4A Public Hearing 2014 0602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Live-Work: With Administrative Review being recommended for Live-Work project proposals, Member Crawford advised crafting a less ambiguous definition, considering environmental hazards (e.g., asbestos and liability) of allowing residential uses alongside industrial uses. Commissioner Fitzsimons said he opposes Live-Work uses in industrial districts on the basis of land-use incompatibility. Massage Therapy: Vice Chair Hernandez noted that these facilities are listed under Retail Services as well as Health & Fitness. Planner Barros, citing the Bay-O-Vista Swim & Tennis Club as an example, said that Massage Therapy is allowed as an accessory use in the Health and Fitness category. Mobile Food Vending: Vice Chair Palma suggested that, to be consistent with the California Retail Food Code, the definition should cover offering samples and giving out free food as well as selling it, and also include the requirement for a valid Alameda County Health Department permit. Commissioner Fitzsimons said he finds the overlap in definitions between temporary food facilities and Mobile Food Vending facilities confusing. Referring to proposed amendments to Article 3 in the Zoning Code, he cited the Temporary Use definition, which indicates that the “period of operation does not exceed 45 days at any one time.” Planner Barros said that’s a mistake; it should be 90 days as it appears in the changes proposed in Use Permits, Variances and Parking Exceptions areas covered by Article 22, Section 5-222.E, Temporary Use Permits, Effective Date, Duration, Appeals . Planner Barros also indicated that since preparation of the staff report, staff is adding the recommendation for a Administrative Review to allow Mobile Food Vendors in the Downtown Area Districts (DA-1 through DA-6). In response to BZA Member Houston, she said performance standards relative to Mobile Food Vendors are being developed for inclusion in a new section of the Municipal Code, to address such facilities on private property as well as in the right-of-way, to establish minimum distances from restaurants that serve the same type of food and to include reference to the required health permits. This Municipal Code amendment would take effect simultaneously with the Zoning Code changes. Secretary Barros also said the Administrative Review fee for Mobile Food Vendors would be in line with Temporary Use fees or Outdoor Facilities permits. Vice Chair Palma noted that Oakland is having a difficult time getting a handle on its ordinance, which was intended to drastically limit food trucks. She invited staff to come to upcoming meetings to learn what the County is doing about Mobile Food Vendors. She said she likes the way San Leandro has been more fluid in terms of accommodating Mobile Food Vendors than most other communities in the County. Commissioner Fitzsimons asked how hiring a caterer at an event differs from bringing in several Mobile Food Vendors to serve food instead. Planner Barros said that would be a private use versus an established use on private property. Vice Chair Palma added that two or more Mobile Food Trucks constitute an event and thus requires a Health Department permit. Commissioner Leichner said “established” multi-vendor setups sound like mobile food courts, similar to Portland’s dedicated blocks of communal dining on fare served from trucks and carts. In response to Vice Chair Hernandez, Planner Barros suggested that the food pods illustrated in the City’s Next Generation Workplace District Study were more likely to be defined as restaurants and fast food establishments rather than mobile vendors. Parking: Chair Mendieta said that in general, he favors parking standards that encourage use of public transportation and wants San Leandro to be even more aggressive in allowing higher densities, especially around BART. Vice Chair Palma agreed, adding that the Senior Parking Exhibit E: Excerpt of Meeting Minutes for Planning Commission/BZA Joint Work Session, January 30 Page 4 of 9