Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2012 PC Minutes t,,, Planning Commission Minutes 4 - 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. 'Canning Commission October 9,2012 guar Meeting 136 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. Pfcznning Curnrnisszon Octo 6er 9,2012 gufar- eeting 137 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 Punning Commission Octo6er9,2012 WeguTir Weeting 138 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 8.2 Tobacco Retailers Zoning Ordinance Amendment Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if day care centers are included in the Ordinance. Ms. Aja answered that originally day care centers were to be included, but various retailers were concerned that they would lose the money and time invested in the project if a business was going through an entitlement process and then a day care was sited before they could be approved. They requested that day care centers be removed and the City Council directed Staff to remove them from the Ordinance. She added that children at that age are generally accompanied by their parents and are not of smoking age. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Ordinance would exclude gas stations. Ms. Aja answered that the Ordinance includes all new gas stations; however, gas stations are not included as a business that primarily sells tobacco products, therefore, two gas stations could be located within 1,000 feet of one another, but they must still maintain the required distances from schools and the other areas. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the 1,000 foot separation requirement is for businesses where tobacco sales are their primary business. Ms. Aja answered yes. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City currently has a permit process for new tobacco retailers. Ms. Aja answered that the City does not have a permit process. Tobacco retailers are currently regulated as a retail use and therefore, if retail is permitted then it is a permitted use with no separate permit process. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to the Policy Considerations for Approval Process — there are two options; in the 2nd option a public hearing would be required by either Staff or the Planning Commission. She asked how that is determined. Ms. Aja responded that the City Council directed that new tobacco retailers be permitted by a Zoning Clearance so that it would take less processing time. She stated that the options Cm. Bhuthimethee referenced were part of an earlier discussion with the City Council on the preferred approval process for new tobacco retailers. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, felt there was some confusion regarding the attachments to the Planning Commission Staff Report. The attachments are previous City Council Staff Reports. He stated there were several iterations of the proposed Ordinance as Staff worked with the community, and received direction from City Council. He Panning Commission October 91 2012 egufar Muting 139 continued that the direction received from the City Council has been incorporated into the current Staff Report and Ordinance in the Planning Commission packet. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if, in the "Violations" section, the City Council voted to revoke or suspend a permit. Ms. Aja answered that will be part of the Title 4 licensing system, but the recommendation was for revocation. Cm. Brown referred to Page 2 of 4 of the Staff Report that mentions the areas that should be included in the Ordinance. He asked why theaters and family oriented recreation weren't mentioned in that section such as Rock-N-Jump. Ms. Aja stated that Rock-N-Jump is categorized as an Indoor Recreational Use; it was felt by the City Council that it was best to keep a smaller list to make it easier to regulate and monitor. Chair Wehrenberg felt that would also limit the types of businesses if they needed to have the 1,000 foot separation. Ms. Aja responded that, if there was an existing tobacco retailer, an Indoor Recreational Use could locate within 500 or 1,000 feet of them; however, if the Indoor Recreational Use was included, new tobacco retailers could not site within the minimum separation distance from an existing Indoor Recreational Use. The City Council requested that Indoor Recreational Uses not be included as one of the use types. Cm. Brown referred to Page 3 of 4 of the Staff Report regarding existing retailers that will be grandfathered. He asked if a grandfathered retailer wanted to move, would they be categorized as a "new" retailer. Stephen Muzio, Assistant City Attorney, responded that if an existing retailer was to move to another address then it would be considered a new retailer. He stated there is language in the Ordinance that states if an existing retailer purchased an adjacent parcel and expands the retail structure, then that would be considered an existing use. He continued that, if they moved to a separate location, they would be considered a new retailer. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Zoning Clearance is reviewed and approved at Staff level. Ms. Aja answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are any vacant parcels that would be affected by this Ordinance because of its proximity to a school or park. She mentioned a parcel that was rezoned recently to commercial in the eastern part of Dublin. Mr. Baker stated that a new tobacco retailer would need to meet the separation requirements which could hinder their ability to locate on a parcel. Chair Wehrenberg stated she was looking out for residents who were looking forward to having some retail/commercial in their area and felt this Ordinance could potentially prohibit it. Planning Commission Octo6er9 2012 gufar Meeting 140 Mr. Baker responded that the proposed Ordinance would not prohibit the retail business from opening, but it could impact their ability to sell tobacco products. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the future 7-11 at Dublin Blvd and Regional Street will be grandfathered. Mr. Baker answered the 7-11 would not be subject to this Ordinance and would be grandfathered. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Janice Louie, Alameda County Public Health Dept., spoke in favor of the project. She commended the City of Dublin for proposing the Ordinance. She stated that the Public Health Department does not want new tobacco retailers to be within 1,000 feet of schools and parks and would like to see all youth oriented areas included in the 1,000 foot minimum separation requirement, but especially parks. She presented statistics about youth smoking and the easy availability of tobacco to young people. She spoke regarding small, flavored cigars and presented pictures to the Planning Commission. She urged the Planning Commission to change the definition of tobacco retailer to include all nicotine products. Tiffany Wong, tobacco decoy for various law enforcement agencies in Alameda County, spoke in favor of the project. She felt the availability and the ease of obtaining tobacco and especially the flavored cigars contributes to student smoking. She urged the Planning Commission to propose a 1,000 foot buffer zone at child and youth sensitive areas for new retailers to deter underage tobacco sales. Karishma Khatri, tobacco decoy for various law enforcement agencies in Alameda County, spoke in favor of the project. She stated that as a tobacco decoy she was shocked to discover that so many retailers sell to minors. She stated she has seen an increase in tobacco problems with sales to minors, not only in small stores but in larger grocery stores also. She also mentioned flavored cigars and the easy availability of tobacco in Dublin and felt that distance plays a big part in whether the young person uses tobacco or not. She understood the Commission's concerns regarding business but felt that having a 1,000 foot buffer zone around all areas where children congregate outweighs the cost. She urged the Planning Commission to act on the Ordinance. Traci Cross, Community and Youth Advocate, spoke in favor of the project. She stated she works with the teens that are in attendance. She stated that research shows that the lower prices and increased density is associated with higher populations of smokers. She felt that increasing the distance to a 1,000 foot buffer from schools and parks will decrease access that teens have to the locations, will decrease the places where teens can purchase tobacco products and decrease the amount of retailers that will sell to minors. She stated that as a past tobacco counselor she found that the more exposure teens have to the tobacco environment, the more likely they are to try cigarettes. She asked the Planning Commission to consider adopting the 1,000 foot buffer between schools, parks and other youth oriented locations to help protect teens. Chair Wehrenberg asked how she counsels teens about tobacco use. Atiming Commission October 9, 20,2 Regular'Meeting 141 Ms. Cross answered she focused on cessation. She also received information from them regarding where they were buying the cigarettes. She works with local public health departments to identify those retailers selling to minors. She mentioned an example of a bond between a tobacco retailer and a teen and the teen knew they could get the cigarettes from that retailer. Cm. Brown asked how the 1,000 foot buffer will discourage tobacco use by teens. Ms. Cross answered it will reduce the number of retail outlets, and the fewer outlets there are the less access teens have. Cm. Brown felt it was strictly limiting the number of retailers. Ms. Cross agreed. Sonia Chen, tobacco decoy with Alameda County law enforcement agencies and Valley Christian student, spoke in favor of the project. She relayed her personal experience with her close friends who experimented with tobacco products that led them into marijuana and alcohol use. She felt that the availability and commonality of using tobacco products in teens causes many problems. She felt that establishing the 1,000 foot buffer would discourage teens from experimenting with tobacco because it would eliminate the source. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Valley Christian High School offers programs for smoking cessation or prevention. Ms. Chen answered from a Christian school perspective she felt there is a lack of education. She felt it is not mandated by the state that schools teach smoking prevention, even in health classes there is not very much mandated information. She felt that the Christian school board believes that most of the students are not involved in these activities. But she felt it is a problem and is directly related to the availability of tobacco products. Felicianna Marquez, Staff Member in a drug prevention program, stated she will soon be a tobacco decoy and has learned about how tobacco affects teens, and how tobacco is advertised towards teens. She mentioned the flavored cigars that are used by teens and felt that with a price point at $0.69, the fruity flavors, and the stores within walking distance from high school exacerbate the problem. She felt that more tobacco retailers in the community leads to increased teen usage. She strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt a 1,000 foot buffer from schools and parks for future tobacco outlets in the proposed Ordinance. Zeeshan Raja, Graduate student of Public Health, Alameda County Public Health Department, spoke in favor of the project. He shared the findings from a survey he completed regarding the types of tobacco products that are being sold in Dublin. He asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the 1,000 foot buffer while reviewing the Ordinance. Serena Chen, from the American Lung Association, spoke in favor of the project. She spoke regarding what types of tobacco products being sold at convenience stores. She felt that convenience stores are partnering with the tobacco industry to market to youth. She stated that the smoking rate in Dublin has been reduced because of the smoke-free laws passed by the City. She felt that those laws protect non-smokers and help smokers quit or cut down and let the youth in the city know that they care, which sends a powerful message. She stated that 9-fanning Co mission October 9,2012 Regular Meeting 142 smoking is the #1 preventable cause of death among Dublin residents. She felt that if the retailers never sold tobacco to anyone under 23 then no one would smoke. She stated that smoking is considered a pediatric disease because if it is not caught before the age of 18 you don't catch it. She felt it is easier for someone who started smoking at an older age to quit. She spoke about the exposure of young children to tobacco and tobacco products, such as the flavored cigars. She mentioned a survey of Dublin High School students that indicated how easy it is to obtain tobacco products. She urged the Planning Commission to adopt a 1,000 foot buffer from schools and parks for future tobacco outlets in the proposed Ordinance. Chair Wehrenberg stated that when Ms. Chen attended a City Council meeting she mentioned that the American Lung Association had given Dublin a grade and asked her to share that information. Ms. Chen responded that the American Lung Association looks at the municipal codes of the cities in California and gives them a grade based on 3 categories: smoke-free outdoor areas, smoke-free housing, and controlled access to tobacco. She stated that Dublin has a "B" in outdoor area, (should be an "A" when the City Council makes all parks in Dublin smoke-free), smoke-free housing is an "A" and restricting access to tobacco is a "D." She stated that when Dublin adopts the retail license system then Dublin that will get straight A's. She felt the license fee assessed is used for enforcement. She added the grades allow cities to compare themselves with other cities. Clay Cox, Cox Family Stores owner, spoke in favor of the project. He stressed that his company feels strongly about not selling to minors. He stated that in approximately 100 stings they have only had one failure. He added that part of his employee training process is to check for valid ID stressing that it is not worth the sale. He added they give their employees an incentive of $100 if they pass a sting, and he can access and review video of all employees at any time from his cell phone. He stated that his company takes selling tobacco to minors very seriously. Cm. Brown commended Cox Family Stores for their stand and enforcement and for encouraging their employees. Chair Wehrenberg agreed. She asked if he felt the Ordinance is an impediment to business. Mr. Cox answered no. He agrees with the way the Ordinance is written and that grandfathering was the most important thing for his company because of his investment in his company and stated that if they were unable to sell tobacco they would not be able to stay in business. He felt the Ordinance is reasonable and fair. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg thanked the speakers and stated she appreciated their passion for the very serious matter of the health of Dublin citizens. Cm. Brown suggested that, in concert with the City Council's direction to make parks smoke- free, he recommended that the Ordinance include parks in the 1,000 foot buffer for new retailers. ('l2traning Commission Octo6er'9 2012 gui2r1Meeting 143 Chair Wehrenberg stated she thought that there had been some discussion by the City Council regarding this subject and wanted more information from Staff. Ms. Aja answered that the original discussions with the City Council included a 1,000 foot buffer around all areas where youth were present. She stated that this changed after their meetings with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and other retailers. The changes included leaving the schools at 1,000 feet but change all other youth areas to 500 feet. The main reason was at 1,000 feet there are many parks in the eastern part of Dublin which would make the buffer extend past Dublin Blvd and negate any future uses such as gas stations who could sell tobacco products. She added that at the last City Council meeting in September the Ordinance was proposed to be modified to 500 feet from parks and other areas to allow for future tobacco retailers in eastern Dublin. Cm. Brown stated that he lives in east Dublin and personally felt there are plenty of opportunities for smokers to buy the product. He did not agree with the argument that a 1,000 foot buffer from parks because it would limit future retailers. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the Ordinance and felt it discourages smoking. She felt the Ordinance sends a good message to youth and the community and she did not have an issue with the 500 foot buffer versus 1,000 foot buffer for parks. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Brown's concern, but felt the City Council had discussed the situation and she would defer to their decision as she did not want to impede any future retail in eastern Dublin. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated, regarding the approval process for new tobacco retailer, that she felt a CUP is more appropriate than a Zoning Clearance, because there are different types of tobacco retailers. She felt that with a Zoning Clearance, as long as the retailer meets the requirements, the Planning Commission does not review the project. Mr. Baker responded that the way the Ordinance is proposed there are clear standards. If a business meets the standards then they would be granted a Zoning Clearance; if they don't meet the standards then they would not be approved. He added, with a CUP process, that would be different in that conditions could be placed on the business and it changes from a yes or no to a "maybe we can make it fit" situation. The City Council preferred the yes or no route. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she is in favor of a CUP rather than a Zoning Clearance for new tobacco retailers. Chair Wehrenberg stated that she was not in support of the Ordinance when she first learned of it. But since reviewing the information, she is now in support the Ordinance. She felt the Ordinance is not limiting or preventing new businesses but it provides guidelines. She encouraged Dublin schools to include tobacco use in their health education programs. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Chair Wehrenberg stated she is in support of the Ordinance. She asked how the Ordinance would affect events at the parks. (Planning foanrnssion October 9,2072 Psgufrar Meer gag 144 Ms. Aja answered that, if the Ordinance is adopted, smoking will not be permitted at any City parks, regardless if there is an event going on or not. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Chair Wehrenberg, the Planning Commission voted 2-1, with Cm. Brown opposed, in support of recommending City Council approval of the Ordinance. Mr. Baker explained that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and a recommendation requires 3 votes for the recommendation whether that recommendation is for or against approval, with or without modifications. He stated there are only 2 votes in favor of the recommendation. Chair Wehrenberg felt that Cm. Brown is in favor of the Ordinance but wants to extend the buffer to 1,000 feet for parks. Mr. Baker stated that was not the vote that was taken. He stated that there would need to be 3 votes either recommending that the City Council adopt or deny the Ordinance. He added that Cm. Brown would need to vote in favor of the Resolution and might include a recommendation for the 1,000 foot buffer. The other option is the Planning Commission could adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council review the minutes since they were not able to come to a 3 vote recommendation on the Ordinance. Chair Wehrenberg asked Cm. Brown if he is against Section 8.12, Zoning District and Permitted Uses of Land, and he would like to see it extended to 1,000 foot buffer. Cm. Brown suggested including the 1,000 foot buffer only in eastern Dublin because he felt it would be hard to limit it to 1,000 feet in the western part of Dublin. He suggested east of Hacienda Drive as the area to extend the 1,000 foot buffer. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that some of the available spaces for new retailers would be along the south side of Dublin Blvd. Even with the 1,000 foot buffer it wouldn't extend past Dublin Blvd. She felt that whether it was 500 or 1,000 foot buffer new retailers would be able to open there. Cm. Brown felt that there will be other parks built in that area and that some of the housing areas yet to be developed will include parks. Ms. Aja showed a map that shows a 1,000 foot buffer around all areas where children are present. She stated that a 1,000 foot minimum buffer around parks would result in fewer opportunities for a gas station. This would impact the DiManto property on Tassajara Road and the Fallon Gateway property on Fallon Road. Gas stations at those locations would not be able to sell tobacco products if there was a 1,000 foot buffer around parks. She stated that is the reason the Ordinance was changed to 500 foot buffer. Mr. Baker asked Ms. Aja to point out on the map where the DiManto property is located. He also pointed out that the map shows the location of all future parks and school sites in eastern Dublin, except one park location which is tentative. Cm. Brown asked where future gas stations could be located. (P inning Commission Octoher 9,2012 Rgguiiar;Wetly 145 Mr. Baker answered both the DiManto property and the corner of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd are commercially designated areas where a gas station or other commercial uses could be located. Chair Wehrenberg asked if those businesses could not be located there if the buffer is extended to 1,000 feet. Mr. Baker answered yes, tobacco retailers would be restricted. Ms. Aja stated that the way the Ordinance is written, if any part of the parcel is affected then none of the parcel would be available for retail, since the measurement is to the property line. Cm. Brown understood and asked if the Planning Commission can recommend an exception of the 1,000 foot buffer for gas stations only. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission could recommend that to the City Council. He added that there are other tobacco retailers that might be excluded though. Cm. Brown asked Chair Wehrenberg for her recommendation. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the Planning Commission should recommend the Ordinance as written. She felt it was studied as to the impacts and the 500 foot buffer was sufficient. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the City Council also shared Cm. Brown's concerns because it was originally written at 1,000 feet but was changed to 500 feet after discussions. She stated she is comfortable with what is recommended. Cm. Brown asked if the map showed existing parks as well as future parks. Ms. Aja responded yes. Cm. Brown pointed out one large park and a smaller area on Fallon Road and asked how far they are from the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. Mr. Baker showed the map of the 500 foot buffer that shows that the buffer barely touches Dublin Blvd and Fallon Road but on the map with the 1,000 foot buffer the intersection is within the buffer area. Cm. Brown asked if a project would be able to go in at the Fallon Road/Dublin Blvd intersection. Mr. Baker answered, if the 500 foot buffer was in place then yes but, if the 1,000 foot buffer was in place they would not be allowed to locate there. He also mentioned the park that Cm. Brown pointed out on the map will be a community park that will be set up against a steep hillside and would not have direct pedestrian access to the commercial areas at the Fallon Road/Dublin Blvd intersection. Cm. Brown stated his preference is still a 1,000 foot buffer from parks, but the minutes will show his comments. He asked Chair Wehrenberg if the Commission could take another vote. Q'Gtnnin{g Commissiosr. Octo6er 9,2012 Apnlar Meeting 146 Chair Wehrenberg asked to make a recommendation that the City Council reconsider a 1,000 foot buffer from parks. On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Chair Wehrenberg, on a vote of 3-0, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION 12-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.43 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES) 8.30 (DOWNTOWN DUBLIN ZONING DISTRICT) AND 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF TOBACCO RETAILERS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY-WIDE 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 reminded the Commission that there will be a Study Session at 6:00 pm on October 30, 2012 regarding Design Guidelines in the Commercial and Industrial areas outside of specific plan boundaries. ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 8:36:13 PM Respectfully submitted, 0 Doreen Wehrenbe Planning Commi ,ion C air ATTEST: t i_ Jeff B.keil) Assistant 'ommunity Development Director G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM10.09.12 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx ''f nning Commis.i m October 9,2012 90gular 9/1erting 147