up at
15 the meeting so planning staff asked for contact information and was able to send follow-up emails
16 to encourage people to provide feedback.
17 • The City is not in a position yet to formulate regulations governing food truck operations as more
18 information is needed in order to make a decision in this regard. It may be one area should be
19 designated where food truck vendors can operate that is away from the Downtown or come up
20 with regulations where one of the restrictions is that vendors cannot operate in the Downtown
21 area within a certain distance of brick-and mortar restaurants or it may be that food truck vendor
22 operations should be banned altogether in the City limits. The cities of Windsor and Healdsburg
23 do not allow food truck operations in the city limits.
24 • It may be food trucks should only operate on private property where the City has two such
25 businesses, i.e., The Wool Mill on Orchard Avenue and the snow cone business on S. State
26 Street.
27 • Staff will be looking at the next step in the process of reviewing food trucks operations. It may be
28 conducting more workshops should be a consideration. The Planning Commission will have the
29 opportunity to review any proposed regulations and provide input in this regard.
30 • The County has no regulations governing food trucks. Everyone has to go through the Mendocino
31 County Environmental Health Department for clearance. The County has no rules where food
32 trucks can operate, no rules concerning encroachment into the public right-of-way, etc.
33 • Noted many local restaurant owners were in attendance at the workshop and did express
34 concern about having competition from food truck vendors. There were others in attendance that
35 did not speak and this is the reason for email that would give those persons who did not speak
36 the opportunity to comment.
37 • Would like to hear from citizens about food truck ideas, management plans, etc.
38 • Will probably have a City Council workshop in November concerning food trucks.
39
40 Assistant Planner Johnson:
41 • Other workshop comments include:
42 ■ Relates to sustainability where food vendors could use foods grown locally. Allowing food
43 vendors to operate somewhere gives persons the opportunity to experience how the food
44 industry works where it may be that one day they might open their own restaurant. It gives
45 such persons the start they need where they begin small and simple and grow to become
46 larger entrepreneurs with more financial responsibilities that may include having employees.
47
48 PEP Senior Housinq Proiect
49
50 Principal Planner Thompson:
51 • The house located at 517 S. Main Street that was to be demolished as part of the PEP Senior
52 Housing project is being moved to another location because it is in good condition.
53 • The PEP Senior Housing project has received 100% of their desired financing and need to break
54 ground by March 2016.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 5
1 Commissioner Hilliker:
2 • Related to the PEP project and the former tennis courts on the site asked about if the temporary
3 fencing is associated with the Grace Hudson Museum renovation project.
4
5 Principal Planner Thompson:
6 • Confirmed the aforementioned fencing is related to the Grace Hudson Museum project.
7
8 Waqenseller Park Location Studv
9
10 Principal Planner Thompson:
11 • As per City Council direction a study will be conducted in accordance with GP policies/goals and
12 in compliance with CEQA regulations as part of the approved City Planning and Redevelopment
13 budget for the purpose of finding a suitable location for a park for use by persons residing in the
14 Wagenseller Neighborhood. Over the years a lot of development has occurred in a very dense
15 neighborhood without serious consideration given to the need to provide for parks, open space
16 areas for recreational purposes to accommodate the neighborhood.
17 • It is likely the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review/comment on the study with
18 a recommendation to City Council.
19 • Planning and Community Development will work on finding a suitable location. Will look at vacant
20 and underutilized parcels using maps.
21 • The scope of work is being developed/defined.
22
23 Commissioner Sanders:
24 • Asked about whether the Wagenseller Neighborhood will be included in the process.
25
26 Principal Planner Thompson:
27 • Confirmed the Wagenseller Neighborhood is welcome to provide input.
28
29 Business Recruitment Brochure
30
31 Assistant Planner Johnson:
32 • Has been working with Senior Management Analyst Riley on `showcasing' Ukiah by developing a
33 recruitment brochure as a marketing strategy that promotes
34 educational/living/economic/dining/recreational opportunities and well as features/focuses on
35 what Ukiah has to offer geographically/physically in the way of natural resources.
36 • At the forefront of the recruitment brochure is to say that Ukiah promotes the
37 application/implementation of `Green' building/development standards and sustainable living
38 opportunities/practices such as growing food locally, bicycle and walkability, etc.
39 • Staff has had many inquiries related to development, recreation, economic/live/work opportunities
40 in Ukiah where it became important to showcase/focus on what Ukiah has to offer in the way of
41 education, economic feasibility/benefits, natural resources/culture and/or all other
42 advantages/benefits Ukiah has.
43 • The brochure contains information about development fees that are substantially less than other
44 areas, water availability and showcases local restaurants and existing dining atmosphere,
45 outdoor recreational opportunities and also provides for visual aspects.
46 • People looking to visit or potentially locate to Ukiah not only ask customary questions about jobs,
47 recreation, goods and services, geographic information, but rather particularly for those persons
48 considering moving to Ukiah or potentially doing a development want statistical information about
49 the economy and its potential or what is the population.
50 • The intent is to have a brochure that can be emailed to people.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders:
53 • Is the brochure targeted toward businesses or developers.
54 • Ukiah has some of the best air quality in the State and this could be addressed in the brochure.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 6
1 Commissioner Watt:
2 • If you want the brochure to be effective for the purposes you intend it should address
3 development feasibility of what is available in the City since you are showcasing Ukiah.
4
5 Assistant Planner Johnson:
6 • Brochure is targeted primarily for developers.
7 • The brochure is in the preliminary stage and confirmed the brochure does feature attachments
8 that include information about studies that shows data and maps about economic development
9 feasibility.
10
11 RFP for Main Street Properties
12
13 Principal Planner Thompson:
14 • A RFP has gone out for bid concerning City-owned property located at 345 N. Main for possible
15 market rate residential/mixed use development. The subject property is under two acres and
16 consists of two parcels..
17 • At the City Council's direction the intent is to solicit developers interested in doing a project at 345
18 N. Main Street.
19 • City intent is to potentially sell and/or relinquish the lot once it is determined what type of
20 development would be the best and highest maximum use.
21 • The RFP will be on the City's website next week.
22 • One attractive feature with regard to potential development is that the curb, gutter and sidewalk is
23 already in place that would otherwise be an additional expense to the developer.
24
25 There was brief discussion about this site and other potential projects that were proposed in the past,
26 how the City purchased the site and what developers were sent a RFP.
27
28 Commissioner Watt:
29 • His understanding some issues with the size of the City's storm drain system would affect
30 development on this site. Recommends checking with Public Works.
31 • Would like to review the RFP and list of developers that received the RFP.
32
33 Rooftop Solar Svstem Permit Streamlininq
34
35 Principal Planner Thompson:
36 • City Council adopted an ordinance to streamline/promote the photovoltaic process and is Building
37 Code related.
38 • The process would make it easier for people to install photovoltaic systems.
39
40 Doolin Creek Restoration and Enhancement Plan (POSCC)
41
42 Assistant Planner Johnson:
43 • In August The Doolan Creek Restoration and Enhancement Plan was approved unanimously by
44 City Council.
45 • POSCC has been instrumental in reviewing/formulating an update to the plan and looking at grant
46 options for the restoration/enhancement of the creek.
47 • Explained the extent of the proposed restoration and corresponding infrastructure that would be
48 constructed and where this would occur. To her knowledge there are three areas targeted for
49 restoration. The area with the highest priority is south of Talmage Road where the creek runs
50 along the side of Talmage Road.
51
52 Chair Whetzel:
53 • Recommends the FAA be contacted and advised immediately of any potential restoration to the
54 creek alongside of Talmage Road because this land/property belongs to the Ukiah Municipal
55 Airport where any changes to the land must be approved by the FAA. This area is located within
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 7
1 the approach path of the runway in which there is a limit as to the number of persons that can be
2 on this property.
3
4 The Commissioners/staff discussed the status of the following projects:
5 • Approved City cell tower project.
6 • Approved Gobbi Street Apartment project.
7 • Approved Chipotle project on Perkins Street.
8
9 10. NEW BUSINESS
10 10A. Cancellation of Holiday Season Meetings. Discussion and possible action regarding potential
11 cancellation of November 25, 2015 and December 23, 2015 Planning Commission meetings due
12 to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.
13
14 Principal Planner Thompson:
15 • Due to the aforementioned cancellations, it may be special Planning Commission meetings are
16 necessary in November and December if projects are ready for review.
17
18 It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the November 25, 2015 and December 23, 2015
19 Planning Commission meetings due to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.
20
21 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
22
23 12. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
24 Commissioner Sanders:
25 • Advised Sonoma State University is hosting its annual Planning conference on December 5, 2015
26 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
27
28 13. ADJOURNMENT
29 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
30
31
32 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
33
34
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 2015
Page 8
Ai#achm�nt # `�__
Audience Comments from 10/01/2015 Mobile Food Vending Workshop
Lo�istical Concerns
How will cooking grease be disposed of?
Where will food trucks be cleaned?
Is there a commissary in Ukiah?
Is there capacity to enforce public health and safety standards?
If food trucks are banned/restricted, would existing vendors (ie Rod's Dogs, Hector's Snow Cones) be
grandfathered in?
References to Other Jurisdictions
Berkeley: all vehicles must be cleaned and stored in one central location
Healdsburg and Windsor:food trucks banned in city limits
Pros
Food trucks provide convenience and atmosphere, particularly in places like parks.
Food truck are able to get food closer to where people are.
Food trucks could help keep young people in Ukiah.
For entrepreneurs who are looking to start a business but can't afford a brick-and-mortar yet,food
trucks offer a way to build a customer base and test the market.
Food trucks serve customers who may not be able to afford (in money and/or time) a one-hour,sit-
down lunch.
Food trucks may help fill gaps where brick-and-mortar restaurants are closed during certain days/hours.
Su��estions
Ban franchise trucks
Allow food trucks for events only
Allow food trucks only a specific day(s)each week,though this may not ensure a commitment from that
business and/or make it worth their while.
Allow food trucks under certain conditions, but cap the number that is ultimately allowed.
Require food trucks to purchase a certain amount of food from local vendors.
Do not allow food trucks downtown.
Audience Comments from 10/01/2015 Mobile Food Vending Workshop
Concerns from Existin�Business Owners
The market base is already diluted by the recent increase in number of restaurants; population hasn't
grown. (According to one owner, nine new restaurants have opened since 2012.)
The brick-and-mortar restaurants are already having a hard time;there are many vacant spaces around
town.
Food trucks allow unfair competition; brick-and-mortars already can't compete against companies like
Chipotle who mass-purchase organics from China.
Food trucks should not be allowed at the new courthouse,as that development will already chatlenge
the downtown restaurant business(that relies on that foot traffic).
Food truck owners cou�d "poach" employees from existing restaurants because their overhead is lower
and can thus afford to pay them more.
Even if food trucks are prohibited in the downtown but allowed other areas,that activity may pull
customers from the downtown.
If food trucks are allowed on public streets downtown,they will compound the perceived parking
problem.
Food trucks do not provide an incentive to move to Ukiah and create jobs.