Crescent City Planning Commission Meeting

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Altman, Chairperson Holly Greene, Vice-Chairperson • Brad Kime • Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org Regular Meeting Thursday, September 12th, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Board Chambers, 981 “H” Street, Suite 100, Crescent City, CA AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: II. PUBLIC COMMENT: The public may address the Planning Commission on any item of interest that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction or that appears on the agenda. The Commission is not able to discuss extensively or act on any items that do not appear on the agenda. After receiving recognition by the Chairperson, please state your name and city or county residency for the record. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes or other reasonable limitations specified by the Chairperson on particular topics or individual speakers (Gov’t Code §54954.3(b)). III. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the August 8th, 2019 regular meeting of the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee. V. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Agenda Item# VI-A Application #: U19-01 Applicant: Ray Walp Project: A variance from the maximum fence height allowed within the side and front yard setback areas. The applicant is requesting a 6-foot fence instead of a 3-foot fence as required by Sections 17.40.020 & 17.40.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. Site Address: 384 Fifth Street APN: 118-190-25 Lot Size: 16,099 sq. ft./0.369 acres Project Size: N/A (Fence) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA | September 12th 2019 GP Land Use: Multi-Family 15-30 Zoning: R-3: High Density Residential Background & Project Description: The applicant received a building permit on June 14, 2019 approving the construction of a temporary fence (Permit #2019-074). The applicant subsequently constructed a permanent fence at a height of 6-feet. The applicant requests a variance to allow a fence height of 6-feet instead of 3-feet in both the front and the side yard setbacks. The applicant’s parcel is a corner lot. As such, the fence as constructed by the applicant has a height of approximate six feet from grade. According to Crescent City Municipal Code (CCMC) 17.04.315 (Lot line, front.) the ““Front lot line” means…in the case of a corner lot or reversed corner lot, the shorter street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. (Ord. 629 Exh. A, 1988; prior code § 30-700 (63)).” The front of the lot is determined to be 5th street since it has a shorter street frontage. CCMC 17.16.030 (B.1) states“Front Yard. Ten feet, except that where access to a garage or carport is from the front yard …shall be twenty feet;” requiring a minimum 10-foot front yard area beginning from the lot line. CMCC 17.40.020 (A) states that the regulations for fences in residential districts shall including the following: “Front yards, maximum height above grade not to exceed thirty-sixty inches except that the fence may be erected to a maximum height of forty-eight inches; provided, that any fence which exceeds thirty-six inches is uniformly open to the extent of thirty-three and one-third percent. “Uniformly open” means that the interstices between the solid material of the fence are evenly spaced so as to make vision through the fence possible;” requiring that a fence can be constructed within the front yard if they meet the maximum height of 3-feet, or with a maximum height of forty-eight inches when meeting the definition of uniformly open Based on the prior determination for the property frontage, the side of the lot is determined to face D street. CCMC 17.16.030 (B.2) states that the “Side Yard. Minimum five feet for interior and corner lots. Reverse corner lots shall have a side yard equal to one-half the required front yard of the lots abutting the rear of such reversed corner lots;” requiring a minimum 5-foot side yard beginning from the lot line. CMCC 17.40.020 (C) states that the regulations for fences in residential districts shall including the following: “Side yards, maximum height six feet above grade;” requiring that a fence can be constructed within the side yard if they meet the maximum height of 6-feet. CMCC 17.40.030 (A) addresses corner lots as an exception “Corner Lots. On corner lots, for a distance of twenty feet from the side street curb, no fence or hedge shall exceed a maximum height above grade of thirty-six inches except that the fence may be erected to a maximum height of forty-eight inches; provided, that any fence which exceeds thirty-six inches is uniformly open to the extent of thirty-three and one-third percent. “Uniformly open” means that the interstices between the solid material of the fence are evenly spaced so as to make vision through the fence possible.” requiring that a fence that is constructed within the side yard setback areas meet the maximum height of 3-feet, or must meet a maximum height of 4-feet when meeting the definition of uniformly open, also requiring that the side yard area be increased to 20-feet from the side street curb. The above makes 2/3 of the existing fence exceeding the 3-foto height, and 1/3 of the existing fence in compliance. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS: None PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA | September 12th 2019 VII. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Request to give the City Manager broad authority to designate areas for plantings, monuments, plaques, etc. that are associated with our sister city of Rikuzentakata, Japan. 2. Direction on development of a mobile vending ordinance. VII. REPORTS, CONCERNS, REFERRALS: In accordance with Gov’t Code §54954.2(a)(2), Planning Commissioners or staff may briefly respond to public comment, make brief announcements or reports, or ask questions for clarification. Planning Commissioners or the Commission may also direct staff to report back on any matter at a subsequent meeting or to place a matter of business on a future agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to the regular meeting of the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee scheduled for Thursday October 10th, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Flynn Center, 981 H Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 POSTED: September 9th, 2019 By: Heather Welton Planning Secretary/Office Technician PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA | September 12th 2019  CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Altman, Chairperson Holly Greene, Vice-Chairperson • Brad Kime • Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org Regular Meeting Thursday, August 8th, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Board Chambers, 981 “H” Street, Suite 100, Crescent City, CA MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Altman called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm ROLL CALL: Commissioners present: Chairman Raymond Altman, Vice-Chair Holly Greene and Commissioner Kime. Staff Present: City Manager Eric Wier, Public Works Director Jonathan Olson, Finance Director Linda Leaver, Office Technician/ Planning Secretary Heather Welton. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. III. CONSENT CALENDAR: There were no consent calendar items. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the July 11th, 2019 regular meeting of the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee. On a motion by Vice Chair Greene seconded by Commissioner Kime and carried unanimously on a 3-0 vote, the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved the minutes of the July 11thh, 2019 regular meeting. V. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Agenda Item# VI-A. Application #: AR 19-08 Applicant: Pay Less Drug Stores NW: Rite Aid Project: Site Plan and Architectural Review for a store-front exterior modification in the C-2 (General Commercial) District Site Address: 575 M Street APN: 118-100-23 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES | August 8th 2019 Lot Size: +/- 6.690 acres Project Size: +/-32,848sf GP Land Use: NA Zoning: C-2 (General Commercial Distric) Background & Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval for exterior modifications for the existing storefront located at 575 M Street. There will be no added square footage to the footprint of the building. The applicant is proposing a tower addition, as well as, additional façade updates. The subject location is developed with approximately 32,848 square feet of commercial building and 118-stall parking lot. The applicant, Rite Aid, is a retail clinic pharmacy. Bob Brown with SHN, gave a brief description of the project background and description. He stated the project does not have conditions of approval. He said it meets the requirements of the general plan and is exempt from CEQA. Chairman asked for a better description of the tower stated in the plans. Bob Brown, SHN, stated it’s the façade near the entrance of the building. He also stated the parking will change from seven spaces to eight spaces in the front. There was no public comment. On a motion by Vice Chair Greene seconded by Commissioner Kime and carried unanimously on a 3-0 vote, the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved the tower addition, and additional façade updates with staff recommendations. Agenda Item# VI-B. Application #: AR 19-06 Applicant: McDonald’s Corporation Project: Site Plan and Architectural Review and Sign Permit Review for McDonald’s renovation to existing restaurant. Site Address: 380 M Street APN: 118-470-04 Lot Size: +/- .47 acres Project Size: +/- .47 acres GP Land Use: Visitor & Local Commercial (VLC)Zoning: C-2 (General Commercial District) Background & Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Site Plan and Architectural Review and Sign Permit Review for a remodel of an existing 4,285sf McDonalds’s restaurant located at 380 M Street. According to application materials: the occupancy type is A2 and the use is a fast food restaurant. The construction type is V-B. The project includes an exterior modernization of the building’s appearance. The modernization includes installation of new siding, with new paint colors, and a new storefront window and door at the entrance. New building wall signs will replace the old. New accent walls of a charcoal tile with a wood appearance will be placed on the building to break up the façade. The existing roof will be cut back to allow for construction of new parapets. A new corrugated metal panel system at the parapets will provide visual interest. New metal trellises and a metal fascia band will break up the façade vertically and provide lighting and weather protection at the doors. A new white illuminated canopy at the entrance and the front façade will provide pedestrian-scale lighting and create a path leading to the main door. In the interior, a new order counter, new seating, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES | August 8th 2019 finishes will be provided at the dining area and restrooms. On the site, the driveways and location of pedestrian access routes are to remain, as is the general flow of traffic through the parking lot. The drive-thru will receive new signage and new digital menu boards. An accessibility analysis was performed for this store by the applicant. The site and public interior spaces will be upgraded to be compliant with accessibility requirements. The sign permit application includes three (3) wall mounted signs, two (2) canopy/awning signs, and four (4) ground/monument signs. Bob Brown, with SHN, went over a brief description of the project and background. There was no public comment. On a motion by Commissioner Kime seconded by Vice Chair Greene and carried unanimously on a 3-0 vote, the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved the Site Plan and Architectural Review and Sign Permit Review for a remodel of an existing McDonalds’s restaurant. VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS: Continue discussion of Development of Commercial Cannabis Ordinance. Gary Riese, with SHN, went over a brief description of SHN in assisting other cities with their cannabis regulations. He said that he understands there is a desire to have similar ordinances to match the County of Del Norte. He went over a summary of the staff report, and the history of the ordinance going before the Planning Commission. He said there are state requirements that the ordinance must follow. He discussed each item in the staff report and received commission direction. Eric Wier, City Manager, stated that with the retirement of the Planning Director there will be a department merger, that’s why Jonathon Olson, Public Works Director has been directing the meetings.SHN has been contracted to assist with our planning services. The following citizens addressed The Commission: Jeff Poel, a Eureka resident- stated he owns a cannabis dispensary in Eureka. He gave a brief description of his prior employment before his dispensary. He stated when the City of Crescent City is creating their ordinance that they should stick to the State laws on track and trace. Ray Marklin, a cannabis store company manager- stated he was part of the save Eureka Retail and was the fifth cannabis use permit issued in the state of California. He is excited about the ordinance and would like to open a store in Crescent City. Jonathan Olson, Director of Public Works, read Eric Taylor’s comment opposing the cannabis ordinance out loud per the request of Chairman Altman. There was no further public comment Gary Riese, SHN, went over each ordinance with the Planning Commission and asked for consensus on each so that a rough draft ordinance can be made and brought back to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES | August 8th 2019 Planning Commission later. Discussed amending specific zoning districts to conditionally permit commercial cannabis subject to a commercial cannabis ordinance. Consensus from the Planning Commission was to modify the Highway Zone for retail cannabis and C-2 zone to allow non volatile manufacturing, retail and delivery would be allowed. Discussed required permit types and general requirements for commercial cannabis use. Consensus was to require use permits. Consensus was to follow state requirements on cannabis location set backs from other cannabis locations and sensitive land uses. Consensus was no cap on amount of use permits issued for commercial cannabis. Consensus was for an annual review of the use permits issued by the Planning Commission. Discussed retail sales with onsite consumption and standards for retail uses. Consensus was to not allow any advertising or signage. Consensus was to allow onsite consumption with use permits following state restrictions. Discussed delivery services/non retail storefront. Consensus was to allow deliveries as part of the use permit along with state regulations on track and trace with additional language stating no signage on the vehicles. For the deliveries, special precaution on the security of the vehicle and driver should be required as part of the application. Discussed non volatile manufacturing. Consensus was to allow non volatile manufacturing in the C-2 General Commercial Zone. The performance standards for non volatile will be pulled from other ordinances and will be reviewed with the draft ordinance. Discussed multiple licenses. Consensus was to allow multiple licenses. More information on the state regulation will be brought back to the Commission. Discussed testing labs. Consensus was to allow testing labs in city limits that would require use permits. Discussed microbusinesses. Consensus was to allow microbusinesses with use permits. Gary Riese, with SHN, discussed security and how cannabis applicants submit operations plans, and that a submittal requirement will be drafted. He said as far as taxes go some cities like Eureka, don’t have any taxes on their cannabis. Del Norte County has 6% on gross receipts on retail and 3% on gross receipts on manufacturing. He said that we would be looking at what taxes could be from the Planning Commission. Consensus from the Planning Commission was to have 0-3% tax on retail and manufacturing. Gary Riese, with SHN, said he would make a draft ordinance and return it to the commission. VII. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES | August 8th 2019 VII. REPORTS, CONCERNS, REFERRALS: In accordance with Gov’t Code §54954.2(a)(2), Planning Commissioners or staff may briefly respond to public comment, make brief announcements or reports, or ask questions for clarification. Planning Commissioners or the Commission may also direct staff to report back on any matter at a subsequent meeting or to place a matter of business on a future agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Altman adjourned the meeting at 7: 30. to the regular meeting of the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee scheduled for Thursday, August 8th, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Flynn Center, 981 H Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 ATTEST: _______________________ Heather Welton, Planning Secretary/Office Technician PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES | August 8th 2019  Crescent City Planning Commission September 12, 2019 Staff Report Agenda Item VI-A Application #: V-19-01 Applicant: Ray Walp Request: A variance from the maximum fence height allowed within the side and front yard setback areas. The applicant is requesting a 6-foot fence instead of a 3-foot fence as required by Sections 17.40.020 & 17.40.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. Site Address: 384 5th Street APN: 118-190-025 Lot Size: 16,099 sq. ft./0.369 acres Project Size: N/A (Fence) GP Land Use: Multi-Family 15-30 Zoning: R-3: High Density Residential Coastal: No Surrounding Zoning/Uses: East: R-P Residential Professional District, Residential South: R-3 High Density Residential District, Vacant Land West: R-3 High Density Residential District, Residential North: R-P Residential Professional District, Park Background: The applicant received a building permit on June 14, 2019 approving the construction of a temporary fence (Permit #2019-074). The applicant subsequently constructed a permanent fence at a height of 6-feet. The applicant requests a variance to allow a fence height of 6-feet instead of 3-feet in both the front and the side yard setbacks. The applicant’s parcel is a corner lot. As such, the fence as constructed by the applicant has a height of approximate six feet from grade. According to Crescent City Municipal Code (CCMC) 17.04.315 (Lot line, front.) the ““Front lot line” means…in the case of a corner lot or reversed corner lot, the shorter street frontage shall be considered the front of the lot. (Ord. 629 Exh. A, 1988; prior code § 30-700 (63)).” The front of the lot is determined to be 5th street since it has a shorter street frontage. CCMC 17.16.030 (B.1) states“Front Yard. Ten feet, except that where access to a garage or carport is from the front yard …shall be twenty feet;” requiring a minimum 10-foot front yard area beginning from the lot line. CMCC 17.40.020 (A) states that the regulations for fences in residential districts shall including the following: “Front yards, maximum height above grade not to exceed thirty-sixty inches except that the fence may be erected to a maximum height of forty-eight inches; provided, that any fence which exceeds thirty-six inches is uniformly open to the extent of thirty-three and one-third percent. “Uniformly open” means that the interstices between the solid material of the fence are evenly spaced so as to make vision through the fence 1 H:\Planning Commission\PC 2019\September\Fence\Draft Varience staff report.doc 9/9/2019 possible;” requiring that a fence can be constructed within the front yard if they meet the maximum height of 3-feet, or with a maximum height of forty-eight inches when meeting the definition of uniformly open Based on the prior determination for the property frontage, the side of the lot is determined to face D street. CCMC 17.16.030 (B.2) states that the “Side Yard. Minimum five feet for interior and corner lots. Reverse corner lots shall have a side yard equal to one-half the required front yard of the lots abutting the rear of such reversed corner lots;” requiring a minimum 5-foot side yard beginning from the lot line. CMCC 17.40.020 (C) states that the regulations for fences in residential districts shall including the following: “Side yards, maximum height six feet above grade;” requiring that a fence can be constructed within the side yard if they meet the maximum height of 6-feet. CMCC 17.40.030 (A) addresses corner lots as an exception “Corner Lots. On corner lots, for a distance of twenty feet from the side street curb, no fence or hedge shall exceed a maximum height above grade of thirty-six inches except that the fence may be erected to a maximum height of forty-eight inches; provided, that any fence which exceeds thirty-six inches is uniformly open to the extent of thirty-three and one-third percent. “Uniformly open” means that the interstices between the solid material of the fence are evenly spaced so as to make vision through the fence possible.” requiring that a fence that is constructed within the side yard setback areas meet the maximum height of 3-feet, or must meet a maximum height of 4-feet when meeting the definition of uniformly open, also requiring that the side yard area be increased to 20-feet from the side street curb. The above makes 2/3 of the existing fence exceeding the 3-foto height, and 1/3 of the existing fence in compliance. Staff Analysis: Proposal – Allow 6-foot fence in front and side yard setbacks The Applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum fence height allowed within the side and front yard setback areas. The applicant is requesting a 6-foot fence instead of a 3-foot fence as required by Sections 17.40.020 & 17.40.030 of the CCMC. Variance Requirements Under California planning law (Chapter 17.56 Variances Municipal Code) granting of a variance requires that specific findings be made, primarily where physical constraints would limit a property in a unique situation. City Code generally reflects these requirements noting that it shall be shown: A. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located; D. The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City; E. That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above; and 2 H:\Planning Commission\PC 2019\September\Fence\Draft Varience staff report.doc 9/9/2019  F. That the planning commission in reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met. Subjection E. above provides an opportunity for the applicant to provide the justification for making the findings required to approve this variance request. Staff Recommendations: Based upon the analysis of information available the staff has developed four alternatives to be considered by the commission. It is recommended that the Planning Commissioners visit the site prior to the meeting. Alternative 1: Grant the variance request to allow the constructed 6-foot fence within both the front and side yard areas. Alternative 2: Grant the variance request to allow the constructed 6-foot fence within the front yard area and deny the variance for the 6-foot fence within the side yard area, requiring the side yard fence to meet height requirements. Alternative 3: Grant the variance request to allow the constructed 6-foot fence within the side yard area and deny the variance for the 6-foot fence within the front yard area, requiring the front yard fence to meet height requirements. Alternative 4: Deny the variance request. The denial would mean a relocation of the 6-foot fence to meet the minimum 10-foot front yard and the minimum 20-foot side yard OR reducing the fence height to 3-feet, or 4-feet when meeting the definition of uniformly open. With this alternative the property would be brought into compliance with the fence height requirements. Environmental Determination: The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Recommended Planning Commission Actions: 1. Open the public hearing to receive public comments on the variance request. 2. Receive presentation from applicant concerning consistency with the conditions in Section 17.56.010 (E) of the CCMC. These provide the justification to either approve or deny the variance request. 3. Consider the alternatives for approval/denial in the staff report. 4. Take action on the variance request. Further Action: 3 H:\Planning Commission\PC 2019\September\Fence\Draft Varience staff report.doc 9/9/2019 No further action on this item is necessary unless the Commission’s actions are appealed to the City Council. Attachments: Location and Site Plan Building Permit Variance Application Current Site Photos 4 H:\Planning Commission\PC 2019\September\Fence\Draft Varience staff report.doc 9/9/2019  CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that the Crescent City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on September 12th, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 981 H Street, Crescent City, California to consider the following projects: Application #: U19-01 Project: Variance approval on Fence Applicant: Ray Walp Location: 384 5th Street Crescent City, CA 95531 Description: Variance approval for building a fence along 5th street property line that exceeds maximum height allowed. Environmental Determination: The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects (CEQA Guidelines §15332) At the public hearing, the projects will be subject to the following procedure: 1) the Planning Department will provide a staff report; 2) the Planning Commission will receive public comment; and 3) the Planning Commission will discuss the projects and take appropriate action. Any appeals of the Planning Commission decision must be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days, and require a fee of $125.00 per appeal. Appeals of the Planning Commission decision must be filed with the Crescent City Planning Department, 377 J Street, Crescent City, CA 95531. The application will be deemed approved unless acted on within the statutory time period pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (60 days). Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and inform the City, orally or in writing, of any concerns they have regarding these projects. At the hearing, staff will describe the projects, and the Planning Commission will hear public comment, discuss the projects, and may take action as necessary and appropriate. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jon Olson, City Engineer, at City Hall, 377 J Street, 707-464-9506. Date: Tuesday August 27th, 2019 Publish: Saturday August 31st, 2019 H:\Planning Commission\PC 2019\September\PC Hearing Notice.doc  Location and Site Plan CITY OF CRESCENT CITY DRAWING BY KMT ORIGINAL DRAWING JUNE 14TH, 2019 D st MODIFIED AUGUST 28TH, 2019 TO REFLECT NEW CONSTRUCTED FENCE. ALL DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE 118-190-25 384 5TH STREET EXACT LOCATION OF NEW FENCE UNKNOWN ANNOTATION IN RED (E) 17.0' DRIVEWAY CUT REPRESENTS NEW 140.0 CONSTRUCTED TEMP FENCE. NO (E) SIDEWALK EXACT LOCATION OF NEW FENCE UNKNOWN (E) SIDEWALK EXACT LOCATION OF NEW FENCE UNKNOWN 10.0' FRONT YARD SETBACK PER 17.16.030 NEW TEMPORARY SS CONSTRUCTION FENCE C/ O BUILT 9.75' FROM TOP FACE OF CURB. PROPOSED (N) 6' FENCE 8.5 PORCH ON 10' SETBACK (E) SIDEWALK 120.0 ST OP PO SIG LE N W 6.0 20 1 L AT .00 4.00 10 IGHT ER M (E)10.0' 00 00 .0 PO ET DRIVEWAY CUT LE ER NO (E) SIDEWALK APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE (AT TYPICAL 10' FROM FACE OF CURB) 5th Building Permit Variance Application Site Photos  VII-1 Crescent City Planning Commission September12, 2019 Staff Report Agenda Item# VII-1 Application # NA Project: Give the City Manager broad authority to designate areas for plantings, monuments, plaques, etc. that are associated with our sister city of Rikuzentakata, Japan. Applicant: City of Crescent City Site Address: NA APN: NA Lot Size: NA Project Size: 200 square feet max Zoning: All General Plan Land Use: NA Surrounding Zoning/Uses: All Background & Project Description: The City of Crescent City has established a sister city relationship with Rikuzentakata Japan. This relationship is dynamic in nature and staff is seeking broad authority for the City Manager to approve installation of signs, monuments, plants, plaques, and other items in and around the City. The City recently sent a delegation to Rikuzentakata to promote our budding and ongoing relationship. On that trip there was a ceremonial planting of a redwood tree in Rikuzentakata. This was not a planned event and did contain an element of spontaneity. Language and cultural barriers can make it difficult to plan such events. In order to allow flexibility in installing signs, creating monuments, planting trees, or other similar activities, staff request that the City Manager be allowed to approve such items provided they do not encumber more than 200 square feet. General Plan Consistency: Signage, monuments, plantings, etc. are consistent with the General Plan. Zoning Code Consistency: Promotion of our sister city relationship is consistent with the general plan. Site Plan and Architectural Review: Based on limiting the size of City Manager approved items to 200 square feet, it is staff’s opinion that site plan and architectural reviews should be waived. Environmental Determination: The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guidelines Section 15301, Class 32: In-Fill Development Projects. Recommended Findings: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1  1. That the project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan and Zoning Code and the policies and findings contained therein. 2. That the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Guidelines Sections 15301. Recommended Actions: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Open the public comment portion of the meeting to receive comments on the project. 2. Adopt the recommended findings. 3. Approve the project, subject to any conditions agreed upon by the Planning Commission at the public meeting. Attachments: NA 2  VII-2 Crescent City Planning Commission September 12, 2019 Staff Report Agenda Item# VII-2 Project: Modification of Mobile Vending Ordinance Prior Direction from City Council and Planning Commission: In August 2019, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission on updating the mobile or temporary vending operations ordinance (Chapter 5.44 CMCC). Over the last several years, the Planning Commission has considered an expansion of the mobile vending operations in the City and consulted with the City attorney who provided more specific direction to staff, which is summarized below: • Definitions o “Mobile Vendor” is a person or business that sells food, goods or other merchandise and are not a “sidewalk vendor” as defined. o This includes all vending from motorized vehicles as well as all other vending that is not conducted on the sidewalk-parking lots, parks, and streets. o Should the term be distinguished from “eating and drinking establishments and/or non-drive-thru establishments (which may or may not be principally/conditionally permitted)? • Zoning Restrictions o Is mobile Vending allowed in all zoning districts? Or should residential be excluded? o Currently, a use permit is required for mobile vending on private property-should that be changed to a principally permitted use in certain zones to eliminate the requirement for a use permit and vending permit? o Should there be designated areas for single or multiple vendors? • Location in Zoning o Where is mobile vending allowed? Public Streets? Public parking lots? Private property? o If public parking lots are allowed-should there be a limit on space? (example, 20’x20’ = two parking spaces) o Are chairs and tables allowed? o Should there be a space requirement between vendors? (currently 50ft) o Should there be a space requirement between vendor and brick & mortar establishments of the same type of business? (such as food establishments) • Day/Time Restrictions o Are there limits to the days or times that mobile vending should be allowed? o Should there be day/time restrictions on each permit so that mobile vendors cannot show up in the same location day after day? • Permit Review Process o What kind of permit review process should be in place? 1  o Require a site plan? o Require a written description of food truck in application (i.e.; explaining the self- containment)? o Require written approval/agreement by the property owner filed with the location applicant? o Annual Renewal? Costs? • Limiting Permits o Applicant specific? Transferable? o Should there be a limit on the number of mobile vending permits issued by the city? • Manner of Vending o Should mobile Vending be limited to motor vehicles/towed trailers, or can vendors put up a pop-up tent or table in a public parking lot to vend merchandise? o To any person who is in a motor vehicle at the time of sale? (except valid disabled) • Merchant Goods o What types of goods should be allowed to be sold? o Currently only the following are allowed: flowers, food, non-alcoholic beverages, balloons, kites, arts & crafts which are “new” and were made by the seller. o Are used goods allowed? o Are blanket displays allowed? o What about crystals, rocks, and driftwood? o What about rentals/sales of recreational equipment-kayaks, surfboards, lifejackets, bicycles, etc.? o Anything otherwise permitted to be sold in the city? • Other Regulations o Minimum insurance? o License Information? o Trash receptacles? o Sound restrictions? (examples: shouting/bells/horns/music/generator levels) o ADA accessibility? o Limitations on advertisements/signs? Sidewalk Vendors (SB 946) In accordance with SB 946 Staff is proposing the minimum required changes to the Municipal Code. If less stringent implementation is desired, then the ordinance could be even less restrictive. • SB 946 exempts “sidewalk vendors” from certain types of city regulations o Sidewalk vendors: a person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance, or from one’s person, upon a public sidewalk or pedestrian path 2  o Sidewalk vendors can be “stationary” or “roaming” • Proposed regulations of sidewalk vendors: o No business license required o Vending permit required o Food sales – must comply with Health and Safety Code 113700, et seq. (California Retail Food Code); maintain sanitary conditions including trash receptacles; obtain any additional licenses/permits required by state or other local agency for the particular activity • Locations: o Residential neighborhoods: no stationary sidewalk vending, roaming sidewalk vending allowed 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. o Not allowed within 500 ft of a permitted farmer’s market or special event • Other Regulations: o do not impede access to entrance of building or driveway; o do not impede pedestrian traffic along any sidewalk or pedestrian path; o do not occupy parking stalls or other designated parking areas; o do not occupy any public or private street or alleyway; o do not locate within 50 feet of a fire hydrant, fire escape, bus stop, loading zone, or driveway; o do not locate with 1000 ft of any elementary or secondary school on any school day o do not locate on sidewalk adjacent to curb marked white, yellow, blue or red • Additional regulations within the Parks: o Do not impede the use of any public facility by other members of the public; o Do not vend at any time other than open hours of the park o If not on sidewalk or pedestrian path, must get mobile vending permit Recommended Actions: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Provide additional direction to Planning Staff concerning updating the mobile or temporary vending operations and sidewalk vendors. 3 4