Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Village Pkwy Parking Reduceor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL August 21, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' Village Parkway Parking Reduction Program Update Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #570 -20 Based on direction provided by the City Council on May 15, 2012, Staff prepared Zoning Ordinance Amendments to implement a pilot parking reduction program in a 4.3 -acre area of the Village Parkway District. Feedback from the Planning Commission and property owners in the Village Parkway area urged reconsideration of the size of the pilot area and the duration of the temporary amendments. The City Council will provide direction to Staff on an alternative to the previously - proposed trial parking reduction pilot program in the Village Parkway District to enlarge the size of the area and reduce the term. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction on whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in the entire Village Parkway District for a limited term of two years. Submitted By Director of Community Development DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant City Manager The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents." The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit - Oriented District embraces the recent opening of Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.2 the West Dublin BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re- tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local- serving businesses. Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking requirements. Staff discussed the pilot program concept with two property owners on Village Parkway who have experienced limitations on their ability to lease their property due to the City's parking requirements. The two property owners control a combined total of 4.3 -acres on four parcels. Each building has multiple tenant spaces that house a variety of uses including retail, indoor recreation, bar /restaurant, auto repair and service, warehouse, and personal service. This section of Village Parkway was thought to be an interesting location to test a pilot market - based parking program for several reasons: Page 2 of 4 1. The buildings on these properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more active uses; 2. There is on- street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers; 3. The four parcels are fairly self- contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other Village Parkway properties; and 4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market -based approach. At the conclusion of the May 15, 2012 presentation and discussion on this item, the City Council provided direction for Staff to prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements on the parcels noted above during the three -year pilot program. After the City Council meeting, Staff took the following actions- 1 . Prepared the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments; 2. Provided the proposed amendments to the affected two property owners in the proposed pilot area; 3. Sent a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District notifying them of the proposed pilot program and seeking their input on the concept; 4. Prepared the appropriate environmental review; 5. Sent out Public Hearing Notices for the Planning Commission meeting to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the pilot area; and 6. Presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on July 24, 2012. Two comment letters were received from the public (Attachments 2 and 3) and two members of the public attended the Planning Commission meeting. A third comment letter was received after the Planning Commission hearing was held (Attachment 4). Two of the comment letters stated a concern about creating an unfair competitive advantage if only a handful of the properties in the Village Parkway District had relaxed parking standards, and they suggested expanding the area to include more properties. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on the merits of reducing parking requirements in a specific area. Concerns were raised about the size and location of the pilot area, the lack of available tenant spaces for lease in the pilot area, and the proposed length of time for the pilot program. At the conclusion of the item, there was a call for a vote that resulted in a split decision with no formal recommendation via resolution. The vote was 2 -2 -0 (one Commissioner was absent). The draft meeting minutes are included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report, and it was the desire of the Planning Commission that the City Council consider this issue with the meeting minutes offering insight into the thoughts of the Commission members and public comments received. Page 3 of 4 Staff is bringing this idea back to the City Council to receive direction on whether the area in which the temporary parking requirements could be suspended should be enlarged, and if the temporary term should be reduced. Staff proposes to enlarge the market -based parking program to encompass the whole Village Parkway District (instead of the 4.3 acre pilot area) and to apply the program for a temporary period of 24 months (instead of 36 months), Staff would: 1. Notify all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District of the updated proposal and seeking their input on the new concept; 2. Prepare the appropriate environmental review; 3. Send out Public Hearing Notices to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the District; and 4. Prepare Staff Reports for the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of an updated Zoning Ordinance Amendment. If directed to proceed, the proposed modifications to the pilot program will require additional staff time to conduct the appropriate outreach and preparation. Therefore, Staff will evaluate the existing workload and incorporate the expanded program into the work program. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public notices are not required on items where the City Council is providing feedback or direction. However, notification of the meeting and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to members of the Planning Commission and members of the public who provided comments on the project to date. Future public hearings on this topic will be noticed in accordance with State Law. ATTACHMENTS: 1. May 15, 2012 City Council Staff Report (without attachments) 2. July 17, 2012 email from John Denholm of Oil Changers 3. July 19, 2012 letter from Ellie Lange 4. July 16, 2012 letter from Jeffrey Ryan 5. July 24, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft) Page 4 of 4 or 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL May 15, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager""' Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #570 -20 Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking requirements. The City Council will provide direction to Staff on testing a parking reduction pilot program in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a period of three years. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction on whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a limited term of three years. r �?14 Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: The overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed -use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian - friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents." The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit - Oriented District embraces the West Dublin Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 8.2 BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re- tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local - serving businesses. Background Since before Dublin's incorporation in 1982, the Village Parkway District has been home to many locally -owned businesses. Several of the property owners along Village Parkway have owned their properties for many years. Through the years, these owners have expressed an interest in being able to utilize the existing buildings more intensely. In many cases, more intense uses are restricted by the amount of parking available on the subject parcel and whether or not the new user can meet the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Some property owners have suggested that the Village Parkway District cannot achieve greater vibrancy and intensity with the City's current parking standards. This suggestion is supported by the reality that those uses which add vitality to an area — restaurants, bars, entertainment, retail establishments — would not have sufficient parking on most parcels along Village Parkway due to the existing building and development patterns in place. In accordance with Section 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading), the parking requirements for these uses are as follows: Sit Down Restaurant: 1 parking space per 100 square feet of floor area accessible to customers plus 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area not accessible to customers. Specialty Restaurant: 1 per 200 square feet Bar: 1 per 100 square feet General Retail: 1 per 300 square feet Entertainment Uses: Parking requirements vary from 1 per 100 square feet for comedy or night clubs to parking based on a per seat basis for theaters. Existing Conditions A parking analysis completed in 2010 in conjunction with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan identified 1,395 off - street parking spaces in the entire Village Parkway District. This district contains approximately 373,652 square feet of building area, which equates to roughly 1 parking space for every 268 square feet of building area. This average includes uses that require less parking, such as warehouse (1 space per 1,000 square feet) as well as uses that require more parking, such as commercial schools (1 space per 50 square feet of instructional area). Parking in downtown commercial districts In downtown areas throughout the Bay Area, cities have taken varying approaches to deal with the requirement to provide off - street parking. On- street parking is also commonplace. Some cities, including Pleasanton, have moved to a market -based approach that allows buildings in the downtown to change uses and complete small additions without requiring additional parking. Dublin has traditionally had sufficient parking in the downtown to meet the parking requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. As properties in the downtown districts intensify, the ULI Page 2 of 4 stuidy (Attachment 1) recornmerided examirning whether the traditional parking requirements should confinUe to apply in afl cases. There appear to be property owners in Downtown who support a market-based app a h to parking instead of a regulatory approach, Under a market-biased approach,, the D,DSP would continue to regulate the Use types, but parking requirements of the use types uld not be a considerationi, Under this approach, parking supply and demand w,ould' be, managed biy the property, owners and tenants, and not regulated by the City. It would become the responsibility of the piroperty owniers, property managers, and businesses to lease tenant spaces to the right cornbination of users to ensure that there is sufficient parkiing to serve the businesses and, their custorners, The address range, of the proposed study area is all of the even numbers between 7016 and 7150 VNIage Parkway. properties are located cqose to the street, active uses, Staff believes that this section of Village Parkway woWd be an interesting location to test a pilot market-based parking! prograrn t' r several reasoins: I - I he DUHaings on these which makes them good candidaties for more 2. There is on-street parking in front of these bUildingis, that could ire Utilized by customers. 3, The fouir par is are fairly self contained, If the pot prograrn leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be Hmited spHlover parking onto other Village Parkway properties, 4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market -based approach. If the City Council would like Staff to pursue a pilot market -based parking program for these four parcels on Village Parkway, Staff would: 1. Prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements on the parcels noted above during the pilot program; 2. Meet with the two property owners to review the proposed amendments and program details; 3. Send a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District notifying them of the pilot program and seeking their input on the concept; 4. Prepare the appropriate environmental review; 5. Send out Public Hearing Notices to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the District; and 6. Prepare Staff Reports for the Planning Commission and City Council. It is estimated that Staff would spend approximately 40 hours on research, meetings, and preparing the necessary documents and outreach materials. The City Attorney is estimated to spend approximately 8 hours on the project. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public notices are not required on items where the City Council is providing feedback or direction. Staff met with the two affected property owners and they expressed support for the pilot program described in this Staff Report. Notification of the meeting and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to the two subject property owners. Future public hearings on this topic will be noticed in accordance with State Law. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel Report, July 2011 Page 4 of 4 From: John Denholm Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:12 AM To: Kristi Bascom Subject: Village Parkway District Pilot Parking Program Hello Kristi, We operate the Oil Changer that borders the test market area. Please correct me if I am wrong but my interpretation of the program is that you will waive the parking restrictions for the area. For instance, a property owner would not be required to provide a certain amount of parking spaces for their unit. I can provide input on this both as a business owner as well as a long -time Tri- Valley resident using the area for personal use. When using the businesses in the pilot parking area, I've found parking can be difficult due to the amount of automotive service facilities. Many use their parking to store cars that have not moved in quite some time. My concern would be more vehicles taking up additional parking if parking was not regulated. As a business owner, we are concerned with parking overflow from the affected businesses. If nothing is done to ensure the correct amount of spaces are allocated to businesses potential customers may attempt to park on our property. We can police this during the day but I would be concerned about cars on the property after hours. These are our concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to voice them. Sincerely, John Denholm Environmental Compliance and Purchasing Officer Oil Changer, Inc. Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail or other documents. Real Estaft Brodrers, UM 6500 DUBLIN BOULEVARD SUITE 202, : DUBLIN • CA 44568 {926) 82.8 -6905 fax 19251 828-1052 L A N G E . EN T ER Y h 39f "July 19, 2092 Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner. � City of Dublini 100,Civic Plaza Dublin, CA "94568 Dear Kristi,; - I This letter is in response to your letter regarding the Village Parkway District Pilot.Parking Program, affecting the even number addresses between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway. A market -based approach to parking makes lots of sense, and I definitely ant in favor of it. However, to.ohly apply the pilot program to certain. parcels on one side of the street is highly restrictive and puts an unfair restraint on other property owners in the same vicinity on the same side of the street, For example, we own a building at 6942 -6994 Village Parkway plus the adjacent Casper's building at 6998 Village Parkway. When I "rent a vacant space to a new"potential ,tenant and that tenant goes to the City tp determine whether or not his/her business will be approved for that location, parking -is always a consideration ,for City" approval. With this pilot program, I may have to comply with certain parking regulations that won't apply to the property owner(s) in your"pilot area. You. potentially are creating an unfair competitive environment. Because I'm not In your pilot area, I may not be able to rent. to that business owner, while the property> owner down the street, in the same zoning area, Will be. able to rent to that business owner. 1 believe 1 am just as capable of "regulating" parking in my building as any other property, owner on the street. I believe if you are,testing the market -based approach on only one side of the street; it should apply to ALL property owners on' side of the street.. I urge you to reconsider the size of your pilot area. Sincerely; Ellie Lange 828 -6905 office /548 -1446 cell P. S. This letter was. emalled July 19, 2012, . cc: Jeri Ram, AICP C, Community Development Director i GOVED JUL 20 2012 OUBLIN PLANNING f JGC Properties LLC 6747 Sierra Court - Suite 1 Dublin, CA 94568 July 16, 2012 Jeri Ram, AICP Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Ref: Pending project PLPA - 2012 - 00033 As owner of the building at 7000 Village Parkway, Dublin, CA, I support the efforts to relax the parking standards as proposed by this TEMPORARY plan. However, how is it possible, you could allow such an unfair advantage to a few properties in this town and not to all of the properties. We are in an extremely competative leasing market, and to allow only a few properties the luxury of relaxed standards, while not afforing this to all properties is unthinkable. As the owner of this property for many years, it is hard to imagine the motivation to favor one property over another. It would seem to me that in order to represent all property owners fairly, the same conditions should be applied to all properties. I would therefore suggest that all properties on Village Parkway be included in the 3 year test case. Sincerely, M'dnaging Member JGC Properties, LLC (925) 5517555 C CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION DRAFT DRAFT (f Planning Commission Minutes � Tuesday, July 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 24, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at ;;;;,,Z. ,1„ Present: Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Chair Wehrenberg ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3 -0 -1 (with Cm. Bhuthimethee absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the July 10, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA- 2012 -00033 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading) related to the Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked what types of other uses Ms. Bascom was referring to. He felt the area is mostly commercial use except for a few. Ms. Bascom answered they would all be commercial uses. She stated the area is currently office, personal service and some retail uses. She stated the idea of the pilot program is to activate the area and create a more intensive use with cafe's, restaurants, and uses that normally have stricter parking requirements. She mentioned that the parking table in the Zoning Ordinance lists different parking requirements for different uses. She stated the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is broad in discussing the types of permitted uses in the area. The problem is that some of the sites are unable to accommodate the some of the uses because of the parking requirements. Instead of globally requiring less parking, the pilot program will test a smaller area to see if a market based approach, similar to that used in Pleasanton and Walnut Creek, might work for Dublin. The hope would be to intensify the area and more easily re- tenant the spaces with more vibrant uses that activate the downtown area. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 67 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub felt the Commission is being asked to abandon all of the parking restrictions for the area for whatever use the property owners choose. He asked if the Applicants would be required to come before the Planning Commission or the Community Development Director for approval or is this program only geared towards parking. Ms. Bascom answered, only parking. The uses are already identified in the DDSP which is the reference used when answering inquiries regarding opening a business in a specific location. She stated that the business may be a permitted use, but the parking requirements can be a stumbling block. She explained this amendment would be in effect for 3 years and would remove the parking requirements only. Cm. Schaub asked if it would be permitted for a deli to open in a former smog shop location and would the deli come before the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the pilot program is in a defined area and a deli is a permitted use in that area. She felt it would be unlikely that a deli would want to locate in a former smog shop with no street frontage, but if they wanted to be located there the City would not require parking in the pilot area. She stated the City would leave the decision regarding parking to the property owners who felt they can work out parking based on their relationship with the existing tenants and decide whether a caf6 in a former smog shop would be a good idea. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the legality of the City abandoning its responsibilities for parking in this area. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, answered that the City is not abandoning its responsibility to the area, but only relaxing the parking standards. He stated that all other uses would be required to meet zoning requirements and obtain building permits. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff believes the City can legally abandon the parking requirements in this area. Ms. Bascom responded the program would relax the requirement to require a certain number of parking spaces. She stated the City Attorney reviewed the proposed Ordinance. She continued other nearby cities allow re- tenanting and the change of uses in buildings without requiring any new parking and also allow up to a 25% increase in the square footage of building or use without requiring additional parking. She felt the idea is that there is on- street and shared parking and if the area has enough variety of uses, people will park once and visit many shops, etc. She stated the City can relax the parking requirements. She stated the idea for the pilot program started with the property owners in the test area; there are 6 buildings, 4 parcels and 2 property owners. The property owners conveyed to the Economic Development Staff that they had potential businesses that were interested in leasing spaces which are permitted uses, but the parking is a challenge. They asked if there is a way the property owners can work out the parking issue for themselves. That is the genesis of the pilot program; start small and see if the spaces can be re- tenanted with the types of uses Staff would like to see in the pilot area along Village Parkway. She stated they asked how long it would take to have existing leases expire and new businesses move in and picked a time period that seemed reasonable. They felt they would see some results in that time frame and if there are unintended negative consequences, the City could pull back and say that was a great experience but it didn't work. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 68 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub asked how the pilot program will be measured. He felt there was no way of measuring the outcome and asked if Staff would wait for complaints and felt that was not an effective measuring tool. Ms. Bascom responded the pilot program went to the Economic Development Subcommittee of the City Council first who recommended the concept to the City Council for their direction. At that time, Staff determined the steps to adopting the program. She stated Staff sent out a notice 3 -4 weeks ago asking for feedback from business and property owners and also sent out a public notice for this meeting. She stated that if this moves through the Planning Commission and City Council, Staff would continue to do outreach in the Village Parkway district to inform them it has been adopted. The Staff will ask for feedback after 1 year and the Economic Development staff will be in contact with the property owners on a proactive basis. Cm. Schaub asked if, during the pilot program, a property owner changes the use of one of the businesses and it doesn't work; will the City have the authority to close the business. Ms. Bascom answered no. Mr. Baker responded the Ordinance is proposed for a 3 -year time period, but if there are problems the Council could revise the Ordinance during that time period. Cm. Schaub felt the City could not close a business if the parking program did not work. Ms. Bascom agreed the City would not require a business to close because the parking pilot did not work. She stated in that case, Staff would work with the business owner for a solution. She agreed with Mr. Baker that the City Council could revise the Ordinance if there are problems. She stated the idea would be that between the Economic Development Staff and property owners there would be close coordination regarding changes in uses such as a conversion of a smog shop to a night club, bar or restaurant. She felt that would be something that Staff would be aware of. Cm. Schaub felt that if this Ordinance is passed the City could not do anything about the businesses for 3 years. Ms. Bascom answered, that is correct. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what happens after the 3 -year program. Ms. Bascom answered whoever moved in over the course of the 3 years would be allowed to stay, but the Ordinance would sunset after 3 years and the requirements would revert to what they are currently, but the City would have tried the program to see if it invigorated the downtown area. Cm. Brown asked about the responsibility for parking of the property owners, managers and other business proprietors. Ms. Bascom responded that parking would be the responsibility of the owners, managers and the tenants. She felt that some tenants already know what kind of parking is needed for their business. This program would make parking their responsibility to assess the current situation and if it will work for their business. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 69 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Brown asked if when the Ordinance refers to the "sufficient parking for the area businesses" it's referring to the test area. Ms. Bascom answered yes; there are 6 buildings with multiple businesses in each. Cm. Brown asked if the Ordinance refers to any businesses outside the test area. Ms. Bascom responded the business owners outside the test area do not have the responsibility of providing parking for businesses within the pilot area. She stated parking standards outside the pilot area would still be enforced; that would not change. Cm. Schaub asked if "no parking" signs in front of specific businesses can be enforced. Mr. Baker answered the business owners may post signs that indicate the parking is for their use and that can be enforced, as long as they are properly posted. He stated there are provisions in the vehicle code to abate cars that don't belong in the parking area. Cm. Schaub asked if business owners designate a certain number of spaces in a shared parking area; is that enforceable. Mr. Baker felt that is a private matter and not enforceable. Ms. Bascom mentioned a letter from a business owner who was concerned about abandoned cars in the area. Cm. Schaub was also concerned about abandon cars in the area and asked what the City was doing about the problem. Mr. Baker stated that Code Enforcement is working with the property and business owners to eliminate abandoned vehicles. Ms. Bascom mentioned the letter from Ellie Lange, a Village Parkway property owner, who is in support of relaxing the parking requirements, but for a larger area. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of community outreach was done. Ms. Bascom answered that there were mailings sent to all the business and property owners explaining what the proposal is and asked for their feedback. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the mailing described the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the mailing described the pilot parking area and the proposed Ordinance. Cm. Schaub asked if the mailing had been sent to the typical 300 foot radius for notices. Ms. Bascom responded the notice was sent to the entire Village Parkway area. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the two letters mentioned were the only responses. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 70 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom stated there were two comment letters and a few phone calls with clarification questions. Ms. Bascom stated the Ordinance that was attached to the Staff Report has been revised. Staff added a section to make it clear that the parking Ordinance is changing but after 3 years, unless revised again by the City Council, the Ordinance will automatically change back to the current standard. She stated that 30 days after the City Council adopts the Ordinance it becomes effective and the parking requirements are relaxed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if, after one year the pilot program is successful, can it be expanded to the entire Village Parkway district. Ms. Bascom answered as the Ordinance is written now it would apply only to the pilot area for the 3 -year period. She stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to recommend a shorter or longer time period, then Staff would take it back to the Economic Development Subcommittee for their input before it moves on to the City Council. Mr. Baker stated that if the Ordinance goes forward and is successful, the City Council could direct Staff to further modify it in the future to expand the area. Mr. Brown stated he understands the reason for the pilot program but asked what the objective of the program is and how the success of the program would be measured. Ms. Bascom responded the objective of the program is to remove barriers to re- tenanting spaces in the pilot area. She stated the property owners have stated that the main barriers to filling their spaces are the City's parking requirements. They stated that they had found great tenants who were excited about coming to Dublin, the business is a permitted use, but the parking requirements make it difficult. She stated that removing the barriers to re- tenanting with more activating, more intense uses is the objective of the program. She felt measuring the success would be to see if there is a change of tenancy in the pilot parking area. Cm. Brown asked if there was a meeting of the existing tenants in the area informing them about this pilot program. Ms. Bascom stated no specific meeting for business owners was held, but there was a notice sent out asking for feedback and a notice for tonight's meeting. Cm. Schaub felt the goal of the pilot parking program is to remove the parking restrictions and put more cars and more intense uses in the area. He felt it's really to remove parking restrictions that have been in place. He felt the area is lined with parking spaces currently and he was concerned that the property owners could restripe the parking stalls without permits. He felt that in most shopping centers with pedestrian activity there is usually diagonal parking. He was concerned that if the business owners decide to restripe the parking lots they could place them in unsafe areas. He asked if the City has a mechanism for permitting and inspecting restriping of parking spaces that would include space width and ADA requirements. Mr. Baker answered that if the business owners wanted to restripe the parking areas they would need to comply with the striping policies and obtain a permit from Public Works. arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr 24, 01 12 71 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. O'Keefe asked if an outdoor cafe was located in a storefront and the cafe wanted to change the sidewalk and install outdoor seating, would that come before the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Bascom answered that outdoor seating is a permitted use in the downtown, but Staff would review the level of work being done. She stated that if the business was installing a fence, then it would be approved through Site Development Review Waiver or Site Development Review at Staff level. But, if there were substantial modifications to the building in order to accommodate the business, it would come before the Planning Commission. She added the City has various levels of review depending on the magnitude of the changes to the site and the building. Cm. O'Keefe stated that Ms. Lange's letter stated she was concerned that confining the pilot program to this small area creates a competitive advantage for those property owners located within the pilot area. He asked how Staff felt about her concern. Ms. Bascom felt that that is a fair statement. She stated Staff has not done a site -by -site assessment to determine the parking for each parcel but the program would allow those property owners in the pilot area more leeway in tenanting their spaces. The Staff as well as Economic Development Subcommittee of the Council felt this is a big change for Dublin and having a large scope would be too much and felt a small pilot area to start with to see if it works, and then expand it at that time. She stated there is the potential for it to be too successful and then there could be some issues. She felt it is true that the parcels contained in the area will have a benefit. Cm. Brown asked if there are available tenant spaces in the pilot test area. Ms. Bascom answered she was not aware of any. Cm. Schaub stated he did not see any while visiting the area. Cm. Brown felt that having no vacancies in the pilot area goes against one of the objectives of the program, which is to promote more tenancy and relax the barriers. He asked if there are no tenant opportunities what is the real objective. Ms. Bascom stated that is one of the reasons for a long test period which would allow enough time for leases to expire, or not be renewed, etc. As that happens naturally, other uses /businesses could move in that would not have been allowed today. Cm. Brown asked if there are open tenant spaces currently on Village Parkway, not in the pilot area, that could benefit from the pilot program. Ms. Bascom answered she saw some signs along Village Parkway but Staff has not done an analysis to determine the amount of parking for those parcels. She stated that the permitted uses in the pilot area are the same as the permitted uses along Village Parkway. She stated some tenant spaces, depending on the use type, lend themselves more easily to different types of uses. She stated that these particular parcels were chosen because they were felt to lend themselves more easily to the pilot program. She was unaware of any parking challenges at the vacant spaces outside the pilot program. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there was a list of expiration dates for leases in the pilot area. arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 72 10:: Ms. Bascom answered no. Vice Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. F.: Ellie Lange, 6500 Dublin Blvd, #202, property owner on Village Parkway, spoke regarding the parking program. She passed out copies of a map to the Commission which showed her properties in relation to the pilot area. She stated that she is in support of the pilot program but was concerned with a competitive situation that the pilot program would create. She stated she has tenants that have parking restrictions on their current spaces that would not be an issue if they moved to within the pilot program area. She urged the Planning Commission to either expand the area or shorten the time frame and asked not to put her and the other property owners at a disadvantage. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Lange if it would be a problem if a restaurant moved in south of the pilot area and their patrons could not park in the back, so they park on the street and take up all the parking on Village Parkway. Ms. Lange answered no; it is a public street. She stated that if they were parking on her lot she would deal with it, but Village Parkway is usually filled up and stated she has never had an issue with street parking. Cm. Brown asked how many tenants she has in the area she is concerned with. Ms. Lange answered 24. Cm. Brown asked if the current parking is suitable for the 24 tenants. Ms. Lange answered yes because she manages her tenant mix. She stated she has some tenants that are only there in the evening and some in the day time. She added that she takes parking into consideration when renting to tenants because regardless of the City's restrictions the parking must work or the tenant won't stay in the space. Janice Hummer, martial arts studio owner, asked if the business owners would be leasing parking spaces to their tenants. Mr. Baker answered the program is strictly related to leasing the tenant spaces not the parking spaces. Vice Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub mentioned the Starbucks at the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Blvd which was denied by the Planning Commission because there was not enough parking. He stated the City Council subsequently approved the project. Part of the project took out the right turn lane from Village Parkway to the residential area which added 3 parking spaces. He felt the project still does not have enough parking. He felt that this landowner was familiar with parking regulations at the time. He stated the Commission has seen Applicants come to the Planning Commission with no understanding of parking regulations which could create a dangerous situation. He mentioned a bowling alley that was denied by the Planning Commission because there was not enough parking, but the other tenants in the area did not come to talk to the arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 73 DRAFT DRAFT Commission because they did not want to speak against their landlord even though their parking would be reduced if the project were approved. He felt the goal of this pilot program was to raise rents and agreed with Cm. Brown regarding the lack of vacant spaces in the pilot area. He felt that if the goal of the pilot program is to add more intense uses and not to raise rents then the current tenants would be allowed to remain. Cm. Schaub shared some pictures of the pilot area that he was concerned about. There was a discussion regarding the pictures and the pilot area. Cm. Brown asked if this area is designated as light industrial. Cm. Schaub answered yes. He was concerned about the many cars that were parked to the rear of the buildings creating an unsafe condition. Cm. Brown asked if a restaurant would be permitted to locate in the area depicted in the pictures. Ms. Bascom answered yes; a restaurant would be permitted in the area. She continued the uses that are permitted in the DDSP are very broad. She stated that a restaurant would be permitted currently throughout the Village Parkway District. She did not feel a restaurant would want to be located in the area where Cm. Schaub's pictures were taken, and felt that neither the space nor the esthetics would be suitable. She stated there are many reasons why a restaurant would not be suitable for this space and parking is only one of them. Cm. Schaub mentioned there is a restaurant currently located at the end of Village Parkway. Ms. Bascom answered the restaurant Cm. Schaub is referring to is located in a different building. Cm. Schaub stated the parking lot is adjacent to the pilot area and the only parking lot without a chain link fence. He felt that if the restaurant was located on the street they would want the patrons to park in the back and he does not feel that is a safe situation. He was concerned with the safety of the patrons and pedestrians and felt there could be unforeseen consequences without having any control by the City. He felt this is not a safe area to increase the density of parking. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Schaub if he had any recommendations for modifications to the program or is he opposed to the Ordinance. Cm. Schaub stated he is opposed to the entire pilot program. He felt there is no reason why the Commission could not deal with parking as they have in the past, making exceptions as needed. He felt he could not make the findings and would recommend the City Council not to put the pilot program in place and instead allow the Commission to work with the Applicants. He felt that leaving parking to the property owners is not what City public policy is about. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Schaub for clarification; he asked if the property owners /tenants were required to bring their proposed project to the Planning Commission if the new use exceeded previous parking standards; would he support the Ordinance. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 74 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Schaub felt that scenario would not change from the current situation. He stated that if a property owner wanted to have a more intense use the Planning Commission would review it and require them to clean up the area. He did not feel that the different cities discussed were good examples of good parking situation. He felt that if the pilot program didn't work, the overflow would not impact a residential neighborhood. He felt that the program area is a good area but felt the program was not good to try. He asked what if it is too successful and felt that is a term of failure. He did not feel this has been thought through and felt this goes against everything he believes the Commission has done correctly and felt the program would be irresponsible. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt there would be no reason for unattended children to be in the parking lot in the light industrial area as shown in Cm. Schaub's pictures. She felt the uses in the back of the building are more utilitarian uses for mostly adults. She did not feel the area was any less safe than other parking lots. Cm. Schaub stated the Commission has been dealing with children in the areas for a long time and imposed restrictions on businesses in the Sierra Court area because of the safety of children. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the pilot program was worth trying. She felt the City's policies should be progressive in order to be successful and felt the other cities mentioned are successful. She was not sure what too successful means and tried to focus on the "successful" part of it. She also felt that development try to create congestion, create activity and create density of people which could make Village Parkway more vibrant and attract more tenants. She felt it would be good to try it for 3 years. She agreed with Ms. Lange's point, it doesn't seem fair for those property owners to have an advantage and asked why not include all of Village Parkway district. She also felt that in general the City is hesitant to enforce parking restrictions for all the reasons the Cm. Schaub mentioned. She commended the Economic Development Subcommittee for bringing the pilot program forward. Cm. Brown felt the concept of the pilot program is good. He felt that Ms. Lange would not want a business to come in that she knows would take up all the parking spaces. He was not convinced that this pilot program, as proposed, is where it ought to be. He felt that the pilot program is intended to bring in tenants to this location but there are no tenants spaces currently open. He felt the area chosen doesn't provide the opportunity for that test and felt there were areas on Village Parkway that do have vacancies. He wanted to take more time to identify a better test area and then move forward. He felt this was not the appropriate area and would not vote in favor of this program. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why not this program. Cm. Brown answered the reason for the pilot program was to allow the property owners the opportunity to manage their parking spaces among new tenants, but there are no opportunities for new tenants and may not be during the 3 year term of the program. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked where the 3 -year time frame came from. Mr. Baker answered the time frame came through internal discussions regarding what would be an appropriate length of time to determine if the program works. arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 75 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what if nothing happens. Cm. Brown felt the program was not a good test for the current situation with no opportunity to test it. Cm. O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Brown and asked if he thought that Village Parkway was a good test area, not taking into consideration the current vacancies. Cm. Brown answered yes; Village Parkway is the industrial part of the downtown and if the program is trying to make it more pedestrian friendly, then there has to be the opportunity for the property owners to find businesses that would attract pedestrian traffic. He felt that in order to attract those businesses the property owners should be able to deal with parking challenges. Cm. O'Keefe asked how the Commission felt about extending the pilot program to all of Village Parkway from Amador Valley Blvd. to Dublin Blvd. because of the vacancies outside the pilot area. Cm. Brown felt that before embarking on extending the area he was concerned that the business owners were not given the opportunity to meet and discuss the situation. He felt the situation needs more than a mailing so that business owners are aware of what the pilot program is about and have the opportunity to discuss it. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Cm. Brown felt this would be a first step to discuss it; to see how it's working and then maybe if it is working well, after a year, expand the program to all of Village Parkway. Cm. Brown responded he did not feel this is a good test area for the concept. Cm. Schaub felt there is a risk to this program and asked if the risk is worth it when the area is not a good test area. He stated an Applicant could ask for a reduction in parking for their project and at that point the Commission could approve a reduction and use that as a test. Cm. Brown agreed. Cm. O'Keefe stated that anyone who takes advantage of the opportunity has the right, in perpetuity to that use and felt that 36 months is too long. He suggested an 18 month term instead because once the use is located in the pilot area they are in and there is no method in place to measure the success or failure of the program. He felt once the business owner signs a lease they are there until the lease is up. He felt the time for the pilot program should be shorter than 3- years. Cm. O'Keefe wanted to see the scope of the project area redefined or expanded. He was concerned about creating a competitive advantage for some property owners. He felt that would be mitigated if they created a larger area by including all of Village Parkway from Amador Valley Blvd. to Dublin Blvd. He agreed with Cm. Brown that there are no current vacancies. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if Staff brought this program forward there must be the potential for some vacancies. She felt the pilot program should not be dismissed because we don't know when the leases are up because there may be vacancies soon or not for a while. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 76 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. O'Keefe stated he is support of the concept but has a concern about safety and felt it should be mitigated by adding a condition that says any change of use needs to be presented to the Planning Commission if their use will go above the current parking standard, even though the standard is no longer valid. He wanted the time period to be 18 months instead of 36 months and there should be some objective matrix for success and a wider pilot program area that has existing vacancies. He would then be in support of the program. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff could bring the Ordinance back to the Commission with those changes included. He wanted to ensure that Chair Wehrenberg had the opportunity to discuss the program. He agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the changes to the program but felt it would be like the current requirements where the Commission would have to make a parking exception. He would like to have a Study Session to discuss the matter. He felt that adjacent property owners may not be very supportive of a parking exception and felt that could cause problems. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested recommending the program to the City Council, see how it works and in a year, review it for an extension. Cm. Brown did not want to approve something that is not set up as a good test. He agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding having a shorter period of 18 months, wherever the test is done. But he felt the current area was not a good test area. Mr. Baker stated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Ordinance and ultimately it would be the City Council's decision on how to proceed. He stated the Commission's options are to vote to recommend approval, recommend with modifications, or recommend denial and then the City Council would decide. Cm. Brown felt the only suitable modification would be a different test site. He agreed with Cm. O'Keefe's suggestion to include all of Village Parkway, but he felt that would take time to prepare and Staff would have to study it. He felt that the business owners and all the property owners need to be informed regarding the proposal before being approved by the City Council. Cm. Schaub stated the Commission has 30 years of experience setting parking standards, and felt there are too many open issues. Mr. Baker felt the Commissioners should keep in mind that Staff attempted to reach out to the property owners and business owners by inviting them to this meeting. They were sent notices and any further outreach would be the same. He stated Staff has done outreach and the results were two attendees to the meeting and two comment letters. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Schaub if he could make a recommendation to the Council regarding modification to the Ordinance. Cm. Schaub felt he was not prepared to make a recommendation for modification to the City Council. He stated there were new things brought up in the meeting that modified his understanding of the program. He felt there was too much risk involved. He was concerned by the lack of enforcement of current parking issues in the area and felt this program would put more burden on Code Enforcement. arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 77 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the property owners are not against the idea and there was only one opposition letter from a business owner. Cm. Brown stated the property owner that attended the meeting, Ms. Lange, is not against the concept but was concerned about the competitive advantage for the property owners in the pilot area. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested recommending changing the terms to 18 months instead of 3 years which is what Ms. Lange suggested. Cm. Schaub felt there needs to be more study to know if 18 months would be a good time period. Cm. Bhuthimethee did not feel that anyone really can determine what the best length would be. Cm. Schaub felt it was too risky. Cm. Bhuthimethee disagreed and felt the Ordinance can be changed. Cm. Schaub felt the current tenants and property owners did not understand the implications of the pilot program and what types of issues can come up. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that would be an issue between the tenants and the property owners. Cm. O'Keefe felt that Cm. Schaub was against the program and Cm. Bhuthimethee was in favor of it. He asked Cm. Brown to give his thoughts on how to move the project forward. Cm. Brown stated that since there are no available tenant spaces in the pilot area the main purpose of the pilot program doesn't exist. Cm. O'Keefe asked Cm. Brown if he would be in support of modifying the scope of the area. Cm. Brown felt there needs to be a study session regarding this program and did not feel the Planning Commission could decide on the scope of the area and for the concept to succeed it has to be in the right setting. Cm. Schaub agreed; he stated he is in support of the concept, but was unsure how it could work with what the Commission understands about parking issues. Mr. Baker felt the Planning Commission has had a thorough discussion which resulted in varying opinions and thoughts on the program. He stated the City Council will read the minutes to see what the Commission had to say in regards to the program. He stated that, barring the ability of the Commission to come to a consensus, which would require 3 out of 4 in attendance, it may be best for the Commission to recommend denial and send it onto the City Council for them to make their decision on how to proceed. Cm. Schaub felt the Planning Commission should recommend denial to the City Council, however, the only reason the Commission is denying it is to give the City Council the Commission's feedback so that the Council can make the appropriate decision. arurkr:rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr '0,12 78 109.: 10:: On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 2 -2 -1, with Chair Wehrenberg being absent, the Planning Commission failed to come to consensus therefore the resolution is denied: RESOLUTION NO. 12- 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING) RELATED TO THE VILLAGE PARKWAY PILOT PARKING PROGRAM a NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker stated there are tentative agenda items scheduled for both meetings in August. Cm. O'Keefe stated he will be absent for the August 14, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at (3,,,,,3,2,,,,,52 ,I„ Respectfully submitted, Sean O'Keefe Planning Commission Vice Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTE&20121PLANNING COMMISSIONI07.24.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx arurkr;rxl l r,ri7ir7 r, r, rrr l} 24,, 0, 12 79