HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Vlg Pkwy Off Street Loading Pkingor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
November 20, 2012
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
CITY CLERK
File #450 -20
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street
Parking and Loading) related to the Village Parkway Market -Based Parking
Program (PLPA- 2012 - 00033)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading) of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance temporarily eliminate the parking standards in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Village Parkway District. The proposed amendments address direction provided by the
City Council on May 15, 2012 and August 21, 2012. The proposed amendments will implement
a test -case parking program in the District to see if it can enable more intense uses along the
Village Parkway corridor. The Program will be in effect for a temporary period of two years.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
1101
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5)
Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading) related to the Village Parkway Market -Based Parking Program.
vs_
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."
Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 6.1
The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards
tailored to the envisioned uses. This includes the Transit - Oriented District, the Retail District,
and the Village Parkway District, which is the subject of the proposed parking reduction
program. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses
along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the 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
(Attachment 1). 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.
Parking supply and demand would
be managed by the property
owners and tenants, and not
regulated by the City. It would
become the responsibility of the
property owners, property
managers, and businesses to
lease tenant spaces to the right
combination of users to ensure that
there is sufficient parking to serve
the businesses and their
customers. A pilot program that
removes the parking requirement
on four parcels on Village Parkway
was seen as one way of testing the
parking reduction to see if it could
be successful in a larger area. The
affected property owners were
supportive of the concept.
The City Council directed Staff to prepare amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off Street Parking and
Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements in the 4.3 -acre
area noted above during the three -year pilot program.
After the City Council meeting, Staff prepared the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments and
provided the proposed amendments to the affected two property owners in the proposed pilot
area. Staff also sent a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway
Page 2 of 6
District notifying them of the proposed pilot program and seeking their input on the concept and
did not receive any comments.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
on July 24, 2012. A notice of this hearing was sent to all property owners and tenants within the
pilot program area and also to property owners and tenants within 300 feet. Two comment
letters were received from the public and two members of the public attended the Planning
Commission meeting. A third comment letter was received after the Planning Commission
hearing was held. 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.
One comment letter expressed concerns about potential overflow parking on their parcel.
The Planning 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. Two members of the public spoke in support of the pilot program, but
suggested that the area be enlarged to benefit the entire Village Parkway District. 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 -1 (one Commissioner was absent). It was
the desire of the Planning Commission that the City Council consider this issue with the meeting
minutes (Attachment 3) offering insight into the thoughts of the Planning Commission members
and public comments received.
Staff brought the issue back to the City Council on August 21, 2012 to receive further direction
on the proposed pilot parking program. The City Council discussed the item and provided
unanimous direction to Staff to enlarge the market -based parking program to encompass the
entire Village Parkway District (instead of the 4.3 acre pilot area) for a temporary period of 24
months (instead of 36 months). The City Council also directed Staff to hold a community
meeting to give property owners and tenants the opportunity to be engaged on the topic.
City Staff held the Community Meeting on Friday, September 21, 2012 and invited all property
owners and tenants in the Village Parkway District. Two property owners /managers attended and
expressed support for the Parking Reduction Program with the modifications as directed by the
City Council and supported the program's expansion to the entire Village Parkway District. One of
the property managers had questions about the project that Staff answered, and he provided a
letter of support (Attachment 4).
A map of the Village Parkway District is on the following page.
Page 3 of 6
Map of the Village Parkway District
ANALYSIS
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Based on the City Council direction provided August 21, 2012, Staff has prepared a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to modify Section 8.76.080.D (Parking Requirements by Use Type —
Commercial) to add the following language (new text is underlined):
Commercial Use Types. Commercial Use Types shall provide off - street parking spaces
as noted in the table below, with the exception of uses located on properties in the Village
Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Uses in the Village Parkway
District are not required to provide a prescribed number of parking spaces for any use
that is aermitted or conditionally aermitted in the Downtown Dublin Zonina District.
The Ordinance describes that the above language will be in effect for a period of two years, after
which it will revert back to the existing language, which requires all uses in all areas to meet the
parking required by their use. Because the proposed amendment is intended to incentivize
commercial development, the parking requirements for other use types (residential or civic) in
the Village Parkway District are not proposed to change.
Page 4 of 6
At the conclusion of the two year pilot program, the City will assess the success of the program
and determine whether the relaxed parking requirements should be enacted for a longer period
of time or made permanent. The draft Ordinance is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff
Report.
Planning Commission Meeting October 9, 2012
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
on October 9, 2012. Two members of the public attended the Planning Commission meeting
and spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Please refer to the Planning Commission
meeting minutes included as Attachment 6 to this Staff Report. The Planning Commission
discussed the proposal and voted 3 -0 -2 (two Commissioners absent) to adopt a Resolution
(Attachment 7) recommending approval of the Ordinance to the City Council.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) are
consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and the Zoning Ordinance in that the
amendments are limited to relaxing the parking requirements for a temporary period of time for
uses which are consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed amendments do not change any land use designations or zoning
designations.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
This item was originally noticed for the City Council meeting on November 6, 2012. In accordance
with State law, a public notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations
throughout the City. A notice of this hearing was mailed to those requesting such notice ten days
before the hearing and the Staff Report and attachments were made available for public review
prior to the public hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. A
public notice was also sent to all tenants and property owners throughout the Village Parkway
District and all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the affected properties.
The hearing date was later changed to November 20, 2012. On Saturday November 3, 2012, a
revised Public Hearing Notice was published in the Valley Times and was mailed to all tenants and
property owners throughout the Village Parkway District and those within 300 feet. An email
regarding the date change was also sent to those who provided comments or attended previous
meetings on this topic.
Public notification regarding this program has been provided at following key steps in the process:
July 5, 2012: Notice sent to all property owners and tenants in the Village Parkway
District seeking their feedback on the proposed Pilot Parking Program for
the 4.3 -acre area.
July 14, 2012: Public Hearing Notice for the July 24, 2012 Planning Commission hearing
published in the paper and provided to all property owners and tenants in
the Village Parkway District and those within 300 feet of the district.
September 7, 2012: Notice for the September 21, 2012 Community Meeting sent to all property
owners and tenants in the Village Parkway District.
Page 5 of 6
September 29, 2012: Public Hearing Notice for the October 9, 2012 Planning Commission
hearing published in the paper and provided to all property owners and
tenants in the Village Parkway District and those within 300 feet of the
district.
October 27, 2012: Public Hearing Notice for the November 6, 2012 City Council hearing
published in the paper and provided to all property owners and tenants in
the Village Parkway District and those within 300 feet of the district.
November 3, 2012: Revised Public Hearing Notice for the November 20, 2012 City Council
hearing published in the paper and provided to all property owners and
tenants in the Village Parkway District and those within 300 feet of the
district.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City
Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts
and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. For this project, Staff recommends
that the project be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in
accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the
amendments to Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Off- Street Parking and Loading) will
not have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Urban Land Institute's Downtown Dublin Technical Assistance Panel
Report, dated July 2011.
2. City Council Staff Report dated May 15, 2012.
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 24, 2012.
4. Letter from Kevin Sakimoto dated September 18, 2012.
5. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading)
related to the Village Parkway Market -Based Parking Program.
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 9, 2012.
7. Planning Commission Resolution 12 -37 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 Market -Based Parking Program.
Page 6 of 6
Urban Land
Institute
B LI IV[
Technical Assistance Panel
July 2011
About ULI's Technical Assistance Panels
ULI San Francisco Technical Assistance Panel Program (known as "TAP ") is an
extension of the national Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Panel Program.
ULI's Advisory Services Panels provide strategic advice to clients (public agencies
and nonprofit organizations) on complex land use and real estate development issues.
The program links clients to the knowledge and experience of ULI and its membership.
Established in 1947, the Advisory Services Program has completed over 500 panels
in 47 states, 12 countries, and on 4 continents. The Advisory Services Program has
been successful due to its comprehensive, pragmatic approach to solving land use
challenges.
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their
time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and screened to
ensure their objectivity. ULI's interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at
development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience
chairs each panel.
Local San Francisco Bay Area TAPS are held over the course of two days in the
client's community. A detailed briefing book is given to each TAP participant prior
to the day of the TAP. The TAP begins with a tour of the study area either by bus and
on foot, is followed by a briefing by the client and others, and then transitions into
private interviews and panel discussion regarding the client's issues and questions.
At the end of the TAP, the panel provides a Power Point presentation to the client and
invited guests summarizing the panel's observations and recommendations. Within
ten weeks, a final written report is delivered to the client. The final report presents
highlights of the panel's independent review and contains a diverse set of ideas and
suggestions that may or may not ultimately make sense for the community for which it
was prepared.
About ULI
The Urban Land Institute's mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of
land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Founded in 1936,
the ULI is a non - profit organization of land -use professionals with 27,000 members
in 95 countries (www.uli.org), including 1.800 in the greater San Francisco District
Council (www.ulisf.org). ULI San Francisco serves the greater Bay Area with pragmatic
land use expertise and education.
Team Assignment and Process
The City of Dublin, using their recently passed Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(Specific Plan) as a guide. aims to improve the vitality of their downtown. The panel
was asked how to prioritize the execution of the Specific Plan. The TAP process
consisted of a day of site tours, stakeholder interviews, a panel discussion, and a
presentation the following morning.
Site Context
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is bounded generally by Village Parkway
on the east, Amador Valley Boulevard on the north, San Ramon Road on the west,
and Interstate 580 on the south. The Specific Plan is an aggregate of all or a major
portion of five existing plans: San Ramon Road Specific Plan, Dublin Downtown
Plan, Downtown Core Spec €fic Plan. West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the
Village Parkway Specific Plan,
Collectively, these plans are zoned for the additional development of nearly 3.2
million square feet of non - residential development, 740 dwelling units, and 150
hotel rooms. Since 2000. when a majority of these plans were adopted, 258,734
square feet of non - residential development and 54 residential units have been
constructed. In addition, 617 multi- family residential units have been entitled and
309 of the units are currently under construction.
This Specific Plan focuses on strengthening the development standards and design
guidelines and providing greater direction as to future land uses, creating three
distinct districts in the Plan — Transit - Oriented District, Retail District and Village
Parkway District. Most of the attention has been directed to the Transit - Oriented
District south of Dublin Boulevard. Specifically, transit - oriented developments are
encouraged within walking distance of the recently opened West Dublin /Pleasanton
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station.
At present, Downtown Dublin largely functions as a regional retail area comprised
of a number of large- format "power centers" with ancillary smaller specialty
retail sales and services. These retailers (such as Target, Ross, and Marshalls)
represent a unique niche in the regional marketplace and attract patrons from the
entire Tri- Valley region which includes the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
San Ramon, and Danville. The Specific Plan encourages new development
and improvements to existing developments to create a more walkable. urban
environment and to enhance the City's tax base.
Proposed New Development
Several new projects are either under construction or have been entitled in the
Specific Plan Area. The most significant development is the opening of the West
Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station. The station is located within the median of
Interstate 580, with pedestrian access north and south over both sections of the
freeway. By 2013. the project is projected to accommodate 8,600 users per day.
Within the City of Dublin, a 713 -space parking garage has been constructed at the
southern terminus of Golden Gate Drive for BART commuters. As part of the BART
project, a joint development project with a 150 -room hotel and 7.500 square feet
of retail space has been planned (Stage I Development Plan), in addition to the
309 multi - family residential units (Essex) which are under construction west of
Golden Gate Drive. Adjacent to and west of the BART station project is an existing
225,500 square feet one -story warehouse facility (the Prologis site, formerly
AMB). This property has been entitled for development of 308 multi - family
residential dwelling units and a 150,000 square feet office building. Associated with
these developments, St. Patrick Way will be extended, providing a vehicular and
pedestrian connection between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.
Other various residential, office and mixed -use developments have been
conceptually discussed with the City of Dublin, but no formal applications have
been submitted.
The Vision
The goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan is: Downtown Dublin will be a vibrant and 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.
LMND
v J
L
Sp*clAt Plan Boundary
i
Gry Limit Line
�.
site of Pen'cd (ACM)
wv' i �ri� 0.01 .0.25
4
M.__N '
� -- 0.2e -0.50
s
F .c • R 0.51 - 1.00
-2.00
' - 2 -01 -5.00
5.01 - 10.50
City of
Pteasar�Son
Parcel Size and Building Footprint — Downtown Dublin Spee is Plan
TAP
Stakeholder Interviews
The immediate area has a number of institutional
stakeholders and individual property owners. Due
to the time constraints of this process, individual
resident stakeholders were not consulted by the TAP,
but local retail experts and property owners were
interviewed. Stakeholders engaged by the TAP:
• Councilmember Don Biddle
• Mike Costa, Terranomics
• John Eudy, Essex Development
• Mayor Tim Sbranti, City of Dublin
• Michael Schafer, Burlington Coat Factory
• Felicia Studstill, Mayfield Gentry, Dublin Place
• Sandra Weck, Colliers
Issues to Be Explored
The panel was asked a series of questions by the City of Dublin
during the process that helped to guide the analysis and final
recommendations. The City posed four specific issues for the
panel to address:
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program in -lieu
funds to attract business and customers.
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make
Downtown Dublin vibrant (attract business and retail) and
pedestrian friendly.
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and
provide suggestions on retail categories that will improve the
vitality of the downtown.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether
the use of technology will further enhance the Downtown
Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc)
1. Identify ways to spend Community Benefit Program (CBP) in -lieu funds to
attract business and customers.
Currently, the CBP is structured to apply to development that is in excess of the permitted amount. The panel suggested the City
consider application of the program to all development, including development in East Dublin, The funds could be best invested on
catalytic projects preferably within the TOD subarea first. While a movie theater would be a good nighttime use, it is very expensive
to construct, and the panel suggested that the funds could help incentivize a theater or other entertainment venue perhaps through
the subsidy of development costs. Another good use of funds would be a downtown park or outdoor event space located on or
adjacent to Golden Gate Drive as it leads to BART. Funds could also be used to subsidize small tenant improvement through grants
or loans. Lastly, CBP funds could help clean up store fronts and fagade improvements.
TAP on Site
r rr,
2. Prioritize physical improvements necessary to make Downtown Dublin vibrant
(attract business and retail) and pedestrian friendly.
The City should explore how to create a community activation point downtown in addition to the existing senior center, preferably
in partnership with Chabot -Las Positas College, a major downtown land owner. The community center could be funded using park
and recreation fees and may be a joint venture opportunity with Chabot -Las Positas College.
1
b -f f9 5 12
-7.15 1 5
too` F-.o -V j
Potential Configurations for Dublin Blvd. Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Friendly Design
e
loci .0. W
e lam' Y1EaeR--" I
2 x 1'Z' �_� 4A- b1M`a--_-ROQ
l�
3. Evaluate the current mix of retailers in Downtown Dublin and provide
suggestions on retail categories that will improve the vitality of the downtown.
The pane[ recognizes that the current big box retailers are valuable to the City. At the same time there are a lot of opportunities
to create variety with regards to the size of retailers. Similar to what was done with the REI, Sprouts and Elephant Bar parcels,
integration of large format and smaller scale retail would provide more variation. The panel recommends bringing in an economic
firm or retail broker to conduct a detailed gap analysis or, at minimum, explore potential entertainment and dining uses.
4. Evaluate emerging technology trends to determine whether the use of
technology will further enhance the Downtown Dublin area (eg WiFi, apps, etc).
The panel supports implementing free WiFi in the downtown. The panel also feels that the City should introduce a requirement
that developers of new projects implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) reducing minimum parking
requirements and traffic congestion. Aspects of the TDMP should include City Carshare or Zipcar (with development incentives
or reduced parking requirements granted to projects incorporating such car- sharing programs), electronic vehicle preferred
parking and charging stations, and potentially BART ticket and Clipper card validation at the point of sale at various local retailers.
Mobile smart phone applications similar to "DashMob" or "Punchd" could also help drive traffic to local retailers. These mobile
technologies will help supplement and could be synced with the existing upgraded electronic signage for Tri- Valley Transit bus and
BART services that shows real time transit information,
West oubli UMmsartton BART
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
Strengths
The Specific Plan demonstrates the City's awareness of the
implementation issues that need to be tackled. The panel was
particularly encouraged by the tact that the City recognizes that
accommodating traffic should not drive the planning exercise. A
willingness to tolerate congestion is key to being able to realize
the vision of a vibrant downtown.
The Specific Plan area is conveniently located immediately
adjacent to the intersection of two major freeways, 1 -680 and
1 -680. The planning area also benefits from proximity to the newly
built West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station.
The planning area benefits from strong demographics both from
an income and education standpoint. Furthermore, the City's
budget is in relatively good shape and there is a strong set of
existing tenants in the downtown area. The re- tenanting that has
come out of the recession further demonstrates that the area has
retail strength. The panel did not perceive resistance from citizens
in the immediate area to what the City is trying to accomplish.
Opportunities
Opportunities abound in response to these challenges. The City
benefits from a fairly open landscape with a lot of property owners
and few buildings. While the abundance of parking is part of the
retail area's success, some of this "sea of parking" has the potential
for development into new structures (some of which may contain
parking as mentioned in the Specific Plan). Several opportunities
for public - private partnerships with various principals are currently
at play. The panel suggests that the area near the West Dublin
BART Station has the most immediate potential for development, in
contrast to the rest of downtown, such as the Village Parkway area.
Weaknesses
One of the major implementation challenges of the Specific
Plan is that it includes multiple property owners with different
motivations. Furthermore, the Specific Plan covers a large and
more diverse area than a traditional downtown, meaning a single
set of strategies cannot be applied to the entire area. The creation
of districts within the downtown that have their distinct character
will be beneficial in the long run,
While there may be a desire to see transformative change in the
area, garnering city -wide buy -in to the notion of public investment
as a catalyst may be challenging. The challenge of the Community
Benefit Program is timing. If the program is relied on to fund
some of the key improvements that need to take place it may
take too long or never happen because the money won't come
in until development is well underway. The challenge remains:
How can desired new development get underway without the
required infrastructure? If there is a sincere city -wide desire to
see transformative change it requires utilizing public resources
to get it going, including consideration of the appropriate use of
debt to finance up -front infrastructure. Lastly, this is an infill area
and how it is approached from a development standpoint is very
different from the greentield development that has occurred on
the east side of Dublin.
Threats
The Specific Plan calls for fiscal self- sufficiency, requiring
a different approach to public finance, specifically one that
includes up -front public investment and a closer look at some of
the available toois including debt financing, which the City has
historically been averse too. The panel also believes that there is a
need for more collaborative engagement with developers.
City -wide support to invest in the Downtown may be problematic
given the perceived east and west division. Finally, real estate
capital markets are currently fragile. While there is financing for
multifamily and other projects, that window of opportunity may
close soon so there is an impetus to act now.
Strengths
- Progressive Specific Plan
• Recognition that traffic should not be a constraint
on market opportunities
• City aware of implementation issues
• Great location
• At the intersection of two freeways
• Two BART stations
• Mircoclimate conditions in downtown are conducive
to recreation and outdoor activities
• City in strong financial condition
•
High-income area: sales tax revenue and high median
income households
• Strong, diverse and long - standing tenants
• Perceived as being business- friendly
• Low vacancy
• No or little resistance to development in the
Downtown area
Opportunities
- Low density and surplus parking creates development
opportunity sites
• Many public- private partnership opportunities
• Accelerate the potential for TOO District as a near -term
transit village v4th horizontal mixed -use
- BART - oriented residential development
• Interested owners in district
Weaknesses
• Multiple property owners with difterent motivations
• Lack of public funding/investment
• Community Benefit Program issues
• Tuning: funds build over time. but investment is needed
up front
• No redevelopment agency
• Potential concerns over deploying public resources city-
wide specifically to the downtown area
• Multiple and fragmented ownership could pose
challenges to developing public-private partnerships.
infill development and revitalization of the area
Threats
• City's reluctance to issue debt for public improvements
can inhibit redevelopment — a revision to this policy may
be required to achieve the vision
• City -wide buy -in and financial support (e.g. fees) may
be required to achieve downto:tm vision
• Division between East and West Dublin reflected in
planning effort
• Slow to capture current market opportunities
• Fragility of economic conditions can impact
development opportunities
Recommendations
After the consideration of the stakeholder questions, SWOT analysis, site tour and interviews, the team identified what they felt were the
most pressing issues and resulting recommendations. Many of the panel's ten recommendations focus on improvements needed in the
transit- oriented district and uniting the City's vision with the property owners'.
Focus on TOD District, especially
4 -5 key parcels as a catalyst
The City should take a step further than specific planning and
actually bring together the property owners and interested
parties to try and generate a coordinated plan for key
catalytic properties. These owners include Essex, BART,
Chabot -Las Positas and Safeway. The City should play a
proactive role in creating a unified design vision by funding
the design plans for these blocks and by helping address
how financial implementation will occur. The City will need to
go beyond what is spelled out in the Specific Plan to create
successful projects that advance the vision for downtown.
The panel suggests the City sit down and have some design
exercises with the owners of the key parcels to try and
paint a shared vision. As part of that, the City may have to
think about public investment that goes along with private
investment, as well as flexibility from a regulatory standpoint
in order to stimulate the private sector's desire to invest.
2. Leverage current opportunities
for Public- Private Partnerships
The City should continue to work with BART to explore
alternative near term uses for the BART hotel /restaurant
site as part of a shared vision. BART's focus on a hotel
for that site does not match near -term market potential; it
would benefit both parties to explore how that parcel can be
developed sooner rather than later. The panel also suggests
discussing with BART shared use of their parking garage
with nighttime uses that activiate the area focused on the
upgraded Golden Gate Drive / St. Patrick Way TOD, for
example a movie theater.
3. Simultaneously work on
redevelopment of Dublin Place
The TAP spoke with the manager of the Dublin Place and
believe that they have a sincere interest in redeveloping their
property. The City should simultaneously be talking with
them and offering the same type of collaborative planning
effort as would occur elsewhere in the TOD District (see
Recommendation #1).
'kaia�. -tiU ?utJ�
TOD District Essentials
�r7
r.xAP `~ n
Lg�oct= i
TOD District Essentials
X
°e
Downtown Dublin BART
Downtown Dublin
4. Explore opportunities for
entertainment and civic center to
animate public realm and activate
night -time activity in TOD District
The City should investigate future opportunities to activate
the area with additional civic (City, County, other agencies,
etc.) and entertainment options. Evaluate partnership
options with Chabot -Las Positas College District on the
Crown Chevrolet site to create a public plaza /gathering
space which could be jointly used. Additionally, if and when
the City needs to expand its own footprint, it should consider
the downtown first,
5. Focus first on residential and
horizontal mixed -use developments,
then retail and office
The City should focus on residential and horizontal mixed
use on Golden Gate Drive and 5t. Patrick Way to provide
more residents to support diversified retail. Current limits
on the allowable number of housing units within the TOD
area should be removed. The Prologis (formerly AMB) site
should be allowed to increase its residential count, with office
development, given the surplus of office space along the 680
corridor, being optional or driven by market needs. In the
panel's experience, vertical mixed use can be problematic,
particularly in the early phases of transforming an area
through TOD. Too often "4- over -1" (4 levels of residential over
1 level of retail or commercial) scenarios maintain their for -
lease signs in the windows of the ground floor retail for years.
I— 6. Undertake streetscape redesign
_ for Golden Gate Drive to enhance
the pedestrian experience and for
calming traffic
On Golden Gate Drive allow for one 12' travel lane and bike
lanes in each direction, add on- street parallel parking and
increase the 4' sidewalks to a 10' minimum. Village Parkway
Entrance to Dublin Place can serve as a pilot project by reducing travel lanes to one -way
in each direction and simply re- striping to allow for diagonal
parking.
7. Assess downtown public
improvement financing strategies
More public improvements and public investment are
needed on the front end. To do so the City needs to identify
and weave together a multiple range of funding sources.
Some of these sources may include Assessment Districts
or Infrastructure Financing Districts, which may evolve
under California law to replace redevelopment project areas.
The City has had discussions in the past about Business
Improvement Districts but should also explore how to
restructure the Community Benefits Plans so those funds are
more targeted into the downtown area, including potentially
capturing funds from the larger City and then focusing them
into downtown.
8. Further reduce fees for targeted uses,
especially restaurants, in downtown
The City has done a great job reducing fees in the downtown
area as an incentive. however even at reduced levels they
can be too high and create an impediment for some uses
especially restaurants and dining uses. The City should
further reduce fees to attract restaurants.
0"Or-A O
a t X y2• "Yrz+anil. lA•.f`c �- oS��tRJ
• t x a �aa�c�.g, ��.� � voe
47
- !'S 4 -.b 12 y't 45 k D -S
Cr4i6 �\
iCO�
, It 52� `sit lls.)i l�A S�SZ'2CZ1W
• �` -isbi� ,,TEt}..S ? bS' sioR*WMK t^p'. S�171'
9. Dedicate staff to manage
Capital Improvement Plan
Redevelopment agencies often implement capital
improvements in a very efficient way by identifying
capital needs for an entire downtown area and assigning
a dedicated project manager to implement the various
capital improvements (CI's) within their individual project
area. Improvements include streetscape improvements,
undergrounding of utilities, extending trolley lines, building
pedestrian bridges and upgrading infrastructure, making
way for future development. The panel recommends the City
create a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan area and dedicate time and resources,
i.e. a project manager potentially housed within the Economic
Development Department, to implement the CIP. Once a CIP is
approved, this person would function independently from the
City's Building and Public Works Department to implement the
capital improvement projects within the Specific Plan area.
10. Exempt residential development
from CBP payments
Exempting residential development downtown from the CBP
payments could help further incentivize housing where it is
needed most, thereby providing more retail customers within
walking distance,
v3wol3 ovea-:r
rowe.t u ws Teo Wh�+k�
l.1oW� fESV,,,� 7�m -«Sc
1�5
Ij
b' IV is l -4 2' b;
10_a' Ra W.
• i X 1Z - 54xrEt_ l.�p.Y�, ET{q. atRt'CZ4N
a 1' IA1OS[JSptS EU1'Fi`K �+ y[a�
, k V'S g \rnS 11NC Erb+. a��CT•Q.1
Z5 Sion.
Relevant Case Studies
Milipitas Transit Area Specific Plan
The City of Milipitas, CA's Transit Area Specific Plan, adopted
in June 2008, is a 437 -acre mixed -use plan area that calls for
up to 7,100 new dwelling units and approximately 1AM square
feet of commercial space built over four phases. Phasing will
depend on residential market factors. The City staff and their
consultant worked extensively with property owners, public
agencies, community members and other stakeholders in the area
to develop a long -term plan that is visionary and yet grounded in
market reality.
Two rounds of interviews were held with property owners to
ascertain each owner's goals and constraints. Contentious issues,
about the allocation of parks and streets across property lines,
and the distribution of land uses and densities, were resolved
through ongoing discussions.
Piper /Montague Subarea
The Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan includes an implementation
chapter that outlines every capital improvement, the department
responsible, the timeframe and the geographic area that benefits
from the improvement. Studies were completed to identify all
road and utility improvements and public services. Detailed
infrastructure plans for sewer, wastewater, storm- water: recycled
water and utilities allowed for the preparation of a detailed
financing and phasing plan and determination of appropriate
impact fees. This implementation strategy ensures funding for
capital improvements will be available and provides confidence
to the City and property owners that the Specific Plan will be fully
implemented.
Property owners began to implement the Specific Plan even
before it was adopted, suggesting that they had enough
confidence to submit project applications. Together, the City
and project sponsors were able to identify issues and propose
refinements to the Specific Plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
- Transit - Oriented Development
• Property owner buy -in
MCC,alulless Drive
Before and After — Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan
Station Park Green, San Mateo
Adjacent to the Hayward Park rail station, Station Park Green
is a 12 -acre transit - oriented development with open space, 590
units, 10,000 square feet of office space and 60,000 square feet of
commercial /retail.
A pedestrian - friendly street grid connects the different uses,
much the same way that the intersection of Golden Gate and St.
Patrick's could be at the Dublin TOD district. Stakeholders worked
closely with the City staff and San Mateo community through
public workshops and meetings, ensuring community consensus
and timely approvals of the master plan.
Applicability to Downtown Dublin
• Similiar area to site
• Mixed -use "green" transit- oriented development
Participants
Panel Chair Ron Golem of BAE Urban Economics specializes in
project management for complex assignments. including real
estate transaction support. transit - oriented development. strategic
business planning, and program development for public purposes.
Prior to joining BAE, Ron served as Real Estate Specialist for the
National Park Service. formulating strategies for public /private
partnerships and negotiating numerous agreements in the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area. Ron has also worked for private real
estate development companies as an Asset Manager. completing
successful negotiations for over 150 commercial leases He has
managed diverse portfolios of all types of commercial properties
totaling in excess of two million square feet.
David Cropper. Managing Director, joined TMG Partners in 2000
He has 25 years of direct real estate experience in finance,
construction, and entitlements. He is responsible for TMG
Par tner s' finance and development activities in the greater Bay
Area and is a member of the firm's Investment Committee.
He most recently directed The Crossing I San Bruno. an
award - winning $250 million dollar mixed -use transit- oriented
development, as well as 650 Townsend, TMG's mixed -use office
and retail project in San Francisco. He has financed over $1
billion of real estate including construction loans, permanent
loans. CMBS facilities as well as tax - exempt band and tax credit
structured financings.
David Johnson formed Christiani Johnson Architects with
Richard D. Christiani in 1994 and has been the lead designer for
many of the firm's residential and mixed -use projects. including
Bridgeview. Oceanview Village, The Potrero, 555 Bartlett. 4th
and U, Bryant Place and University Village for the University of
California. Berkeley. He has developed particular expertise in
planning high - density urban infill development featuring housing
over retail.
Keri Lung Senior Development Consultant for MidPen Housing
Corporation, has over 20 years of experience in the fields of
affordable housing. economic development. and urban planning
Keri has been responsible for strategic acquisitions and business
development at MidPen Housing Corporation over the past five
years, initiating nine transit - oriented urban infill projects v;ith over
800 units in construction in San Mateo. Sunnyvale. San Jose.
South San Francisco and Alameda County. Keri % %as instrumental
in helping MidPen win highly competitive tax credits and other
scarce public funds. resulting in record growth for MidPen at a
time when most developers are struggling.
Pairick O'Keefe is the City Manager for the City of Emeryville. and
Executive Director of the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency. He
is responsible for the oversight of eight departments including
Police. Fire. Public Works. Community Services, Economic
Development & Housing. Administrative Services. Planning &
Building and City Clerk Prior to the 2006 appointment as City
Manager. he served as the Director of the Emeryville Economic
Development and Housing Department since 1995. Mr. O'Keeffe
currently oversees a staff of 185 and a $59.4 million annual
operating budget, including a $34.4 million annual Redevelopment
Agency budget that funds Economic Development and Capital
Improvement Programs.
Gerry Tierney, Senior Associate with Perkins + Will. has 30 years
of experience in architecture have been focused primarily on
housing and other institutional projects that have requried deep
expertise in and understanding of regulatory processes and
procedures. as well as code and entitlement issues. His portfolio
features a range of projects that demonstrate innovative. client -
focused solutions across varying project types. Gerry brings
flexibility and experience to each new project, creating individual
designs tailored to the specific needs of the client. user and site.
Iman Novin Assistant Project Manager /Sr. Project Analyst.
joined BRIDGE /BUILD in 2007 and works on both investment
and nevd construction projects conducting project due diilgence
and providing ongoing support for the redevelopment of the
MacArthur Transit Village in Oakland. CA. Prior to joining BUILD,
Iman assisted the Real Estate and Planning Divisions of CCDC
downtown San Diego's redevelopment arm, with numerous
redevelopment and affordable housing projects. including the
management of CCDC s ArcGIS operations He also has previous
�.,ork experience frith Keyser Marston Associates' San Diego
office, Iman holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Structural
Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Urhan Studies and
Planning from the University of California. San Diego
ULI San Francisco District COLIncil C11air
Michael Jameson. Managing Director of Prudential Mortgage
Capital Company
ULI San Francisco Panel Staff
Xiomara Cisneros Director
Kate White Executive Director
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
9 182 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 6:58:47 PM
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.
Tranning com=Wivn, Jury 24, 2012
ftukr 3feeizny 67
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 cafe 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.
Pfannsng ('ommission July 24, 2012
ft ular ,'Meeting 68
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.
Tlanning ("ommission Y
luf 24, 2012
Wqufar ,Ve tng 69
Cm. Brown asked if, when the Ordinance refers to the "sufficient parking for the area
businesses," is it 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
for 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 abandoned 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.
'Canning Comm ;son July 24, 2012
ftgufar W eetiny 70
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, and
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 that, 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.
Tanning Commission Jul 24, 2012
` vgufar eetiu 71
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, 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 City 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.
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.
Planning Commission Jury 24, 2012 .
(ftulzr 5Weeting 72
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Vice Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing.
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.
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
Commission because they did not want to speak against their landlord even though their parking
,11(anning Commission Jsc y 24, 2012
qur4r Meeting 73
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 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 aesthetics 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 if he is opposed to the Ordinance.
Cm. Schaub stated he is not 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.
41ianning Commission ission ,hut 24, 2012
2Rfgu(i�ar meeting 74
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 tries 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 that 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.
t111anuing Cor mis ' n Jul 24, 2012
�Rvgufar Weetiny 75
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, the business owners should be
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 that 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.
Planning Commission July 24, 2012
gurar eetang 76
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, only for the duration of the pilot program. He wanted the time
period to be 18 months instead of 36 months and felt 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 City 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.
2' arming Cvra mivsion July 24, 2012
quf4rWeeting 77
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 City Council can make the appropriate decision.
Tfanning Commission Juf 24, 2012
' .egufar- Reetiny 78
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
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 8:32:52 PM
Respectfully sub fitted,
can O'Keefe
Planning Comm' ce Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
GWINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSION107.24.12 FINAL PC MINUTES (CF).doc
rtir16 "'orrsmusto z jay 24, 2012
gulur', 3,eeiwg 79
FUJINAGA MANAGEMENT
158 EAST JACKSON STREET
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
TELEPHONE (408) 278 -7700
September 18, 2012
Kristi Bascom
City of Dublin Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Parking Requirement Pilot Program
Dear Kristi:
FACSM €LIE (408) 278 -7704
EMAIL. todd @tfujinaga.com
I have managed the property located at 6890 -6894 Village Parkway for the past eight years. The
Village Parkway Parking Reduction Program would allow us to take advantage of the unique
parking needs and traffic patterns to our property. It would also open up a wider range of
possibilities for our current vacancy, that otherwise wouldn't be there under the current zoning
laws.
I manage many properties in the bay area, and applaud this effort to take a creative, "out-of-the-
box" initiative for economic development, and I wish to offer my support for its inception.
If this program were to begin, I did have a few questions that I hope will be discussed /answered
at the Community Meeting
1) At the end of the 24 -month program, what will be the set of criteria you will use to
evaluate its success /failure?
2) If the program does not continue will the tenant mix have to meet the old zoning
standards at the time the program ends?
3) Any additional fees to be a part of the pilot program?
Thanks again for leading this effort. Pease let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
vin a k1i moto
ORDINANCE NO. XX — 12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * **
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING) RELATED TO THE
VILLAGE PARKWAY MARKET -BASED PARKING PROGRAM
PLPA- 2012 -00033
WHEREAS, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report; and
WHEREAS, one of the ULI report recommendations relates to allowing greater intensity
of uses in Downtown Dublin; however the Village Parkway District is limited to achieve greater
vibrancy and intensity with the City's current parking standards combined with the existing
building and development patterns in place; and
WHEREAS, the proposed market -based parking program eliminating minimum parking
standards would be implemented for a temporary period of two years and the parking supply
and demand would be managed by the property owners and tenants, and not regulated by the
City; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented a report to the City Council on August 21, 2012 seeking their
input on the market -based parking program concept. The City Council directed Staff to proceed
with preparing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking
standards in the Village Parkway District for a limited term of two years; and
WHEREAS, a Community Meeting was held on September 21, 2012 soliciting feedback
from property owners and businesses in the Village Parkway District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments on October 9, 2012 and adopted Resolution 12 -37
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
Parking Reduction Program; and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
, 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.13 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City
Council finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General
Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all
said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "): The City Council declares
this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3). Section
15601(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA
because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but
it sets forth the parking regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is
occupied by a user. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in
significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately.
SECTION 2.
Thirty days following the adoption of this Ordinance, the first paragraph of Section 8.76.080.D
(Parking Requirements by Use Type — Commercial) of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
D. Commercial Use Types. Commercial Use Types shall provide off - street parking
spaces as noted in the table below, with the exception of uses located on properties in the
Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Uses in the Village
Parkway District are not required to provide a prescribed number of parking spaces for
any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the Downtown Dublin Zoning
District.
All other text in Section 8.76.080.D, and all other text in the remainder of Chapter 8.76, remains
unchanged.
SECTION 3.
Two years following the effective date of this Ordinance, the first paragraph of Section
8.76.080.D (Parking Requirements by Use Type — Commercial) of the Dublin Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Commercial Use Types. Commercial Use Types shall provide off - street parking
spaces as follows:
All other text in Section 8.76.080.D, and all other text in the remainder of Chapter 8.76, remains
unchanged.
SECTION 4.
Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause,
sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any
person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not
affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts
thereof of the ordinance or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its
adoption.
SECTION 6.
Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government
Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this
_ day of 2012, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G: \PA# \2012 \PLPA - 2012 -00033 Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program \PC 10.09.2012Wtt 2 - Exhibit A - CC Ord.doc
Page 3 of 3
DRAFT DRAFT
4ggj l�r,'q
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 9,
2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the
meeting to order at 6:59:12 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Brown, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Assistant
Community Development Director; Stephen Muzio, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi Bascom,
Principal Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City
Manager; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Vice Chair O'Keefe, Cm. Schaub
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm.
Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3 -0, with Vice Chair O'Keefe and Cm. Schaub being absent, the
Planning Commission approved the minutes of the September 25, 2012 meeting, with minor
revisions.
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. Bhuthimethee asked if the text of the Amendment should mention the 24 month period for
the program.
Ms. Bascom responded that Section 2 of the Ordinance describes the change being made and
Section 3 describes that in two years it will revert back to the text that exists today. She stated
that, should the City Council decide to extend the term of the program or renew it, a separate
action would need to take place but no separate action would be needed for it to automatically
revert back to the existing text.
Chair Wehrenberg asked how parking would be addressed in future applications.
41tanning Commission Oclor)e-r 9, 2012
(kgjukaw `JOleelillif 136
DRAFT DRAFT
Ms. Bascom answered that, as proposed, parking for commercial uses only would not be
reviewed during the two year period. She stated that parking would not need to be addressed
because there would be no parking requirement during the temporary period.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if Staff would review the type of use to ensure its compatibility with the
surrounding uses to confirm that it would not cause a problem.
Ms. Bascom stated the permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses will remain the same as
they are today. The Planning Commission would review CUP's as appropriate but not the
parking requirements.
Chair Wehrenberg asked Ms. Bascom if, in her opinion, the 2 year time frame is sufficient
considering the timing to bring a project through the process.
Ms. Bascom answered that there are a number of vacant spaces on Village Parkway and not all
projects would need to come to the Planning Commission. She stated the number and types of
uses are generous in terms of what is allowed in the Village Parkway District. She felt there are
a lot of uses that could move in today if parking was not an issue. She felt the time frame was
appropriate and could be extended but it would be more difficult to make the time frame shorter.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the program would come back through the Planning Commission
and City Council if, after the two year period, the City Council wanted to extend the program.
Ms. Bascom stated that the Ordinance is written to automatically revert back to today's
standards after the 2 year period. She felt that as the period comes to a close, there would be
some outreach to property owners to ascertain how the program is working, etc. It would then
be brought back to the City Council to determine whether it should be abandoned or continue to
be tested.
Cm. Brown referred to the letter from Mr. Kevin Sakimoto, Fujinaga Management Company,
who asked: "at the end of 24 month program, what will be the set of criteria to evaluate the
success or failure of the program." He asked if the criteria will be set during the 24 month period
before the Planning Commission and City Council review the program again.
Ms. Bascom felt that Economic Development would do outreach with the property owners. She
felt there is no quantitative way to assess the success or failure of the program. But the City
would use feedback from property owners and managers to determine if the program
successfully attracted more vibrant/intense uses. She mentioned that Mr. Sakimoto attended
the public meeting and they were able to discuss his questions at that time. He is also in
attendance tonight.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sakimoto, Fujinaga Management, property manager at 6894 Village Parkway, spoke in
favor of the project. He stated that, if the Ordinance is approved, he has a tenant who would
like to lease the only vacancy in his building on Village Parkway. He stated the parking there
would be utilized in mostly off -peak hours. He added that the remainder of his tenants are
automotive uses which are mainly open 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday and that
his new tenant would not affect the current tenants. He felt the program is a great opportunity
for the businesses in the Village Parkway District.
41tanning Commission Oclor)e-r 9, 2012
(kgjukaw `JOleelillif 137
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Brown asked Mr. Sakimoto what type of business is being proposed.
Mr. Sakimoto answered it is a personal trainer who would offer group classes in the mornings,
evenings and weekends and probably have one -on -one personal training during the day which
would not impact the other tenants.
Ellie Lange, property owner /manager of several projects on Village Parkway, spoke in favor of
the project. She stated she had originally opposed the proposed program because it did not
cover the entire Village Parkway District. She felt that Staff heard her concerns and adopted
them to make the program functional for all property owners. She stated that she has to
manage the parking regardless of the regulations in place in Dublin and felt that if a property
manager doesn't manage the parking the tenants won't stay. She felt that passing the
Ordinance will make a huge difference for her tenants who have alternative hours of operation.
She stated there is one business owner, a personal trainer, who was not able to expand their
business because of the current parking restriction. They will be able to expand their business
with the new program. She encouraged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of
the Ordinance.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Brown stated he is in favor of the pilot program and agreed with Ms. Lange because the
change in the pilot program opens it up to all businesses in the Village Parkway District. He felt
it gives them an equal footing to attract customers and expand their businesses. He is in
support of the project and felt the 3 year period was too long and that the 2 year period is more
appropriate.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is in support of the project. She felt it will allow property owners
to attract more tenants and will be a perfect example of shared parking. She liked that it was
expanded to the entire district and therefore eliminates the competitive advantage.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the project and agreed that expanding it to the
entire Village Parkway District was good. She was concerned about the parking at some
businesses where parking is extremely tight now and mentioned the day care center in the
district that was recently denied but approved by the City Council on appeal. She felt it would
be interesting to see how this program will affect that project. She stated that Mayor Sbranti
walked the district and counted parking spaces and proved that there was plenty of parking
available in the area. She felt the program will bring some vibrancy to the downtown.
On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3 -0, the Planning
Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
41tanning Commission Oclor)e-r 9, 2012
(kgjukaw `JOleelillif 138
DRAFT DRAFT
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 PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM
41tanning Commission Oclor)e-r 9, 2012
(kgp,d aw `JOleelillif 139
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 37
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 MARKET -BASED PARKING PROGRAM
PLPA- 2012 -00033
WHEREAS, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report; and
WHEREAS, one of the ULI report recommendations relates to allowing greater intensity
of uses in Downtown Dublin; however the Village Parkway District is limited to achieve greater
vibrancy and intensity with the City's current parking standards combined with the existing
building and development patterns in place; and
WHEREAS, the proposed market -based parking program eliminating minimum parking
standards would be implemented for a temporary period of two years and the parking supply
and demand would be managed by the property owners and tenants, and not regulated by the
City; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented a report to the City Council on August 21, 2012 seeking
their input on the market -based parking program concept. The City Council directed Staff to
proceed with preparing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the
parking standards in the Village Parkway District for a limited term of two years; and
WHEREAS, a Community Meeting was held on September 21, 2012 soliciting feedback
from property owners and businesses in the Village Parkway District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are set forth in the
proposed Ordinance that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the proposed
modifications on October 9, 2012, for which proper notice was given in accordance with
California State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its October 9, 2012, meeting did hear and use
its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony
hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.120.050.13 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission finds that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General
Plan and all applicable Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the project be found exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) because the amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Dublin Municipal
Code do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A.
votes:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9t" day of October 2012 by the following
AYES: Wehrenberg, Brown, Bhuthimethee
NOES:
ABSENT: Schaub, O'Keefe
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:tPAM20MPLPA- 2012 -00033 Village Parkway Pilot Parking ProgramtPC 10.09.20120 ft 2 - Reso.DOC
F,