■ Proposed amendments key step in planned Industrial Park bus hub

Benicia Planning Commission and the public will get their first look Thursday at zoning text amendments that would regulate mobile food vendors in the Benicia Industrial Park.

The proposed law changes stem from a controversy that arose during the city’s recent attempt to get an improved bus hub built in the Industrial Park.

In particular, city staff failed to send a notification of its Dec. 17, 2013, meeting to the owner of the acre-sized parcel on Industrial Way and Park Road that is seen as the ideal site for the bus hub.

Much of that project is being underwritten by $1.25 million in Regional Measure 2 (bridge toll) funds, and to secure those funds the City Council had hoped to vote on the bus hub at that Dec. 17 meeting.

Owners of other properties that might be affected by the project were sent letters telling them of the meeting. But the names of Antonio and Graciela Barragan, who own the parcel in question, were not on the list city employees used to mail the notices.

That delayed the vote until Jan. 21, when the Council approved the project and told staff to start writing the amended ordinance.

The Barragan family has operated its El Ranchero Taco Truck on its property for 21 years. While family members had had conversations with city staff during the past year, they said at public meetings they had not decided whether to sell their land.

They expressed concerns that the project would affect their food vending business, even if they’re allowed to operate at the bus hub, which the Council and staff assured they’d be able to do.

At the December meeting, the Barragans’ son, Hector, submitted six points the family expected the Council to address before it would consider selling the property. Among them: the adoption of a city ordinance that would govern mobile food vendors, such as his family’s truck. Hector Barragan said the new law needs to be in place by the date of the land sale.

Principal Planner Amy Million, who has recommended the Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of the code amendments, wrote in a report that food vending trucks “are increasing in popularity and continuing to evolve from the more traditional examples” — no longer limited, she wrote, to ice cream trucks and catering trucks that sell pre-packaged foods.

In addition, changing state regulations have prompted other cities to review their own laws governing such trucks, Million wrote.

She wrote that the proposed amendments would let mobile food trucks operate on private property within certain zoning districts of the Industrial Park after their owners obtain a staff-level permit.

That permit would cost $150, Million wrote, the same price as a sign permit review, which she explained takes as much staff time as food truck reviews are expected to take.

Since the situation arose directly from the matter involving the Barragans’ property, and since the Council wanted to give the family the chance to operate in the Industrial Park as a properly permitted business, the amendments only pertain to Industrial Park zoning, Million wrote.

“There is no land use classification for mobile establishments,” she wrote. “Eating and drinking establishments are defined as businesses serving prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises.”

She added, “The Community Development Department has always considered eating and drinking establishments to be the traditional brick-and-mortar businesses and has never interpreted them to also include mobile food vending.”

California Retail Food Code, part of the state’s Health and Safety Code, regulates mobile food vending. It requires a truck to be operated within 200 feet of a restroom — a toilet with available hand washing — whenever they are stopped to conduct business for more than an hour.

That’s made it challenging to have them operating on public streets, Million wrote.

Trucks conducting business must come to a stop and be parked lawfully, she wrote, and local governments retain the right to adopt additional requirements for public safety.

Should the ordinance be adopted by the Council, the changes would allow mobile food vendors in the Limited Industrial, General Industrial and Industrial Park zones, Million wrote. They wouldn’t be allowed to park within 200 feet of an existing brick-and-mortar restaurant; at least two parking spaces for each vending vehicle would be required; and the food truck wouldn’t be allowed to block any required parking, driveways or public rights-of-way, but would be required to be within 200 feet of a qualified restroom.

Its site would need to be paved and maintained in a safe and clean manner, with trash and recycling receptacles provided. And there would be no dining area — unless that gets city approval.

No alcohol could be sold or consumed at the site and hours would be limited to no earlier than 6 a.m. and no later than 8 p.m. daily.

Because questions have been aired about the public getting sufficient notification about projects, Million also is presenting to the Planning Commission another text amendment that also needs Council approval.

At past Council meetings, City Attorney Heather McLaughlin has cautioned against making notification exceptions for large or potentially controversial projects, explaining that other applicants might object if the city appears to be arbitrary in providing additional notices beyond mandated requirements for some projects but not others.

This text change would increase public noticing requirements from a 300-foot radius to a 500-foot radius for site-specific projects, Million wrote in her report.

Notices of public hearings are required whenever the city wants to adopt or amend an ordinance or considers taking action on a discretionary permit, such as use, design review, variance and environmental review, Million wrote.

At the request of Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, the Council asked city staff on Sept. 17, 2013, to draft an ordinance that would accommodate the notification radius increase.

In its presentation Thursday, city staff also will add an update to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines that require a notice of public hearing for action on environmental documents. “The Planning Commission is required to review the proposed text amendment during a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council,” Million wrote.

She explained that applicants currently are responsible for mailing labels of all current property owners within a 300-foot radius of their project.

“Typically, applicants use a title company to prepare the mailing list for a fee; however, they are allowed to prepare the labels themselves,” she wrote.

“The city provides the public hearing notice, paper and envelope and postage,” she wrote. The costs of the processing by employees of the Community Development and Finance departments, the papers and postage depend on the number of mailing labels, she wrote.

“For an average public notice for a 300-foot radius — 150 mailing labels — the cost to the city is approximately $370,” she wrote. Increasing this to 500 feet could require 250 mailing labels, costing $485, she added.

The Planning Commission also will hear Stephen David’s request for a rear yard setback so he can build a two-story, 460-square-foot addition and enclose a single-story porch at the rear of his bed and breakfast, the Inn at Benicia Bay, 145 East D St.

David’s project design received approval from the Historic Preservation Review Commission last month.

Million wrote that David is asking for the variance “to encroach into the required rear setback” to modify his building, which is in the Neighborhood General-Open zoning district. That zone requires that the rear wall of the main building be 35 feet from the rear property line.

David’s building already is 28 feet, 11 inches from that line. The addition would put the new rear building wall 27 feet, 11 inches from the line, Million wrote. The project complies with other setback requirements, she added.

At one time, the building complied with its zoning requirements, but adoption of the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan established setback requirements that made many properties nonconforming.

Last year, David sought a rezoning for his and two neighbors’ properties to avoid the need for a variance. But the Planning Commission deadlocked on a recommendation, and at its March 4 meeting the Council sent the matter back to the panel for another look. While some neighbors supported the change, others were firm in their opposition.

In the meantime, David sought a different route, showing his plans to the HPRC and asking the Planning Commission for the variance.

The building has nine guest rooms and a permit for outdoor garden weddings, live entertainment and a restaurant. David wants to expand the restaurant’s kitchen from 100 square feet to 365 square feet, expand a second-story guest room over the kitchen, and enclose two existing patios to expand the building’s dining areas.

His modifications also would make the building compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

His proposal has been endorsed by Cassandra Girard, a Silverado resident who owns property next to David’s bed and breakfast.

Girard said she had worried about his request for a zoning change. But in a March 26 letter to Million, she expressed her support for the variance, which she said wouldn’t affect her land negatively the way a zoning change would have done.

“If the variance is allowed, it would be in the best interest of all involved,” Girard wrote. “The owner of the bed and breakfast would be able to improve his property, and I would be assured that no future building close to my property line would be allowed and no permits for bars or taverns could be issued.”

The commission also expects to complete its review of its priorities so that the list can be sent to the City Council for inclusion in Benicia’s Strategic Plan.

The Planning Commission will meet at 7 p.m. Thursday in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 250 East L St.