Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2012 - AgendaPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin October 9, 2012 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – September 25, 2012 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. 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 8.2 Tobacco Retailers Zoning Ordinance Amendment 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 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). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Department. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) i9� =" �• STAFF REPORT ‘‘VFO , PLANNING COMMISSION f DATE: October 9, 2012 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00033 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) related to the Village Parkway Market-Based Parking Program (Legislative) Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will review City-initiated amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to temporarily eliminate the parking standards in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Village Parkway District. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution 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. h.\ 5-Th *6„,s_ l .4 Submitted By R-l$wed By Principal Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File gr,ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 7 GAPA#120121PLPA-2012-00033 Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program\PC 10.09.20121PCSR.docx 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 recent opening of the West Dublin BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Downtown Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re-tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local-serving businesses. Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking requirements. On May 15, 2012, the City Council reviewed a Staff Report (Attachment 1) that recommended a three year pilot program to test a market-based approach for parking on a 4.3 acre portion of the Village Parkway District as shown in the figure below. Under a market-based approach to parking, the DDSP would continue * to regulate the uses allowed, but parking requirements for the use s,r types would not be a consideration. Parking supply and demand would k be managed by the property , . 4 owners and tenants, and not regulated by the City. It would a 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 concept to see if it could be successful in a larger area The affected property owners were supportive of the concept.. 2 of 7 The City Council directed Staff to prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (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 took the following actions: 1. Prepared the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments; 2. Provided the proposed amendments to the affected two property owners in the proposed pilot area; 3. Sent a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District notifying them of the proposed pilot program and seeking their input on the concept; 4. Prepared the appropriate environmental review; 5. Sent out Public Hearing Notices for the Planning Commission meeting to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the pilot area; and 6. Presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on July 24, 2012 (Attachment 2). 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 (Attachment 3). 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 offering insight into the thoughts of the Planning Commission members and public comments received. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff brought the issue back to the City Council on August 21, 2012 (Attachment 4) 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). A map of the Village Parkway District is provided on the following page. 3 of 7 Map of the Village Parkway District ...„ . . .": . : 7- • , ., - - , - • r 44( i ' „ a M ii, 7. . , 4 10, , -,, , , .., 4„ ' !" . '+may * > t, A`r,, iiik 0 '''' \%,3,,, .04 \ s -a lit. :,,"" " 4. At" ` t.x ,. E -..... ,ill, „ Y - a • li x . t .. ,y t as' liir , �„ «!s` 1.K t ' 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 Parkwa District of the Downtown Dublin S•ecific Plan. Uses in the Village Parkwa District are not re•uired to •rovide a •rescribed number of •arkin• s•aces for an use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the Downtown Dublin Zoning 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. Attached is a Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A to Attachment 5) that will amend Chapter 8.76 as detailed above. At the conclusion of the two year pilot program, the City will assess the success 4 of 7 of the program and determine whether the relaxed parking requirements should be enacted for a longer period of time or made permanent. 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: City Staff held a 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 proposed Parking Reduction Program and support for 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 6). 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 in the entire Village Parkway District and all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the affected properties. 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 Notice of the July 24, 2012 Planning Commission hearing provided to all property owners and tenants in the Village Parkway District. September 7, 2012: Notice of the September 21, 2012 Community Meeting sent to all property owners and tenants in the Village Parkway District. September 28, 2012: Public Notice of the October 9, 2012 Planning Commission hearing provided to all property owners and tenants in the Village Parkway 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 5 of 7 ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated May 15, 2012 2) Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 2012 3) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 24, 2012 4) City Council Staff Report dated August 21, 2012 5) Resolution 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, with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A 6) Letter from Kevin Sakimoto dated September 18, 2012 6 of 7 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/: City of Dublin PROPERTY OWNERS: Various LOCATION: All properties in the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: Various GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Village Parkway District) SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: n/a SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North DDZD Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Residential (Village Parkway District) South DDZD Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Office, Retail (Village Parkway District) East DDZD Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Residential (Village Parkway District) West n/a n/a Interstate 680, Flood Control Channel RESOURCES: General Plan Zoning Ordinance 7 of 7 iii � `" STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK ry�� �82 W CITY COUNCIL File #570-20 DATE: May 15, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager `�.J �..� r , SUBJECT: Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 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. ( OP I 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 ATTACHMENT 1 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 study (Attachment 1) recommended examining whether the traditional parking requirements should continue to apply in all cases. There appear to be property owners in Downtown who support a market-based approach to parking instead of a regulatory approach. Under a market-based approach, the DDSP would continue to regulate the use types, but parking requirements of the use types would not be a consideration. Under this approach, 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. Proposed Pilot Program A pilot program to test a market-based approach for parking is one way of testing the concept to see if it could be successful in Downtown Dublin as a whole. Staff has discussed the pilot program concept with two property owners on Village Parkway who have experienced limitations on their ability to lease their property due to the City's parking requirements. The area to test a proposed market-based parking reduction pilot program is shown on Figure 1 below. Figure 1 The address range of the proposed -.w ,e4 in. study area is all of the even 13° ;: .+► numbers between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway. . - The 4.3-acre area consists of four • f properties owned by two owners. y - 1. Each building has multiple tenant .rig. spaces that house a variety of uses , including retail, indoor recreation,bar/restaurant, auto repair and '.-.•- s. • service, warehouse, and personal• y ss. , service. There is a total of 76,160 Nt- " ' ` square feet of building area and j: > 160 parking spaces spread k: throughout the properties. Staff believes that this section of Village Parkway would be an . P interesting location to test a pilot• • ,�' , market-based parking program for •=7. 191, ; several reasons: • "' ° 1. The buildings on these properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more active uses. 2. There is on-street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers. 3. The four parcels are fairly self-contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other Village Parkway properties. 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 4 4... STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION t, , i DATE: July 24, 2012 i TO: Planning Commission i SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2012-00033 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) related to the Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program (Legislative) Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will review City-initiated amendments to Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance related to relaxing the parking standards in a section of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Village Parkway District. The proposed amendments will implement a test-case parking program on four specific parcels to see if it can enable more intense uses along the Village Parkway corridor. The Program will affect a portion of the Village Parkway District for a temporary period of three years. RECOMMENDATION: 1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the 1 public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution 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. ) , I Submitted By e .... . * P-d By i 1 Principal Planner Assistant Communi Development Director 1 4 COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: g o i- ii Page 1 of 6 G.IPA#120121PLPA-2012-00033 Village Parkway Pilot Parking ProgramtPC 07.24.2012tPCSRdocx Ei ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION: 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 overarching goal of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) is "to create a vibrant, dynamic commercial and mixed-use center that provides a wide array of opportunities for shopping, services, dining, working, living, and entertainment in a pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing setting that attracts both local and regional residents." The DDSP established three distinct districts, each including its own set of design standards tailored to the envisioned uses. The Transit-Oriented District embraces the recent opening of the West Dublin BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re-tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local-serving businesses. 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 their ability to 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 to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements 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: i I 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. i' i' 2 of 6 g . . ' Existing Conditions . A parking analysis completed in 2010 in conjunction with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan t identified 1,395 off-street pa ing 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 t parking, such as warehouse (1 space per 1,000 square feet) as well as uses that require more t , 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 i the requirement to provide off-street parking. On-street parking is also coonplace. 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 study (Attachment 1) recommended examining whether the traditional parking requirements should continue to apply in all cases. There appear to be property owners in Downtown who support a market-based approach to parking instead of a regulatory approach. Under a market-based approach, the DDSP would continue to regulate the use types, but parking requirements of the use types would not be a consideration. Under this approac h, parking supply and de and 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. However, Staff would continue to monitor the site and enforce the removal of abandoned/inoperable vehicles to ensure that the parking spaces remain free and clear for use. Proposed Pilot Program . . 4., "-` A pilot program to w test market- . baasy of approach for parking ing is one 4' f testing the concept to see if , it could be successful in Downtown discussed the athewholp og eilot Staff has , . program concept Village with two property owners o , lhaoge Parkway who have ' d limitations on their 1 . . the 1'hjiCity's t o l parking aa r kspei parking ieni gr p r requirements op er'ty due to . .,,.. . The area to test a proposed market- based . reduction pilot program is shown in the map at left. The address range of the proposed 1 . study area is all of the even numbers between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway. . . Tprhoe4.3-acre area consists of four properties owned by two owners. i Each building has multiple tenant spaces that house a variety of uses including retail, indoor recreation, bar/restaurant, auto repair and service, warehouse, and personal service. There is a total of 76,160 square feet of building area and 160 parking spaces spread throughout the properties. This section of Village Parkway could be a successful location to test a pilot market-based parking program for several reasons: 1. The buildings on these properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more active uses. 2. There is on-street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers. 3. The four parcels are fairly self-contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other Village Parkway properties. 4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market-based approach. Staff presented a report to the City Council on May 15, 2012 seeking their input on the concept. The Councilmembers were supportive and directed Staff to pp proceed with preparing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in a portion of the Village Parkway District for a limited term of three years. Staff proposes 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 four parcels in the Village Parkway District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. These properties, identified as the even numbered addresses between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway (APNs 941-0210.002-02, 941-0210-005-04. 941-0210-005-05, and 941-0210-005-03), are not required to provide a prescribed number of parkingc spaces for any use that is permitted or conditionally permitted in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. Attached is a Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Exhibit A to Attachment 2) that will amend Chapter 8.76 as detailed above. At the conclusion of the three year pilot program, the City will assess the success of the program and determine whether the relaxed parking requirements should be considered throughout the Village Parkway 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 4of6 eb NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: 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 in the entire Village Parkway District and all tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the affected properties. To date, the City has received comments from one business representative on Village Parkway regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Attachment 3). A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the two affected property owners. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Urban Land Institute's Downtown Dublin Technical Assistance Panel Report, dated July 2011 2) Resolution 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, with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A 3) Email from John Denholm of Oil Changers dated July 17, 2012 1 1 • j 5 of 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT!: City of Dublin PROPERTY OWNERS: Thomas and Martina Murphy, 1485 Bayshore Blvd #56, San Francisco, CA 94124 B&B Borden LLC, 6 Sky Terrace, Danville, CA 94526 LOCATION: Even-numbered addresses between 7016 and 7150 Village Parkway ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-0210-002-02 941-0210-005-04 941-0210-005-05 941-0210-005-03 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (Village Parkway District) SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: n/a SURROUNDING USES: USE LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT OF PROPERTY . , Downtown Dublin Specific Plan North DDZD Auto Service, Restaurant ilia*e Parkwa District Downtown Dublin Specific Plan South DDZD Office, Personal Service 1 illaoe Parkwa District 1 DDZD Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Retail, Restaurant, Office, 1 EMI , illa.e Parkwa District Personal Service West n/a n/a Interstate 680, i • Rood Control Channel RESOURCES: i General Plan i Zoning Ordinance ii. i, ii i: I, 6 of 6 1, �PTr�T ' '" Planning Commission Minutes ;ft- s0, 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 café'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. PCanning Commission July 24,2012 10gular 54teeting 67 ATTACHMENT 3 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 café 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. 4'lanning Commission July 24,2012 i(fgutar 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. 'Planning Commission ,7u5124,2012 &gular%teeting 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. Atnning Commission Jury 24,2012 *gu1zr Meeting 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. cPlanning Commission July 24,2012 Rggufar9vfeeting 71 Cm. O'Keefe asked if an outdoor café was located in a storefront and the café 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. 2'funning Commission 3uty 24,2012 Wegular Meeting 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 Tanning Commission July 24,2 012 44gukir 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. 2'lanning Commission duty 24,2012 ggutarteeting 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 arkin lots. g ots. 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. Tanning Commission 1:45 124,2012 Rcgular Meeting 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. 2-Canning Commission :Jury 24,2012 q?sguCarMYfeeting 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. c'lnnning Commission July 24,2012 R#gular Meeting 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. (Planning Commission July 24,2012 Vgurar;4feeting 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 lifted OT •OS. can O'Keefe Planning Comm • ice Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120121PLANN/NG COMMISSIOM07.24.12 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc Tanning Commission _9u(y 24,2012 Vgu(sr:Meeting 79 (ror lire 2 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK 19�� =�)82 %0/� CITY COUNCIL File #570-20 Q16IF00 DATE: August 21, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager(°` 6),--, 72144 SUBJECT: Village Parkway Parking Reduction Program Update Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Based on direction provided by the City Council on May 15, 2012, Staff prepared Zoning Ordinance Amendments to implement a pilot parking reduction program in a 4.3-acre area of the Village Parkway District. Feedback from the Planning Commission and property owners in the Village Parkway area urged reconsideration of the size of the pilot area and the duration of the temporary amendments. The City Council will provide direction to Staff on an alternative to the previously-proposed trial parking reduction pilot program in the Village Parkway District to enlarge the size of the area and reduce the term. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction on whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily suspend the parking standards in the entire Village Parkway District for a limited term of two years. C.4.—_ k _ p„.___ - _ __,, - _ 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 recent opening of Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.2 ATTACHMENT 4 the West Dublin BART station and is the district where a vast majority of the new residential development in Dublin is envisioned to take place. The Retail District includes much of the existing retail core and aims to stimulate infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings and large parking areas. The Village Parkway District embraces the existing successful service and retail uses along a "Main Street" corridor, and this district has the most potential to reutilize and re-tenant existing buildings with more intense uses such as restaurants, service retail, and other local-serving businesses. Since the adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in February 2011, City Staff have been working to implement the goals and policies of both the Specific Plan and the subsequent recommendations of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel report. One of the recommendations from the ULI report was to incentivize more commercial businesses in the downtown by having greater flexibility in regulatory standards such as the City's parking requirements. On May 15, 2012, the City Council reviewed a Staff Report that recommended a pilot program to test a market-based approach for parking in a portion of the Village Parkway District (Attachment 1). Under a market- ' ''''''.: .'''' rMI,-`s �- ,. �". based approach to parking, the ,, s DDSP would continue to regulate ;k . ' - the uses allowed, but parking �'I tt .,.- *. .',; 4..` requirements for the use types ��' 1 ., ►`M - would not be a consideration. ��„�� �t��� , Parking supply and demand would ilk ”' /4, F •' be managed by the property , � 1 ° ' 7 owners and tenants, and not �. �� �- � , �„ regulated by the City. It would �� . become the responsibility of the �� l�� � !,iii,�'��' ,. � � � a;* ; ._� n■ property owners, property �� ,,,,, lk managers, and businesses to lease tenant spaces to the right ' • d - :, . combination of users to ensure that ''�� , 5; there • sufficient parking to serve , �,� � a the businesses and their °: ° V customers. A pilot program that ,� removes the parking requirement �ry e y 4), on four parcels on Village Parkway was seen as one way of testing the S ,y concept to see if it could be �� � successful in a larger area. ,,,f.:440, = Staff discussed the pilot program concept with two property owners on Village Parkway who have experienced limitations on their ability to lease their property due to the City's parking requirements. The two property owners control a combined total of 4.3-acres on four parcels. Each building has multiple tenant spaces that house a variety of uses including retail, indoor recreation, bar/restaurant, auto repair and service, warehouse, and personal service. This section of Village Parkway was thought to be an interesting location to test a pilot market- based parking program for several reasons: Page 2of4 1. The buildings on these properties are located close to the street, which makes them good candidates for more active uses; 2. There is on-street parking in front of these buildings that could be utilized by customers; 3. The four parcels are fairly self-contained. If the pilot program leads to more intensive parking demands, it is expected that there would be limited spillover parking onto other Village Parkway properties; and 4. The property owners have expressed a willingness to try a market-based approach. At the conclusion of the May 15, 2012 presentation and discussion on this item, the City Council provided direction for Staff to prepare amendments to Chapter 8.72 (Off Street Parking and Loading) of the Zoning Ordinance to temporarily waive the parking requirements on the parcels noted above during the three-year pilot program. After the City Council meeting, Staff took the following actions: 1. Prepared the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments; 2. Provided the proposed amendments to the affected two property owners in the proposed pilot area; 3. Sent a notice to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District notifying them of the proposed pilot program and seeking their input on the concept; 4. Prepared the appropriate environmental review; 5. Sent out Public Hearing Notices for the Planning Commission meeting to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the pilot area; and 6. Presented the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on July 24, 2012. Two comment letters were received from the public (Attachments 2 and 3) and two members of the public attended the Planning Commission meeting. A third comment letter was received after the Planning Commission hearing was held (Attachment 4). Two of the comment letters stated a concern about creating an unfair competitive advantage if only a handful of the properties in the Village Parkway District had relaxed parking standards, and they suggested expanding the area to include more properties. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on the merits of reducing parking requirements in a specific area. Concerns were raised about the size and location of the pilot area, the lack of available tenant spaces for lease in the pilot area, and the proposed length of time for the pilot program. At the conclusion of the item, there was a call for a vote that resulted in a split decision with no formal recommendation via resolution. The vote was 2-2-0 (one Commissioner was absent). The draft meeting minutes are included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report, and it was the desire of the Planning Commission that the City Council consider this issue with the meeting minutes offering insight into the thoughts of the Commission members and public comments received. Page 3 of 4 Staff is bringing this idea back to the City Council to receive direction on whether the area in which the temporary parking requirements could be suspended should be enlarged, and if the temporary term should be reduced. Staff proposes to enlarge the market-based parking program to encompass the whole Village Parkway District (instead of the 4.3 acre pilot area) and to apply the program for a temporary period of 24 months (instead of 36 months), Staff would: 1. Notify all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District of the updated proposal and seeking their input on the new concept; 2. Prepare the appropriate environmental review; 3. Send out Public Hearing Notices to all property owners and businesses within the Village Parkway District and within 300 feet of the District; and 4. Prepare Staff Reports for the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration of an updated Zoning Ordinance Amendment. If directed to proceed, the proposed modifications to the pilot program will require additional staff time to conduct the appropriate outreach and preparation. Therefore, Staff will evaluate the existing workload and incorporate the expanded program into the work program. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public notices are not required on items where the City Council is providing feedback or direction. However, notification of the meeting and a copy of the Staff Report was provided to members of the Planning Commission and members of the public who provided comments on the project to date. Future public hearings on this topic will be noticed in accordance with State Law. ATTACHMENTS: 1. May 15, 2012 City Council Staff Report (without attachments) 2. July 17, 2012 email from John Denholm of Oil Changers 3. July 19, 2012 letter from Ellie Lange 4. July 16, 2012 letter from Jeffrey Ryan 5. July 24, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft) Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 12 -xx 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.B 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October 2012 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Acting Community Development Director 2 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-xx 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.B 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: EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 5 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 II 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: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2012\PLPA-2012-00033 Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program\PC 10.09.2012\Att 2-Exhibit A-CC Ord.doc Page 3 of 3 FUJINAGA MANAGEMENT 158 EAST JACKSON STREET SAN JOSE,CA 95112 TELEPHONE(408)278-7700 FACSMILIE(408)278-7704 EMAIL todd @tfujinaga.com September 18, 2012 Kristi Bascom City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Parking Requirement Pilot Program Dear Kristi: 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. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, vin akimoto Attachment 6 G~~~ OF DU~lr2 /ll ~ ~A ~~~,~~Z O~LIFOR~~~ DATE: TO: October 9, 2012 Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING -Tobacco Retailers Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Legislative) ~c./ Report prepared by Martha A~a~Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Fiscal Year 2012/2013 City Council Key Initiative directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. The proposed ordinance establishes minimum distances that new tobacco retailers must be from areas where children congregate, including schools, playgrounds, youth centers, City owned and operated recreational facilities, parks, libraries and other tobacco retailer shops. The City is adding a new Chapter to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the location of tobacco retailers within the City. Additionally, amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to add a new definition for Tobacco Retailers; 2) Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) to add tobacco retailers as a commercial use type; and 3) Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) to include tobacco retailers as a use that can be approved via the Zoning Clearance process. The Planning Commission will review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding a new Chapter 8.43 and amend Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) to the Dublin Municipal Code to regulate the location of tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin. Su mitted By Review By Assistant to the City Manager Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 4 G:IAgendas120121Tobacco Retailers OrdlPlanning CommissionlPC Staff Report 10.9.12.12.doc DESCRIPTION: A Fiscal Year 2012/2013 City Council Key Initiative directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. The proposed Ordinance would create development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City. A tobacco retailer is defined to mean any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. The proposed Ordinance would require that new tobacco retailers maintain a minimum distance from areas where children are present. The goal of the Ordinance is to maintain a buffer zone between tobacco retailers and areas frequented by youth, thereby decreasing the likelihood of youth attempting to purchase tobacco products. ANALYSIS: The City Council provided direction to Staff on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment on January 17, 2012, April 17, 2012 and September 18, 2012. Additionally, Staff received direction to prepare a Tobacco Retailer Licensing system which will be presented to the City Council at a later date. Please refer to the attached City Council Staff Reports for additional Information (Attachment 1, 2 and 3). The minutes and video recordings of these meetings are available on the City of Dublin website. The direction provided to Staff on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is summarized below. Minimum Distance from Areas Where Children are Present The City Council opined that the appropriate distance to maintain from a tobacco retailer to youth-oriented areas is 1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from all other areas where children congregate. Which Areas Should be Included in the Ordinance The City Council opined that the areas that should be included in the definition of youth oriented are: • Schools; • Libraries; • Parks; • Playgrounds; • Youth centers; • City owned & operated recreational facilities. Attachment 4 shows all of the areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer around schools and a 500 foot buffer around the other areas where children congregate. Should residential zones be included in the Ordinance The City Council opined that residential zones should not be included in the Ordinance. Limited Density of Retail Tobacco Shops The City Council opined that retail tobacco shops (retailers that primarily sell tobacco products) shall be prohibited from siting within 1,000 feet of one another. Grocery stores, drug stores and gas stations are not subject to this requirement. Aaaroval Process for New Tobacco Retailers The City Council opined that a provision be included in the proposed ordinance to require that the arov~l process for new tobacco retailers be through the Zoning Clearance process. 2 of 4 Existing Retailers -Grandfather The City Council opined that existing tobacco retailers should be grandfathered within the Ordinance; therefore, the minimum distance requirement applies only to new tobacco retailers. The direction provided to Staff by the City Council has been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance, which, among other things, adds a new Chapter 8.43 to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin (Attachment 5). The following amendments, as further discussed in Attachment 5, are proposed to ensure internal consistency within the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) In addition to adding a new Chapter to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate the siting of future tobacco retailers in the City, a new definition for tobacco retailers is proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as follows: Tobacco Retailer. The term Tobacco Retailer shall mean any person or business that sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia, and includes, but is not limited to a Retail Tobacco Shop. Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) Staff is proposing to amend Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) to note that future tobacco retailers that meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 8.43 are permitted in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, by means of a Zoning Clearance. The following rows of the "Land Use Matrix" table in Section 8.12.050 are proposed to be amended as follows (the underlined text is new): COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Tobacco Retailer - - - - - - ZC ZC - - - Chapter 8.30 (Downtown Dublin Zoning District) Staff is proposing to amend Section 8.30.020 to state that Tobacco Retailers are to be regulated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in the same way as the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts. Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) Staff is proposing amendments to this Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance to note that tobacco retailers are now subject to a Zoning Clearance. Please refer to Exhibit A to Attachment 5 of this Staff Report for proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies aimed at protecting the health and safety of its citizens. 3 of 4 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: At the April 17, 2012 meeting, the City Council provided direction to Staff to meet with the tobacco retailers. Staff met with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce on several occasions. Additionally, Staff held two public outreach meetings with the tobacco retailers on August 15, 2012. Staff also met with the American Lung Association and Alameda County Public Health. A Public Notice was mailed to the existing tobacco retails and interested parties and also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City and e-mailed to the development community. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(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 the proposed 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 regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated January 17, 2012 (without attachments). 2. City Council Staff Report dated April 17, 2012 (without attachments). 3. City Council Staff Report dated September 18, 2012 (without attachments) 4. Map of the areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer around schools & 500 foot buffer around all other areas. 5. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance adding a new Chapter 8.43 and amending Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance) to the Dublin Municipal Code to regulate the location of tobacco retailers, with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 4 of 4 ~F D C~~~ ~~~~llv ~y~ ~,,,`IIII~~ U1 \~ ~'1~~ `~' DATE: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #560-90 January 17, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager ~~ Y` `~ ~ rl~~"kw-~~'~~ _~J SUBJECT: Report on Tobacco Retailers Ordinances Prepared by Martha Afa, Environmental Coordinator and Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fiscal Year 2011/2012 City Council initiated work plan goals direct Staff to develop zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The Fiscal Year 2011/2012 budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting that the City Council: 1) review the Staff report and provide feedback and direction on any preferred option(s) for the development of possible future ordinances affecting Tobacco Retailers and 2) direct Staff, if appropriate, to prepare ordinance proposals with the preferred options. ,. Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager DESCRIPTION: i7 r Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Background A Fiscal Year 2011/2012 City Council initiated work plan goals directs Staff to develop both a zoning restriction for new tobacco retailers within the City (Health and Welfare, Item F) as well as a licensing system for all tobacco retailers (Health and Welfare, Item E). A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 8.2 ATTACHMENT 1 The Zoning Ordinance amendment would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City. Among other things, the ordinance would establish a minimum distance that tobacco retailers would need to maintain from areas where children are present. Studies have shown that tobacco use among the youth continues to rise with a particular impact upon high school students. Numerous California cities and counties have adopted ordinances to regulate the siting of new tobacco retailers. The Center for Tobacco Policy and Organization created a matrix of local ordinances (Attachment 1) restricting tobacco retailers within a certain distance of schools. The matrix is dated April 2011 and includes 24 California cities and counties, of which five are cities within Alameda County. In addition to a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment, Staff was directed to present options for a local tobacco retailer licensing system. The purpose of a local licensing program is to ensure compliance with the business standards and practices of the City and to encourage responsible tobacco retailing while discouraging violations of tobacco-related laws, especially those which prohibit or discourage the sale or distribution of tobacco and nicotine products to minors. In general, any store that would wish to provide tobacco products for sale to the community would have to first obtain a license from the City before so doing. A licensing system is beneficial to the City in at least two ways. First, it provides the City with a strong local enforcement mechanism in penalizing the sale of tobacco products to youth. Violators of such an ordinance could have their licenses revoked for selling tobacco products to underage individuals and/or face significant fines. A second benefit is that a licensing program generally requires a fee to obtain the license, which could be used to cover the cost of enforcement and other tobacco related administrative costs. For many years, the Alameda County Public Health Department has provided the City with grant funding to conduct compliance checks with youth decoys, but in these difficult financial times, such funding may not always be available. ZONING ORDINANCE OPTIONS Current Law • There are currently no local Zoning Ordinance regulations that specifically place restrictions upon tobacco retailers. Under the current regulations within the Zoning Ordinance, tobacco retailers are treated the same as any other retail use. State Law • No applicable laws or standards. Policy Consideration: Minimum Distance from Areas Where Children Are Present To date, five Alameda County cities have adopted ordinances to restrict tobacco retailers from a certain distance of where children are present, which include: 1. Union City -ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries, recreation centers, religious intuitions or youth- oriented establishments. 2. Albany -ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 500 feet of schools, childcare centers, public libraries, public community centers, parks or playgrounds. 3. Oakland -ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,000 feet of schools, residential zones, libraries, parks, playgrounds, recreational centers or licensed daycare facilities. 4. Berkeley -ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,400 feet of schools or public parks. Page 2 of 9 5. San Leandro -ordinance prohibits the siting of tobacco retailers within 1,500 feet of schools, parks, libraries or recreational facilities. Of the statewide policies, the restrictions from schools range from 500 feet to 1,500 feet, with the majority (14 of 24) restricting sales of tobacco within 1,000 feet of schools. In addition to schools, the majority of the policies (18 of 24) also restrict tobacco retailers within a certain distance of other youth-oriented areas. The most popular other location is parks and/or playgrounds, which 18 cities and counties restrict tobacco retailers near in addition to schools. Attachment 2 includes the locations in the City where children congregate (schools, existing parks, future parks, library, daycare centers and City owned and operated recreational facilities). There is a 500 foot and a 1,000 foot buffer around each of these parcels. Decision Point: Determine the appropriate distance to maintain from a tobacco retailer to an area where children are present and the youth-oriented areas that should be included. Consequences: The greater the minimum distance required from a tobacco retailer to areas where children are present and the more types of areas included will result in fewer locations where new tobacco retailers will be able to locate. What is the minimum distance that should be maintained from a tobacco retailer to areas where children are present? ^ 500 feet ^1,000 feet Which areas should be included in the ordinance? ^ Schools ^Libraries ^ Parks ^Playgrounds ^Youth Center ^Arcades ^ Licensed child care facility or preschool ^City owned & operated recreational facilities Policy Consideration: Should Residential Zones be Included in the Ordinance The original City Council initiated Tobacco Retailers work plan goal, which was discussed at the February 24, 2010 Study Session, included establishing a buffer around residential districts in addition to schools and libraries. Of the 24 statewide policies, only one (Oakland) restricts the siting of tobacco retailers within residential zones. Attachment 3 includes all of the existing tobacco retailers in the City. A 1,000 foot buffer from all parcels with a residential land use has been added to this map. Decision Point: Determine if future tobacco retailers should be required to be located a minimum distance from parcels with a residential land use designation. Consequences: If the ordinance requires a minimum distance from a tobacco retailer to parcels with a residential land use designation, then very few new tobacco retailers will be able to locate in the City. As shown in Attachment 3, the majority of parcels designated as commercial are located within 1,000 feet of a residential land use designation. Should the ordinance include residential? ^ Yes ^No Policy Consideration: Limited Density of Tobacco Retailers The Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC) developed a Model Land Use Ordinance regulating the location and operations of tobacco retailers. The model ordinance includes a Page 3 of 9 requirement that a future tobacco retailer cannot be located within five hundred (500) feet of a site occupied by another tobacco retailer. Studies' have shown that if tobacco retailers concentrate in a particular geographic area, market conditions and competition could lead to a greater impact on community health and safety resulting from tobacco retailers offering special promotions such as sales or discounts. Attachment 4 includes a map of all of the existing tobacco retailers in the City. There is a 500 foot and a 1,000 foot buffer around each existing tobacco retailer. Several of the existing tobacco retailers are located within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer. Of the five Alameda County cities that have adopted a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance, two include a provision that limit the density of tobacco retailers. Union City restricts retailers within 1,000 feet of other retailers and San Leandro restricts retailers within 1,500 feet of other retailers. Of the 24 statewide policies, six ordinances contain a provision to restrict a tobacco retailer from being located within a certain distance of another tobacco retailer. The distance restrictions range from 500 feet to 1,500 feet. Decision Point: Determine if a provision should be included in the ordinance to limit the density of tobacco retailers and if so, what is the preferred distance. Consequences: If the ordinance limits the density of tobacco retailers in the City, then only one tobacco retailer could locate at future commercial centers or at a particular intersection. It isn't uncommon to have gas stations located at multiple corners of an intersection. If this were to occur in Eastern Dublin, then only one of the gas stations would be able to sell tobacco products. Should the ordinance limit the density of tobacco retailers? ^ Yes ^No If yes, what distance should be maintained between tobacco retailers ^ 500 feet ^ 1, 000 feet ^ 1, 500 feet Policy Consideration: Approval Process for New Tobacco Retailers All new tobacco retailers would be required to obtain a permit prior to commencing operations. There are two options for the City Council to consider: a Zoning Clearance or a Conditional Use Permit. A Zoning Clearance is approved ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. If a tobacco retailer meets all of the development standards outlined in the ordinance, then they would submit a Zoning Clearance form that shows compliance with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter regulating the location and operation of tobacco retailers. This is a similar approach taken in the Indoor Recreation Zoning Ordinance Chapter. For indoor recreational uses, if a project meets certain parameters (operates during certain hours, there is adequate parking, etc.) then a Zoning Clearance Application is completed and the Applicant is given the Standard Conditions of Approval that they must abide by. A Planner reviews the 1 Novak, Reardon, Raudenbush, et al. "Retail tobacco outlet density and youth cigarette smoking: A propensity modeling approach." American Journal of Public Health 96(4):670-676 (2006) Page 4 of 9 application and signs off on it. In the case of the Indoor Recreational use, if a project doesn't meet all of the development standards outlined in the Recreational Facilities (Indoor) Zoning Ordinance Chapter, a Minor Use Permit is required, which is a more involved process that requires a Public Hearing. The second option is to require a Conditional Use Permit for all future Tobacco Retailers. A Conditional Use Permit is a discretionary permit which requires a Public Hearing either at a Staff or Planning Commission level. Decision Point: Determine the approval process for new tobacco retailers. Consequences: Reviewing applications for new tobacco retailers via a Conditional Use Permit process would add to the workload of City Staff. Conditional Use Permits typically take 3-6 months to process. What process should be used to review future tobacco retailers in the city? ^ Zoning Clearance ^Conditional Use Permit Policy Consideration: Existing Retailers There are twenty-five tobacco retailers operating within the City of Dublin. Sixteen (16) out of the 24 ((67%) of the existing tobacco retailers are located within 1,000 feet of areas where children congregate. A majority of the policies similar to this proposal that have been adopted in California (22 out of 24) do not subject existing retailers to the location restrictions but apply only to new retailers and 7 out of 24 (29%) are within 500 feet. Decision Point: Determine whether the ordinance should apply to existing tobacco retailers or if the existing tobacco retailers should be grandfathered in. Consequences: If the ordinance applies to existing tobacco retailers, then several of the existing retailers would no longer be able to sell tobacco products. Should the ordinance apply to existing tobacco retailers? ^ Yes ^No TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSE OPTIONS Current Law • There is currently no local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance in place.. • The City receives grant funding through the Alameda County Sheriff's Office to perform compliance checks each year at Dublin's tobacco retailers to ensure that they are not selling tobacco products to minors. Sfate Law • Tobacco retailers must be licensed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) for each tobacco retail location. • Each retailer must pay a onetime license fee of $100 for each retail location. The license must be renewed annually at no cost to the retailer. . • The current license program assesses penalties and fines for businesses that sell tobacco products to minors. The fourth to seventh convictions in a 12-month period each Page 5 of 9 result in a 90 day suspension of the license. An eighth conviction in a 24-month period results in the revocation of the retail license. • Individual penalties may be assessed upon conviction for tobacco sales to minors. Violators are subject to either a criminal action for misdemeanor or a civil action punishable by a fine of $200 for the first offense, $500 for a second offense, and $1,000 for a third. Both the business and the employee may be prosecuted under State law. • The State is only able to take action on license related penalties if 13% or more of youths were able to purchase cigarettes during each year's Statewide survey. • State law states that nothing preempts or supersedes any local tobacco control law other than those related to the collection of state taxes, and that local licensing laws may provide for the suspension or revocation of a local license for any violation of a state tobacco control law (California Business and Professions Code section 22971.3). Policv Consideration: Establish a Tobacco Retailer Licensinq System There are many cities throughout California and within the Bay Area that have adopted local tobacco retailer ordinances (Attachment 5). Within Alameda County, four jurisdictions have adopted such an ordinance (Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and Union City). For the City of Dublin, the adoption of a retailer ordinance would move the City from a grade of "C" to an "A" grade as rated by the American Lung Association (Attachment 6). The grade of "C" does not appear to reflect that the City already has a sampling prohibition in place, which would yield one additional point moving the City to a grade of "B." Staff will work with the American Lung Association to see if an additional point is merited. A retailer licensing ordinance would provide greater local control over the illegal sale of tobacco products and would provide a sustainable funding mechanism for program enforcement and administrative oversight. Decision Point: Determine whether the City should consider a retailer licensing system for all existing as well as any future tobacco retailers. Consequences: Provide greater enforcement and local control of tobacco related infractions. An additional burden would be placed upon local businesses to apply for the license. Also, additional staff time will be required to review, approve, and manage the licensing program as well as to conduct hearings for possible license revocations; however, a licensing fee could be established to offset the additional costs to the City. Should Staff prepare a retailer licensing ordinance proposal? ~ Yes ^No Policv Consideration: Establish a Fee to Obtain a Tobacco Retailer License As stated above, the costs of a licensing system can be recovered by the establishment of an appropriate fee. All four of the cities within Alameda County that have adopted a Tobacco Retailer License have also adopted a fee. Among these jurisdictions, fees range from a low of $250 for Albany to $1,500 for Oakland. If the City Council were to choose this option, Staff would work with Police and Finance to determine a recommended annual cost for the license fee, which would be set at a rate that at least recovers some if not all of the program's costs. In particular, the City can only set a fee at a rate that recovers the City's costs for program management. Decision Point: Determine whether a licensing fee should be established. Consequences: A license fee would provide funding to cover the cost of program management and enforcement. A fee would be an additional cost burden for the retailers. In particular, many Page 6 of 9 retailers and consumers believe there are already significant costs and fees placed by government on the sale of tobacco products. If a funding fee is not included, compliance checks. ensuring that tobacco products are not being sold to minors, may need to be suspended should grant funding be unavailable during any given year. Should the retailer license require a fee? ^ Yes ^No Should the fee be at full cost recovery? ^ Yes ^No If not, what is an appropriate percentage? Policy Consideration: Revocation vs. Suspension for Violations Significant penalties deter infractions with the severity of consequences correlating positively with compliance; i.e., the more severe the consequence, the more likely one is to comply. However, longer periods of revocation will result in lost revenue for the- business. The model ordinance prepared by the Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC) recommends that revocations be used instead of suspensions as they have the benefits as outlined below: 1. The burden is put on the retailer to seek to sell tobacco again. Retailers who have little interest in selling may simply choose to stop and not reapply. With suspension, a retailer "automatically" re-acquires the privilege of selling tobacco. 2. Because the retailer must reapply for a license, a new licensing fee must be paid and the retailer is re-educated regarding the requirements of the license by reading and completing the application. 3. Technical, but legally significant, difficulties arise if a license is allowed to "expire" before a final administrative decision regarding a suspension is made (e.g., a court may question how a license can be suspended if that license no longer exists). 4. Enforcement is more clear-cut: a retailer either has a license or the retailer does not. With suspension, a retailer could also have a suspended license which raises the question of how to treat additional violations during a suspension period. Staff would be concerned that the revocation process would provide a more manageable enforcement mechanism. Decision Point: Determine whether licenses should be revoked or suspended for a violation. Consequences: Businesses will lose revenues from being unable to operate as a tobacco retailer. Reapplication fee would he required to obtain a license after revocation. Deter noncompliance with the ordinance. In the case of a violation, should a license be? ^ Revoked ^Suspended Policy Consideration: Determine Appropriate Revocation Period for Violations In addition to the revocation discussion, TALC's model ordinance recommends the following penalties be assessed as a consequence of an ordinance violation; e.g., a retailer has been caught selling tobacco products to a minor. TALC Ordinance Recommendation: • 1St violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 10 days. • 2"d violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 30 days. Page 7 of 9 3rd violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 60 days. 4 or more violations within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 5 years. In reviewing the TALC recommendation, Staff believes there may be some inconsistencies in the amount of time that licenses could be revoked/suspended. In particular, the timeframe is less punitive on the front end and severely punitive on the backend; i.e., going from 10, 30, 60 days to five years is a big shift. Also, the recommendation seems to imply that there could be more than 4 violations within a 60 month period, but if the fourth violation results in a 60 month revocation/suspension, then more than 4 violations are not possible. As an alternative, Staff is proposing the following example for the City Council's consideration: Staff Alternative: • 1St violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 30 days. • 2nd violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 90 days. • 3rd violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 180 days. • 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 1 year. Decision Point: Determine appropriate revocation/suspension period. Consequences: The more significant the penalties, the more likely a business will be in compliance with ordinance provisions. Additionally; the longer the revocation/suspension period; the more revenues that a business will lose, and the more sales tax the City may forfeit. Management of compliance and reapplication will have a staff impact, which could be offset by licensing fees. Staff should prepare violation penalties in accordance with: ^ Staff Proposal ^ Model Ordinance ^ Other Option: Policy Consideration: Fine In Lieu of Revocation/Suspension Many cities have provided an option for violators to pay a fine in lieu of having their license revoked for a first or second violation. This allows for a penalty to be assessed for violations that have occurred, while giving the retailer an option to keep his/her license. There are times where it may occur that rogue employees go against store policy and will sell tobacco products to minors. In such cases, store management is still culpable for the violation, but taking the license away may be a more serve punishment then required. As such, it may be desired to allow a fine to be paid in lieu of revocation/suspension. Generally, this is only allowed fora 1St or 2nd violation within a 60 month period, as going beyond this would indicate that management is not taking sufficient action to curtail violations of the ordinance. Staff would recommend the flowing fines as part of a proposed ordinance: 1. 1St violation within a 60 month period: an administrative penalty of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. After a second violation of this chapter at a location within any sixty-month (60) period: i. an agreement to stop acting as a Tobacco Retailer for at least seven (7) days; and ii. an administrative penalty of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000). Decision Point: Determine whether a fine in lieu of a revocation/suspension is appropriate. Page 8 of 9 Consequences: This option wocild allow a fine to be paid, which would provide additional revenue to the City. This would also provide an option for the business to determine how a penalty is applied; i. e., do they prefer to pay a fine or lose tobacco sales revenue for a period of time as well as go through the reapplication process with its cost and time commitments. May relieve the administrative workload for Staff in review and approval of reapplications for those businesses that have had their licenses revoked. Should an ordinance proposal include a fine in lieu of revocation/suspension? ^ Yes ^No Is the Staff proposal adequate? ^ Yes ^No NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Meeting Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Center for Tobacco Policy and Organization Matrix 2. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 500 foot and 1000 foot buffer. 3. Map of existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot buffer around residential land uses. 4. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 500 foot & 1,000 foot buffer around the retailers. 5. Table of Strong Local Strong Local Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinances. 6. Table of Tobacco Control 2010 -California Local Grades. Page 9 of 9 C~~~ O~P DL~~~C- ~'lt~r-o~ti`~ DATE: TO: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #560-90 April 17, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager; ~•~~._.. T~~~~,-~.~?~, ~,...~~ SUBJECT: Report on Tobacco Retailers Ordinance Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager & Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Fiscal Year 2011-2012 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. As directed by the City Council, Staff is presenting this item to re-cap the discussion from the January 17, 2012 City Council meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. If an ordinance is adopted that does not grandfather in existing tobacco retailers, it is likely that the City will face legal challenges which have financial implications for the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback and direction on developing a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance. %/. '~ Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND Reviewed By Assistant City Manager A Fiscal Year 2011-2012 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions for new tobacco retailers within the City. The ordinance would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin. A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 7.4 ATTACHMENT 2 At the January 17, 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council received a presentation from Staff on possible ordinance provisions and had an initial discussion about this topic. The purpose of this report is to re-cap that discussion, provide relevant additional information on probable impacts, and seek direction from the City Council on how to proceed with an ordinance proposal. The January 17, 2012 Staff Report is included as Attachment 1. During the deliberations on this item, the City Council directed that Staff bring this item back for consideration before any additional work was done by Staff and before any meetings were held with the tobacco retailers. ZONING RECAP Minimum Distance to Maintain from Areas Where Children Are Present Decision Point: The City Council opined that the appropriate distance to maintain from a tobacco retailer to youth-oriented areas is 1,000 feet. The areas that should be included in the definition of youth oriented are schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, youth-centers, arcades, licensed child care facilities/preschools, and City owned and operated recreational facilities. Consequences: Of the 25 existing tobacco retailers, seven (7) are located within 500 feet of areas where children are present and 16 are located within 1,000 feet of areas where children are present. Please refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for a map of the areas in the City where children congregate. Attachment 2 has a 500 foot buffer around the areas where children congregate and Attachment 3 has a 1,000 foot buffer around these areas. No future tobacco retailers would be allowed to be located within 1,000 feet of these areas. As illustrated in this map, many of the existing tobacco retailers are located within the buffers surrounding the tobacco retailers. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the minimum distance from youth- oriented areas be 1,000 feet. Should Residential Zones be Included in the Ordinance Decision Point: The City Council opined that tobacco retailers should be required to be located a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from parcels with a residential land use designation. Consequences: If the ordinance requires a minimum distance from a tobacco retailer to parcels with a residential land use designation, then no future tobacco retailers will be able to locate in the City. As shown in Attachment 4, all but one of the undeveloped/vacant parcels is located within 1,000 feet of a residentia- land use designation. This parcel has a land use designation of Business Park/Industrial, which does not allow retail uses. In addition, 24 out of the existing 25 retailers are located within 1,000 feet of a residential land use. Thus, there would be nowhere within the City that a new tobacco retailer could locate, and a conditional use process would be moot as every corner of the City would be prohibited from siting a tobacco retailer. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that the City Council not require retailers to be a minimum distance from residential land-use designations. Limited Density of Tobacco Retailers Page 2 of 7 Decision Point: The City Council opined that a provision should be included in the ordinance to limit the density of tobacco retailers in cases where the retailer is a business that primarily sells tobacco products (i.e. Smoke Shops). For these types of uses, tobacco retailers should be a minimum of 1,000 feet from one another. Direction was provided that grocery stores, drug stores and gas stations are not subject to this requirement. Consequences: If the ordinance limits the density of tobacco retailers in the City that primarily sell tobacco products, then there would be fewer such uses in the City. There are currently three "smoke shops" in Dublin that primarily sell tobacco products. Two of these businesses are located within 1,000 feet of one another. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that smoke shops be prohibited from siting within 1,000 feet of each other. Aparoval Process for New Tobacco Retailers Decision Point: The City Council opined that a provision be included in the proposed ordinance to require that the approval process be through the Zoning Clearance process. Consequences: The Zoning Clearance process takes much less time than a Conditional Use Permit. If an ordinance is adopted that requires a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from areas where children are present and 1,000 feet from residential, then the review process (either Zoning Clearance or Conditional Use Permit) is a moot point since there will be no areas in the City where a future tobacco retailer could be located. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that a zoning clearance be used for the siting of new tobacco retailers. Existing Retailers - "Grandfatherinq" Decision Point: The City Council opined that a proposed ordinance should apply to all existing tobacco retailers within the City. Furthermore, any existing retailers that are in violation of the Ordinance shall be phased out within 1, 2, 3, or more years, depending on the legality of the timeframe. The City Attorney's office has preliminarily researched the issue of "grandfathering," and whether the City has the authority to restrict tobacco sales at existing sites. If the City wants to phase out existing tobacco retailers, it must establish an "amortization" process whereby retailers are given a period of time to operate such that they can recoup their investment in the business. In particular, the City is not required to allow existing uses to continue indefinitely. However, to the extent that the City would like to eliminate sales at existing sites, it will be necessary for the City to provide the "amortization" period as mentioned for existing uses. California case law clearly holds that while cities may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming property uses without compensation, they must provide a "reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved." The specific length of the amortization period is not established by law. Rather, the appropriate amortization period must be reasonable and commensurate with the investment involved, so the appropriate period should be determined on a case by case basis with respect to particular properties. Potential factors to be considered in establishing an amortization period might include, but are not limited to the amount of money invested in a leasehold or improvements, the length of time remaining on a lease, or additional evidence of undue financial hardship. It is expected that preparation for Page 3 of 7 and the actual conduct of amortization hearings would require a fair amount of additional legal and administrative work. Consequences: if the ordinance applies to existing tobacco retailers and if a 1,000 foot buffer is required from residential land uses, then all of the existing tobacco retailers (25) would be in violation of the ordinance and would be required to phase out the sale of tobacco products. Of the existing 25 tobacco retailers in the City, three businesses sell only tobacco products and related paraphernalia and/or liquor and therefore adoption of an ordinance that applies to existing tobacco retailers will most likely result in the closing of these businesses. For those businesses where tobacco sales are ancillary to the businesses primary focus, these business would, of course, be able to continue to operate, but would perhaps lose a revenue source. Staff believes that legal challenges are likely, resulting in significant staff time and financial resources. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that existing retailers be grandfathered within the ordinance. Oation/Imaact Matrix Options Existing Tobacco Retailers Future Tobacco Retailers 500 feet from children Seven tobacco retailers are Future tobacco retailers would located within 500 feet of not be permitted to locate in children and would have to areas within 500 feet of areas phase out the sale of tobacco where children are present. products if the ordinance does not grandfather in existing tobacco retailers. Refer to Attachment 2 1,000 feet from children Sixteen (16) tobacco retailers Future tobacco retailers would are located within 1,000 feet of not be permitted to locate in children and would have to areas within 1,000 feet of areas phase out the sale of tobacco where children are present. products if the ordinance does not grandfather in existing Tobacco Retailers. Refer to Attachment 3 Apply Ordinance to Twenty-four (24} of the twenty- All undeveloped/vacant parcels Residential Land Use five (25) tobacco retailers are that are designated as located within 1,000 feet of a commercial are located within residential land use designation. 1,000 feet of a residential land These businesses would have use designation. Including a to phase out the sale of tobacco 1,000 foot minimum distance products if the ordinance does from residential land uses would not grandfather in existing result in no new businesses tobacco retailers. being able to sell tobacco Refer to Attachment 4 products in the City. Refer to Attachment 4 Apply Ordinance to existing All twenty-five (25) of the Not Applicable Tobacco Retailers existing tobacco retailers would be in violation of the ordinance and would have to phase out the sale of tobacco products. Three of the businesses only sell Tobacco/Alcohol products and would most likely go out of Page 4 of 7 business. Refer to Attachment 5 8~ 6 Limit Density of "Smoke There are currently three Any future "smoke shops" that Shops" tobacco retailers in the City that primarily sells tobacco products primarily sell tobacco products. would not be permitted to locate Two of these retailers are within within 1,000 feet of an existing 1,000 feet of one another. tobacco retailer. Attachment 7 shows all of the various restrictions. As illustrated in Attachment 5, there are no future areas in the City where tobacco retailers could be sited and all of the existing tobacco retailers (25) would be required to phase out the sale of tobacco products in the specified amount of time, if the ordinance requires that all tobacco retailers be located 1,000 feet from residential land uses. If the City Council were to adopt an ordinance that phases out the sale of tobacco products and retailers, it is likely that lawsuits would be filed challenging the legality of the ordinance, which would have financial implications for the City. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Tobacco Retailers ordinance include a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from future tobacco retailers to areas where children are present, but that it does not require a minimum distance from residential districts. Staff also recommends that existing businesses be grandfathered in and allowed to continue to sell tobacco products. Staff has already received significant interest and concern from local and regional retailers, as well as national organizations, that support tobacco retailing. TOBACCO RETAILER LICENSING RECAP In addition to the Conditional Use Permit, the City Council also discussed the establishment of a licensing provision for the sale of tobacco products. A retailer licensing ordinance would provide greater local control over the illegal sale of tobacco products and would provide a sustainable funding mechanism for program enforcement and administrative oversight. Establish a Tobacco Retailer Licensing System Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a retailer licensing system for all existing as well as any future tobacco retailers. Consequences: Provide greater enforcement and local control of tobacco related infractions. An additional burden would be placed upon local businesses to apply for the license. Also, additional staff time will be required to review, approve, and manage the licensing program as well as to conduct hearings for possible license revocations; however, a licensing fee could be established to offset the additional costs to the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend establishing a Tobacco Retailer Licensing system. Establish a Fee to Obtain a Tobacco Retailer License Decision Point: The City Council opined that there should be a licensing fee should be established at full cost recovery. Page 5 of 7 Consequences: A license fee would provide funding to cover the cost of program management and enforcement. A fee would be an additional cost burden for the retailers. In particular, many retailers and consumers believe there are already significant costs and fees placed by government on the sale of tobacco products. If a funding fee is not included, compliance checks, ensuring that tobacco products are not being sold to minors, may need to be suspended should grant funding be unavailable during any given year. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that a fee be established at full cost recovery. Revocation vs. Suspension for Violations Decision Point: The City Council opined that licenses should be revoked or suspended for a violation of the ordinance; e.g., selling tobacco products to minors. Consequences: Businesses will lose revenues from being unable to operate as a tobacco retailer. Reapplication fee would be required to obtain a license after revocation. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that licenses be revoked for violations Determine Appropriate Revocation Period for Violations Decision Point: The City Council opined that the appropriate revocation/suspension period for violating ordinance provisions is: • 1St violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 30 days. • 2nd violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 90 days. • 3~d violation within a 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 180 days. • 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revoked/suspended for 1 year. Consequences: The more significant the penalties, the more likely a business will be in compliance with ordinance provisions. Additionally, the longer the revocation/suspension period, the more revenues that a business will lose, and the more sales tax the City may forfeit. Management of compliance and reapplication will have a staff impact, which could be offset by licensing fees. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that revocations/suspensions be include as outlined. Fine In Lieu of Revocation/Suspension Decision Point: The City Council opined that a fine in lieu of a revocation/suspension is appropriate under the following conditions: 1. 1St violation within a 60 month period: an administrative penalty of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000). 2. After a second violation of this chapter at a location within any sixty-month (60) period: i. an agreement to stop acting as a Tobacco Retailer for at least seven (7) days; and ii. an administrative penalty of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000). Consequences: This option would allow a fine to be paid, which would provide additional revenue to the City. This would also provide an option for the business to determine how a penalty is applied; i.e., do they prefer to pay a fine or lose tobacco sales revenue for a period of Page 6 of 7 time as well as go through the reapplication process with its cost and time commitments. Allowing a fine in lieu of revocation would relieve the administrative workload for Staff in reviewing and approving reapplications for those businesses that would have had otherwise had their licenses revoked. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend that this item be included as outlined. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City in addition to other interested parties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 2. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 500 foot buffer 3. Map of locations in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer 4. Map of existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot buffer around residential land uses 5. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 500 foot around the retailers 6. Map of the existing tobacco retailers in the city with a 1,000 foot around the retailers 7. Map that shows all of the restrictions Page 7 of 7 C~~~ O~F D~~lij. /!/ 19 ~`~ 82 \~~~~~ r'tt~r,`?~~`~ DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #560-90 September 18, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, Cit Mana er' Y;.,~~._: ~`~'~~~~ Y 9 ~, .. J ..~ SUBJECT: Tobacco Retailers Ordinance Outreach Report Prepared by Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager & Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Fiscal Year 2012-2013 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions and a licensing system for new tobacco retailers within the City. As directed by the City Council, Staff met with representatives advocating various positions to solicit their input. Staff is presenting this item to receive additional direction before finalizing the Tobacco Retailer Ordinances. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There would be a financial impact associated with the preparation of an ordinance. The budget includes sufficient funds to cover the necessary legal review of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide Staff with feedback and direction on developing a Tobacco Retailers Ordinance. P.~ Submitted By Assistant to the City Manager DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND A Fiscal Year 2012-2013 City Council initiated work plan goal directs Staff to establish zoning restrictions and a licensing system for new tobacco retailers within the City. The ordinance would establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City of Dublin. A tobacco retailer is any person or business which sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia. Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 7.2 rf / , ._ __ ~_ l Reviewed By Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENT 3 The City Council received presentations from Staff on possible ordinance provisions and discussed this topic at both the January 17, 2012 and April 17, 2012 City Council meetings. The Staff Reports are included as Attachment 1 and 2. As directed by the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting, Staff has met with interested individuals, groups, and organizations with various positions regarding this issue to solicit input. In particular, Staff has worked with a subcommittee from the Chamber of Commerce to review the ordinance and obtain feedback. Additionally, Staff held two town hall meetings with the tobacco retailers. Staff also met with the American Lung Association and Alameda County Public Health to solicit feedback. The Chamber and Tobacco Retailers proposed several modifications to the original direction received from the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting. DIRECTION RECEIVED FROM CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 17, 2012 MEETING Below is a recap of the direction that was received by the City Council at the April 17, 2012 meeting. Zoning Restrictions for Tobacco Retailers: 1. Minimum distance from areas where children are present (schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds, youth-centers, arcades, commercial daycare centers, pre-schools & City-owned facilities): 1,000 feet. 2. Residential zones are not included in the ordinance. 3. Smoke shops shall be prohibited from siting within 1,000 feet of one another. 4. In regard to approval process for new Tobacco Retailers, a zoning clearance will be used for the siting of new tobacco retailers. 5. Existing retailers will be grandfathered within the ordinance. Tobacco Retailers Licensing: 1. The fee to obtain a Tobacco Retailer License shall be established at full cost recovery: Staff estimated that the annual application fee will be approximately $25 and the annual License Fee will be approximately $290. The License Fee of $290 per retailer will fund one sting operations per year. Additional operations will increase the cost of the fee by multiplying the fee by the number of operations desired; e.g., if the Council were to desire to conduct two operations within a given year, then the license fee would increase to $580 ($290 x 2 operations = $580). 2. Licenses shall be revoked for violations. 3. Revocation periods for violations shall be: • 1st violation: license revoked for 30 days; • 2nd violation: license revoked for 90 days; • 3rd violation: license revoked for 180 days; • 4th violation or more: license revoked for 1 year. 4. Administrative Penalty in lieu of Revocation will be: • 1st violation: $1,000; 2nd violation: an agreement to stop acting as a tobacco retailer for 7 days and $5,000. In addition, the City Council also directed Staff to include single item and flavored cigars as part of the ordinance. Premium cigars would be exempted from this requirement. The Council also provided direction to expand the smoking prohibition in City parks to include community parks. Page 2 of 6 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCES BY THE CHAMBER 8 RETAILERS City Staff met with the Chamber of Commerce and with the retailers to discuss the Tobacco Retailer Ordinances. Of the 26 retailers within the City, only 8 attended the informational sessions. Primarily, the Chamber and the retailers indicated that they are against the adoption of the proposed ordinances. Many of the retailers believe that they are taking sufficient measures to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. While Staff does not have the data available to verify, many of the retailers that attended the meetings claimed that they had not had more than one violation in 20 years or more, and they worried that businesses that are being proactive and responsible were being punished because of the actions of an irresponsible few. Further, the Cox family, which owns and operates three of the City's Shell stations, presented their employee education program along with the policies and programs they have developed as a model for curtailing the sale of tobacco products to minors, and perhaps as an alternative requirement as opposed to the proposed ordinances (Attachment 3). The Shell stations within Dublin have electronic identification readers that will not allow a sale to occur if the buyer is underage. While the primary position of the Chamber and retailers is to not adopt an ordinance, Staff worked with them to propose ordinance modifications that would alleviate their concerns. The retailers and Chamber indicate they would like to see the City Council establish a taskforce to study the issue in greater detail. The proposed modifications include: Zoning Restrictions for Tobacco Retailers (underline indicates change) 1. Minimum distance from schools: 1,000 feet 2. Minimum distance from all other areas where children are present (libraries, parks, playgrounds youth-centers arcades, pre-schools & City-owned facilities): 500 feet. 3. Remove commercial daycares from definition of areas where children are present. Tobacco Retailers Licensing: 1. The fee to obtain a Tobacco Retailer License shall be established at full recovery: application fee approximately $25 and License Fee approximately $290. The annual fee will only be charged if/when the City does not receive grant funding. 2. Revocation periods for violations shall be: • 1St violation: warnin • 2"d violation: license revoked for 30 days; • 3rd violation: license revoked for 90 days; • 4th violation: license revoked for 180 days; • 5th violation or more: license revoked for 1 year. 3. Fine in lieu of Revocation will be: • 1St violation: warning • 2"d violation: $1,000; • 3rd violation: an agreement to stop acting as a tobacco retailer for 7 days & $5,000. 4. There should NOT be a minimum pack size requirement for flavored cigars. 5. The period during which violations accrue should be 3 years instead of 5 years. MEETING WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION & PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT City Staff also met with a representative from the American Lung Association and a representative from the Alameda County Public Health Tobacco Control Program. At that meeting, Staff discussed the proposed modifications that the Chamber and Tobacco Retailers had requested. The representatives from the American Lung Association and Public Health Page 3 of 6 Department did not support any of the proposed modifications by the retailers. Most notably, it was felt that the minimum distance to keep future tobacco retailers from parks and playgrounds should remain at 1,000 feet and that there should be minimum pack size requirement for the flavored cigars. ANALYSIS: Matrix of Proposed Variances Worksheet American City Lung Assn & Chamber & Retailer Decision Point Council Tobacco Chamber & Retaleer Variance Request Draft Control Prg Proposed Variances Rationale Direction Proposed Variances The minimum distance that The 1,000 foot This change opens up future tobacco retailers can requirement should only undeveloped areas in the locate from youth oriented Yes None apply to schools, and all eastern part of the City, areas is 1,000 feet? other locations should be where gas stations, etc. 500 feet. may locate themselves. Define youth oriented areas as Do not include licensed Prevents possible schools, libraries, parks, childcare facilities/ development conflicts playgrounds, youth-centers, preschools. when retailers and i arcades, licensed childcare Yes None daycares are trying to facilities/ preschools, and City develop nearby sites. owned and operated recreational facilities? Establish a tobacco retailer Do not charge retailers a Curtail hardship when licensing fee at full cost licensing fee in those funding is available. recovery? Yes None years when grant funding for sting operations is available. The revocation period for A. Add a warning for the A. Prevent a rogue ordinance violations is: first violation and employee from 1. 1st violation within a 60 readjust the violation negatively impacting month period: License penalties accordingly. businesses that rarely revoked for 30 days. have violations. 2. 2nd violation within a 60 Yes None B. Decrease the penalty B. Ensure that only the month period: License accrual period from most egregious revoked for 90 days. 60 months to 36 violators are severely 3. 3rd violation within a 60 months. penalized. month period: License revoked for 180 days. 4. 4 or more violations within 60 month period: License revoked for 1 year. Include a fine in lieu of fee for Yes None Add a warning for the first Prevent a rogue employee Page 4 of 6 15 and 2~ violations? violation. from negatively impacting businesses that rarely have violations. Should there be a minimum Maintain the status quo; Maintain a source of pack size for flavored cigars? Yes None i.e., no restrictions placed significant revenue. on these products. Decision Point: Determine the appropriate distance that future tobacco retailers can locate from areas where children are present. A recommendation was made that the minimum distance be 1,000 feet for schools and 500 feet for all other areas where children are present. Reducing the distance to 500 feet from all other areas where children are present would allow for future tobacco retailers, and in particular gas stations, in Eastern Dublin along Dublin Boulevard. Please refer to the attached maps to understand the potential areas in the City where future tobacco retailers could be located if the minimum distance is changed from 1,000 feet to 500 feet from areas where children are present (excluding schools). Attachment 4 shows all areas in the City where children are present with a 1,000 foot buffer and Attachment 5 has a 1,000 foot buffer around schools and a 500 foot buffer around all other areas where children congregate. Should the minimum distance that future tobacco retailers can locate from areas where children are present (excluding schools) be changed from 1,000 feet to 500 feet? ^ Yes ^No Decision Point: Determine whether commercial daycares should be removed from the definition of youth- oriented areas. There was a significant concern from 7-11 representatives that including commercial daycares would inhibit the development process of retailers looking to establish themselves. In particular, it was feared that, in the middle of a tobacco retailers development process, a daycare would site itself within a prohibited footage area from the tobacco retailer, and would finish the approval process before the tobacco retailer could, thereby, rending the tobacco retailers investment in time and money null and void. Additionally, it was felt the children that would leave a commercial daycare would be so young that they would always be with an adult or of an age that there would be no threat of the sale of tobacco products to them. Should commercial daycares be removed from youth-oriented areas? ^ Yes ^No Decision Point: Determine if the Tobacco Retailers Licensing Fee should only be charged during the years that the City does not receive grant funding. This recommendation is a moot point in that the City has learned that it will, in all likelihood, lose grant funding once a Tobacco Retailers License is adopted. Should the annual fee will only be charged if/when the City does not receive funding from the tobacco fund? ^ Yes ^No Decision Point: Page 5 of 6 Determine if it is appropriate to issue a warning for the first time that a retailer violates the ordinance. The tobacco retailers feel that a warning helps safeguard a business from a rogue employee that sells tobacco products to a minor. The American Lung Association and Public Health do not believe that warnings are necessary since retailers have been receiving warnings for years without any repercussions and there is already an in lieu of revocation process included within the ordinance. Should a warning be issued for the first violation? ^ Yes ^No Decision Point: Determine if there should be a minimum pack size for flavored cigars. Currently most of the retailers indicate that they purchase flavored cigars individually wrapped in bulk size (50 per box). Including a requirement for a minimum pack size would require that the retailers develop packaging for the cigars, and raise the cost to purchase them. The Tobacco Retailers feel that a selective restriction on flavored cigars will push sales of the product to other cities and discriminates against people of lower economic means. The American Lung Association and Alameda Public Health feel strongly that there should be a minimum pack size in the ordinance as it would provide an economic disincentive for minors to purchase such products. Staff is unaware of other jurisdictions that have adopted such restrictions, so the City may face legal challenges should the City Council proceed with such provisions. Additionally, the increased penalties (loss of license to sell tobacco products altogether) included within the retailers license may provide enough disincentive to sell such products to minors or at least be a solid first step. Should there be a minimum pack size for flavored cigars? ^ Yes ^No Decision Point: Determine if the time that a violation stays on a retailer's record should be reduced from 5 years to 3 years. The tobacco retailers are in favor of this modification because it reduces the potential for severe penalties if a rogue employee sells tobacco products to a minor. The American Lung Association and Alameda County Public Health prefer that the cycle remain at five years, to avoid having the severe punishments go away as such a provision really only protect the egregious violators and would have little to no impact/benefit to the responsible business owner. Should the time be reduced from 5 years to 3 years? ^ Yes ^No NOTICING REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH: The Public Meeting Notice was mailed to all existing Tobacco Retailers within the City in addition to other interested parties. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 2. April 17, 2012 Staff Report without Attachments 3. Cox Family Stores Employee Education Program 4. Areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer 5. Areas in the City where children congregate with a 1,000 foot buffer around schools and 500 foot buffer around all other areas Page 6 of 6 F z w x U d E~ E-~ d RESOLUTION 12-xx 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 OF LAND) AND 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF TOBACCO RETAILERS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY-WIDE WHEREAS, studies show that tobacco use among our youth continues to rise with a particular impact among our high school students; and WHEREAS, although it is unlawful to sell tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia to minors, studies have shown that more than 900 million packs of cigarettes are consumed by minors 12 to 17 years of age each year; and WHEREAS, in the City of Dublin over the past 14 year period there has been a 9% sales rate to minors during sting operations; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has a substantial interest in discouraging the purchase of tobacco products by minors, and protecting children from being lured into illegal activity through the misconduct of adults; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7, provides cities and counties with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens; and WHEREAS, zoning regulations are necessary to control the location and operation of the sale or exchange of tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(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 the proposed 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 regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately; and 1 ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on October 9, 2012; and and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2 ORDINANCE NO. xx-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.43 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES) AND 8.116 (ZONING CLEARANCE) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF TOBACCO RETAILERS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, studies show that tobacco use among our youth continues to rise with a particular impact among our high school students; and WHEREAS, although it is unlawful to sell tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia to minors, studies have shown that more than 900 million packs of cigarettes are consumed by minors 12 to 17 years of age each year; and WHEREAS, in the City of Dublin over the past 14 year period there has been a 9% sales rate to minors during sting operations; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has a substantial interest in discouraging the purchase of tobacco products by minors and protecting children from being lured into illegal activity through the misconduct of adults; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution, Article XI, section 7, provides cities and counties with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens; and WHEREAS, zoning regulations are necessary to control the location and operation of the sale or exchange of tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of City Council to discourage violations of laws forbidding distribution of tobacco products to minors, but not to expand or reduce the degree of which the acts regulated by state or federal laws are criminally proscribed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on this project on October 9, 2012 and adopted Resolution 12-xx recommending that the City Council approve amendments to Title 8 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as follows: 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMEI~IT 5 Section 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): The City Council declares this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(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 regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. Section 2. Anew Chapter 8.43 is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 8.43 TOBACCO RETAILERS 8.43.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for the location and operation of tobacco retailers. 8.43.020 Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to: A. Establish a minimum distance that tobacco retailers must maintain from areas where children are present, such as schools, playground, parks, libraries and City owned and operated recreational facilities. B. Prevent Retail Tobacco Shops from concentrating in a particular geographic area of the City. C. Establish development standards and regulations for the siting of new tobacco retailers within the City. 8.43.030 Definitions. A. The terms used in this Chapter have the meaning set forth below: "Department" means the Community Development Department. "Person" means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. "Retail Tobacco Shop" means a business establishment, the main purpose of which is the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia. "Tobacco Paraphernalia" means cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and other items designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco products. 2 "Tobacco Products" means any substance containing any tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, bidis, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. "Tobacco Retailer" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Chapter 8.08 of the Dublin Municipal Code. "Tobacco retailing" shall mean engaging in the activities of a Tobacco Retailer. 8.43.040 Development Standards and Regulations. A tobacco retailer shall comply with all development standards and regulations for the zoning district in which it is located and any other applicable provisions of the City Code or regulations, including occupancy, accessibility, California Building Code, and Fire Code requirements. A. Permitted in the C-1, C-2, and Certain Planned Development Zoning Districts. A tobacco retailer may be established only in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts. A tobacco retailer may also be established in a comparable Planned Development (PD) Zoning District if not specifically prohibited by the PD regulations and if the project site has an underlying Retail Commercial or General Commercial Land Use designation. Any tobacco retailer in a PD Zoning District shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter and the requirements of the PD Zoning District. Where a conflict arises between the requirements of this Chapter and the PD regulations, this Chapter shall take precedence. B. No tobacco retailer shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet, as measured in a straight line from parcel boundary to parcel boundary, of a parcel that, at the time the tobacco retailer is granted a Zoning Clearance, is occupied by public or private elementary, middle, junior high or high school; C. No tobacco retailer shall be located within five hundred (500) feet, as measured in a straight line from parcel boundary to parcel boundary, of a parcel that, at the time the tobacco retailer is granted a Zoning Clearance, is occupied by a: (i) Playground; (ii) Youth center; (iii) City owned and operated recreational facilities; (iv) Park; or (v) Library. D. Limited Density of Retail Tobacco Shops. No Retail Tobacco Shop shall be granted a permit to operate on a site which is within one thousand (1,000) feet of a site occupied by another Retail Tobacco Shop, as measured in a straight line from parcel boundary to parcel boundary. E. New tobacco retailers. Each application for a Zoning Clearance to operate a Tobacco Retail business shall include, in addition to such other information as reasonably required by the Community Development Director, a map demonstrating that the proposed location of the tobacco retailer is consistent with the minimum distance standards established in Sections 8.43.040.B, 8.43.040.C and 8.43.040.D. 3 F. Tobacco retailers shall apply for, acquire and maintain a current and valid Tobacco Retailer License as required by Chapter 4.40 of the Municipal Code. G. Sections 8.43.040.B, 8.43.040.C and 8.43.040.D shall not apply to any tobacco retailer legally in existence as of the original effective date of this Chapter. H. Sections 8.43.040.B, 8.43.040.C and 8.43.040.D shall not apply to any situation in which a tobacco retailer legally in existence as of the original effective date of this Chapter or a tobacco retailer that has been granted a Zoning Clearance expands its existing operations to an adjacent parcel but does not establish a second location at which tobacco retailing will occur. 8.43.050 Zoning Clearance. A. A Zoning Clearance shall document the compliance of a tobacco retailer with the above requirements and shall be kept on file in the Community Development Department for the duration of the operation of the tobacco retailer. Section 3. The following definition is hereby added to Section 8.08.020 (Definitions) of the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: Tobacco Retailer. The term Tobacco Retailer shall mean any person or business that sells, offers for sale, exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products and/or tobacco paraphernalia, and includes, but is not limited to a Retail Tobacco Shop. Section 4. Section 8.12.050 (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses) of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new row for the "Tobacco Retailer" use type to the "Commercial Use Types" table. (All other rows of the table in Section 8.12.050 shall remain unchanged by this Ordinance): COMMERCIAL USE TYPE A R-1 R-2 R-M C-O C-N C-1 C-2 M-P M-1 M-2 Tobacco Retailer - - - - - - ZC ZC - - - Section 5. Section 8.30.020 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on February 1, 2011 by Resolution 9-11, and as may be amended thereafter, shall be used to guide the review of site development review applications in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan contains all information regarding permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses, development standards, and design guidelines to direct the development and use of properties within the specific plan area, with the exception of the tobacco retail use types. 4 Tobacco retailers are to be regulated in the same way as in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts. All new development in the Downtown Dublin Zoning District shall be reviewed for consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Section 6. Section 8.116.010 of Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.116.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure for certifying conformance of a building permit, sign application, recreational facility (indoor), large family day care home, tobacco retailer or auto-related use in the Scarlett Court Overlay Zoning District application with the requirements of this Title, the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plans, and the terms and conditions of any applicable permits or variances. Section 7. Section 8.116.020.H is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: H. Tobacco retailers that meet the standards specified in Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). Section 8. Section 8.116.030.G is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: G. Tobacco Retailer. If the Zoning Clearance is for a tobacco retailer, the Applicant shall submit a "Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailer" form along with such information requested on said form Section 9. Section 8.116.040.H is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as follows: H. Tobacco Retailer. All tobacco retailers shall be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 8.43 (Tobacco Retailers). The zoning clearance approval for a tobacco retailer shall be a completed "Zoning Clearance for Tobacco Retailers" form with the date and signature of the Community Development Director orhis/her designee. Section 10. 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. Section 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. 5 Section 12. 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 this day of , 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 6