HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-144 Application of Dimensional Requirements to Establish Regulation Governing the Development of Drive-thru Facilities within the County–Option Two-RegulationOR D - dOO9 -,1.4 4
STAFF OPTION TWO (2): REGULATION:
Amend Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements as follows:
Section 6.9 Accessory Uses for non-residential developments — Drive-thru facilities
regulations:
1. Definition
a. Drive-through business (land use). An establishment that sells
products or provides services to occupants in vehicles,
including drive-in or drive-up windows and drive-through
services.
i. Drive-through businesses, non-restaurants - A drive-through
business that serves a use not related to a restaurant, fast
food restaurant or formula fast food restaurant. This use
includes the operation of drive-up or a drive-up or a drive-
through service at a bank or financial institution, food sales
(for off site preparation or consumption only), personal
services, and retail sales (e.g., pharmacy).
ii. Drive-through business, restaurants — A drive-through
business that operates in conjunction with a restaurant, fast
food restaurant or formula fast food restaurant.
2. Any and all accessory uses necessary for the operation of a proposed
non-residential or mixed use development shall not be erected in any
required open space and shall conform to all other applicable
regulations contained within this Ordinance,
3. In addition to any and all applicable Federal, State, or local
requirements, the following specific standards shall govern the
development and use of drive-thru facilities for the Project:
a. Any non-residential land use utilizing a 'drive4hru facility,
whether as a principal use of property or -within a Planned
Development or another similar multi-use non-residential or
mixed use development, shall not be located within fifty (50) feet
of an exterior property line. This includes the building, kiosk,
drive lane for the drive-thru, or parking facilities,
b. No menu board utilized as part of a drive-thru shall be visible
from an external or internal roadway. This can be achieved via
the planting of a vegetative screen,
c. There shall be a minimum twenty-five (25) foot wide vegetative
strip planted along the length of the roadway utilized by the
drive-thru facility including any and all applicable stacking lanes.
This strip shall be planted with sufficient vegetation to form a
dense, opaque, buffer planted to the following standard:
i. There shall be a continuous evergreen hedge planted
along the interior curb of. the drive-thru lane that will
have an initial planting height of thirty-six (36) inches
and achieve a height of at least five (5) feet at
maturity,
ii. There shall be a second row of plantings behind the
continuous hedge line comprised of deciduous and
evergreen trees that will have an initial planting height
of five (5) feet with spacing at 20 feet on center and
achieve a height of at least twenty (20) feet at
maturity.
d. A minimum stacking distance of 180 feet shall be provided to
each pick -up window or automated machine.
e. A facility 'with a separate ordering point and pick -up window
shall provide stacking space for at least 4 vehicles in advance of
each ordering point and stacking space for at least 4 vehicles
between each ordering point and pick -up window.
Entrances to drive -thru lanes shall be at least 25 feet from
driveways entering a public or private street or alley.
g. The minimum width of each drive -thru lane shall be 11 feet.
The entrance to the lane and the direction of traffic flow shall be
clearly designated by signs and pavement marking or raised
curbs.
h. A solid six -foot high masonry sound wall shall be constructed on
the property boundary when the site, utilizing a drive -thru, is
contiguous to residentially zoned or used property (s). If the
proposed building site is part of a larger non - residential /mixed
use development, and /or is separated from residential uses or
zoning districts by three hundred (300) feet, then the wall shall
not be required.
Operation of the drive -up service facility shall be restricted to
between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when the site is
contiguous to residentially zoned or used property(s). If the
proposed building site is part of a larger non - residential /mixed
use development, and /or the proposed building is separated
from residential uses or zoning districts by three hundred (300)
feet, then the time restriction shall not be required.
4. Development Guidelines
a. A minimum of a 0.50+ acre site shall be provided for a drive -
through facility within an existing shopping center.
b. "Franchise architecture' shall be strongly discouraged.
c. Drive - through facilities shall be architecturally compatible with
the best examples of nearby structures (i.e. intended for the
zone) and complement existing or planned streetscape
elements.
7
d. Building design, location and parking areas shall be designed to
provide pedestrian orientation and clearly identify areas for
pedestrian access and limit pedestrian — drive -thru lane overlap.
e. Windows provided for aesthetics in dining and entry areas shall
be used abundantly to provide visibility to the street and
pedestrian view into the building.
f. Outdoor seating with high quality hardscape areas (such as
brick, cobblestone, and decorative pavers) and high quality
outdoor furniture shall be encouraged in zones approved for
outside seating.
g. A minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped.
5. Operators of drive -thru facilities shall be required to pay an annual
carbon impact fee to the County in accordance with the County Impact
Fee Ordinance [at such time it is adopted by separate ordinance],
6. For any multi -use non - residential development there shall be no more
than one (1) drive -thru facility per ten (10) acres of property with an
ultimate cap of five (5) drive -thru units per development in total.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION — OPTION THREE (3):
1. The Board of County Commissioners initiate a comprehensive and countywide
awareness education program about idling and the contaminants it puts in our
air, focusing specifically on areas with children and idling vehicles (such as
schools, ball fields, etc.) to start in the fall of 2009 and end in the spring of 2011.
The goal of the program is to encourage individuals to turn off their vehicles
when parked rather than allowing them to idle, and
2. To recommend the Board of County Commissioners disregard staffs two (2)
options and take no action on adopting regulations banning development of
drive -thru facilities within the County's planning jurisdiction (Option 1) or adopting
comprehensive development standards for drive -thru facilities (Option 2).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Excerpt of Approved Minutes
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 23, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Attachment 2
9
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:30
p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary
Bobbitt- Cooke, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice -Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Forrest
Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers
** kk****** k****** k**** k***** kk***** k* k**************** k******* k********* ** ***** *k**kk * * ***k***k *** *** **
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive -thru facilities.
Michael Harvey summarized this information. This issue was brought up during the
review of a recent development project. Staff would like to seek direction from the Board about
what it would like to do as there are opportunities for economic development, specifically with
the Buckhorn Village project.
There are two options:
1. Adopt regulations banning the development and /or use of such facilities throughout
the County's planning jurisdiction, or
2. Adopt regulations designed to mitigate the impacts of such facilities through the
imposition of buffering and site design standards.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the exemption of stand -alone ATMs. Michael
Harvey said that there are drive -up ATMs in a lot of the jurisdictions and these are very
beneficial.
Commissioner Nelson said that his interest in pursuing this is reducing greenhouse
gasses. He is fine with option 1.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County should not ban drive - throughs if it is trying to
promote itself as business - friendly.
Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Nelson's comments and argued that the
County should try and attract certain kinds of businesses. She would like to change people's
habits and still be business - friendly.
10
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that he might agree with the stand -alone ATMs, but if there is
2 a bank, there should not be a drive - through teller. He suggested that staff do research on other
3 jurisdictions in the country that have been successful in banning drive -thrus and the other
4 models that are out there.
5 Michael Harvey said that the staff did some research and did not come up with anything
6 conclusive. It was not exhaustive research.
7 Commissioner Pellisier clarified that schools would be exempt from this ban.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said that he had a conversation with Ms. Bobbitt-Cook about this
9 before the meeting and she pointed out that the Forsyth County Schools ask/require parents to
10 turn off their cars while they are in the drop- off /pick -up lane. He would like to put something in
11 writing to the school systems to try and work toward having people either not drive or at least
12 turn off cars.
13 Commissioner Gordon pointed out the issues with the aging population and people with
14 small children in their cars. There is more to think about than just the environmental aspect.
15 She would like to think about this more in terms of how to go about this.
16 Michael Harvey made reference to attachment 2 and the facts about car idling.
17 Commissioner Foushee supported Commissioner Yuhasz's and Commissioner Gordon's
18 comments. She said that what some people see as a convenience, other people see as a
19 necessity.
20 Craig Benedict said that the only hybrid idea was a carwash type conveyor belt, where
21 people would get in line at a drive - through and be shuttled through like a car wash. Staff will
22 continue its research.
23 Mark Marcoplos made reference to attachment and said that cars should be turned off
24 after 6 -10 seconds and not 30 seconds. He said that it seems that car idling is the issue here,
25 and there should be signs to tell people to turn off their cars while they are waiting.
26 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said that she is struck by the fact that nobody has ever requested a
27 drive - through ordinance. She cautioned the County Commissioners to step back and not put
28 regulations in place when they are not even being asked for. She suggested not being
29 progressive through regulation, but being innovative. She believes in a combination of policy
30 and education.
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT -
33 Melvin Whitfield said that all of the creeks and branches on his property have already
34 been graded, dug out, fenced, and sown with grass. He asked if there was any point in doing
35 anything with this.
36
37 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Hillsborough Economic Development District that
38 was developed jointly 8 -10 years ago banned drive -thrus and Hillsborough ignores this in
39 approving developments.
40 Commissioner Nelson said that Carrboro has had a prohibition for drive- thrus since
41 1994.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
44 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
45 County Board of Commissioners in time for the agenda schedule of the June 2, 2009 BOCC
46 meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until June 2, 2009 in order to receive and accept the
47 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
Excerpt of Approved Minutes
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 1, 2009
4 REGULAR MEETING
Attachment 3
11
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At -Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt- Cooke, Cheeks
7 Township; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At- Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, .Hillsborough
8 Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos;
9 Bingham Township At- Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At- Large; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks
10 Township At -Large
11
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy
14 McNeill, Eno Township
15
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning
18 Enforcement Officer; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
19
20 # # # # #F # # # # ###kN * # # *#*# *** * # #t## #H *# # # * * # *4 # ## *kk * # * * # # *#k# # ##k # # # #### #####*#** k#*#* **#### * # *# * ****###* * * * * * * **# * #*
21 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH
22 REGULATIONS FOR DRIVE•THRU FACILITIES
23
24 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February
25 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing
26
27 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
28
29 Michael Harvey: Good Evening once again. As the Board may recall, at the February Quarterly Public
30 Hearing we presented an ordinance amendment with two options on the possible regulation of drive - thrus
31 and the use of drive -thrus in the County. The two options are as follows, we amend Article 6 to ban them
32 or amend Article 6 to adopt some regulations to address the negative side impacts that are generated from
33 their use. The County Commissioners, after conducting the Public Hearing, were unable to come to any
34 consensus to provide staff or the Planning Board any direction. We have provided you with both options.
35 We are recommending that the Planning Board consider adopting regulations amending the operational
36 characteristic of drive -thrus and we hope we've come up with some standards that would address the
37 concems that have been expressed by both Planning Board and County Commissioners over their
38 development for the County. Attachment one is the proposed ordinance amendments for both options for
39 this Board to consider, options one and two. Attachment two has several articles and /or web pages and
40 general information dealing with drive - thrus.
41
42 Brian Crawford: Michael, I would just like to take a moment to complement you on this abstract, there's
43 some good information in here and I thought it was fairly balanced on pros and cons. Thank you good
44 information. Are there any questions?
45
46 Larry Wright: I would like to, first of all say that this is a very good package, I'm really concerned about the
47 study of the Sierra Research. The first thing about the study is that they are comparing two different
48 regions of California, one is in the high mountains and the other is lower Califomia. There are two things
49 they omitted here, the first is what really hits our pocketbook and that's ozone. We pay for that because
12
50 that is measured throughout the year. States that are not in compliance with the 1990 Title 2 Clean Air Act
51 result in counties having to pay for added oxidations or oxidants in fuel and we pay for that at the pump.
52 We pay for that and that is not in here. Also not in here is anything about particulates, emissions
53 particulates, and they are not measuring that. So there are two parts of the study that are not really
54 measured and the particulates are really of importance to small children, the elderly, asthmatics, and
55 people with obstructive pulmonary disorders. I see some flaws in this study and I'm conflicted on this. It
56 looks to me like you have this lobby group, California Business Properties Association that is paying for this
57 study. I looked and California Business Properties Association are advocates for shopping centers and real
58 estates firms. I'm not sure where I am on this whole thing but I just wanted to point some problems with that
59 study.
60
61 Jeff Schmitt: In the midst of the discussion, I would like to resurrect option one, (do nothing) handicapped
62 people today this is going to create a significant issue for them when they go to use a drive -in facility.
63 Parents with children who could previously go thru a facility with their children in the car safely in their seats
64 now will have to park the car get the kids out of the car and cross the lot, I could go on with issues like this.
65 I'm not sure that we have enough of this in the County that it creates that big of an environmental issue and
66 think this is somewhat of over reaction on the part of the Commissioners in bringing this forward. From my
67 perspective the questions and how we look at this, I'd like to have that in a context to think about it.
68
69 (Document "The Idle Free School Zone Project - 2006 -2007" was passed out by staff from Planning Board
70 Member Mary Bobbin- Cooke.)
71
72 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: If you remember at the Quarterly Hearing, I talked about what Forsyth County had
73 done in terms of really looking at places where there were a lot of particulates and bad air around children.
74 They have initiated an idle free school zone project. Basically, it's an education project which is always a
75 good way to reach out first before you start doing a lot of regulation. It educates the parents to turn the car
76 off while they're waiting for their children to come out from school or when they are going to drop off. It has
77 posters they send around and it helps parents transfer the behavior to other situations where if you're idling
78 more than a minute you shut your car off and they understand how it affects children's asthma as well as
79 the whole concept of air. I live close to Grady Brown and the High School and that's build right next to a
80 highway. I think the parents in the grade schools in Orange County would be willing to listen to this. What
81 they did in Forsyth County was there is no policy, they negotiated with the principal and the school staff to
82 put this in order. They have a Triad air awareness and emergency management program; all these groups
83 came together and worked with the schools to put this into place. It has been adopted by all the grade
84 schools and now they are moving into the middle schools. This is something we might want to ask the
85 County Commissioners to do first. The second thing in Forsyth County was the county employees have
86 been asked to turn their cars off. This is to model the kind of behavior they want all the residents in the
87 County to follow. I am thinking I would like to add to Jeffs proposal to resurrect option one, do nothing in
88 terms of regulation but let's start working in the areas where our children are and two see if the County
89 Manager would be willing to talk with the Forsyth County manager about this regulation and was it difficult
90 to put in place. Maybe staff here might want to react to that, do you have one in place?
91
92 Michael Harvey: We don't have one in place; I think the one in Forsyth County is a policy and a
93 suggestion. It is unenforceable which is why it's not a regulation so we need to be careful with how we do
94 that.
95
96 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: In terms of doing number one, do nothing in terms of regulation, I'm suggesting that
97 we say, let's do no regulation but let's consider some education and outreach where we can have behavior
98 modeled by county employees as well as really target where our children are which is a big concern. I think
2
13
99 there is a lot of asthma and we have a couple of schools close to the highway. It's an education and
100 community outreach but it's not a regulation so I think it's compatible with yours Jeff.
101
102 Jeff Schmitt: I think that's an excellent suggestion. As I read through here, option one is to prohibit it,
103 option two some of this stuff is over the top in the midst of what we're trying to do to get some of these folks
104 to do this. I think this suggestion is a very reasonable common sense approach to take in the midst of this.
105 Let's see if we can't do something on a voluntary basis with signs, placards, whatever doing it at schools
106 before we put another regulation in place. We have enough regulations in this County to begin with and 1
107 think this is just another one. While it is not enforceable and we're not going to have the idle police out
108 there, I think it does make a lot of sense that we're trying to trust the responsibility, the integrity, and the
109 concern all of the citizens of the County probably have for pollution when we are sitting in long lines. One
110 other point I'd like to make is that the business model that a lot of restaurants and other businesses are
111 based upon being able to drive through so as the County expands what we are in essence doing is putting
112 a significant amount of limitations on them and /or telling them not to come to begin with because of this
113 regulation.
114
115 Larry Wright: First of all, I thing the OUTBoard has taken up this issue and I think that discussion would be
116 important to the Commissioners. I've thought about this a lot and I thought about the turning off of the
117 engines and as much I do not like exhaust pumping out into the atmosphere, it is almost impossible to get
118 by Cameron Park around 2:30 -3:00 and you can't expect these parents to turn off a car when it is very cold
119 or very hot outside. I think it's a little unrealistic in some circumstances to ask them to turn off their cars. 1
120 see some problems here. Then I think as far as the businesses not coming in, Carrboro has proven that
121 wrong. They will come in. I think the rationale is flawed. I would like to know if the OUTBoard has
122 discussed this and what the outcome of those discussions were.
123
124 Mark Marcoplos: I agree with Larry on this lobbyist organization's study. I studied it for awhile and they are
125 talking about when a car stops gases emit from the engine. In the study they are only talking about what
126 happens in the parking lot, that's narrow. They are really stretching it there. If you look at some other
127 information, I did some research on this, we know that idling wastes fuel, we know it releases pollutants
128 that would not be released if the car were turned off, we know that if your car is idling for more than 10
129 seconds it's cost effective and resource effective to turn it off, 6 -10 seconds is now understood to be the
130 amount of fuel it takes to start your car. Every hour you idle you waste 7/10th of a gallon of gas. This is
131 some information from Sierra Magazine, in a given year U.S, cars burn some 1.4 billion gallons of fuel just
132 idling. Idling trucks waste 1.5 billions gallons, Collectively we emit about 50 million tons of carbon dioxide
133 while we are essentially doing nothing just waiting and'idling. It puts a little strain on the business to have
134 this kind of regulation but what is really at stake? We know global warming is real. We know we're
135 stressing our environment. We know people are getting sick so at a certain point you have to say do we
136 rise to the challenge or do we fall back into what we used to think 15, 20, 30 years ago that we can go on
137 pretty much as we have been living and expect things to just solve themselves. I really feel like we're not
138 doing a whole lot of damage to important businesses in our community if we require people to park to go
139 into a restaurant. All my favorite restaurants, they don't have drive -thrus the ones that keep money into
140 the community anyway, serve healthy food. It's where the mothers and children ought to be going anyway.
141 It's not my decision; I just throw that out as an observation. As far as the handicapped if people can get in
142 their cars they can get out of their cars. I think doing nothing as an option not only does it not get the
143 reductions in emissions that we need but it misses a great educational opportunity. It sends the message
144 that it doesn't really matter to us. It doesn't make the point that this is something we are really serious
145 about and understand the need to do. Maybe we don't all understand the need to do it yet. The business
146 limitation if that's the only litmus test we'll never get much done. As we learn about our impact on the
14
147 environment, and health we are called upon to meet the challenge to limit businesses that are part of the
148 problem. I am in favor of a ban.
149
150 Rachel Phelps Hawkins: I think as Mary said that education should be number one starting in the schools
15l when the kids are very young. The other problem is we have buses half full, everyone doesn't have to
152 drive their kids to school but they do and the buses are running with no one on them wasting gas.
153
154 Brian Crawford: Michael or Craig are we still under the EPA mandate for this area because of the number
155 of pollutants we put in the environment? I understood the Triangle had some sort of restriction.
156
157 Craig Benedict: The non - attainment designation has been released. We are now in another stage where
158 we had to provide a management and maintenance plan to make sure our land use plan and other policies
159 in the future would not move us into the non attainment area again but we have been released from that
160 non attainment zone.
161
162 Brian Crawford: My second question is has anybody sat down to look at the link between how severely our
163 drive -thrus in this county impact our carbon output. I don't think that's been looked at enough, we know
164 intuitively that it makes sense but if this isn't done will it throw us back into the management plan or EPA
165 guidelines. I don't understand how this is a solution. It looks like we are jumping to this regulation as a
166 solution to our emissions problem in the area but yet no one has made that connection that this would help
167 it at all. I say that because its seems to be that at the Commissioner level three are some fairly strong
168 opinions that this ban should be in place.
169
170 Michael Harvey: I think the goal we were asked to look at is what some reasonable regulations might be
171 because it's not just emissions or environmental pollution that are the ultimate concerns that we are
172 attempting to address here. It is noise; it is the commingling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, stopped
173 traffic in drive -thru lanes. It is the shielding and buffering that provide esthetic separation from these types
174 of uses as well as help augment potential emission issues. Planning staff doesn't have the opportunity or
175 wherewithal to do the study that has been discussed. I don't' know where the County Commissioners
176 would be with funding such a study. These regulations were written to address County Commissioners'
177 concerns about coming up with options. We believe the regulations we have provided in the options try to
178 address those and provide reasonable regulations and not to address emission issues but address some of
179 the other issues identified during the review of the Buckhorn Village project as well as other issues that
180 have come up in the past about what is acceptable and what we should be trying to encourage to offset
181 some of the other concerns.
182
183 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I'm not sure we can really translate California data into Orange County. In the public
184 health information in this report looking at maybe doing something about childhood diabetes if they stop
185 drive - thrus, that is way off the charts, public health is really more responsible than that. I think someone did
186 it to make a presentation at a meeting. Obesity is an issue but it's not going to be solved by drive -thru
187 regulation. My real point, is that where there are big concentrations of emissions are where our children
188 are. Asthma is the number one reason children miss school. We may want to regulate these new
189 businesses when they come into this county but we are ignoring the health of our children. That is a public
190 health fact. I really think we would be remiss not to send back to our County Commissioners the idea that
191 using a pass through for health reasons or emissions is missing where the emissions really occur and that
192 is harming a very vulnerable and fragile part of our population, our children. It is voluntary, of course
193 people won't keep their car off when they need it for air conditioning or heat but the reality is as more
194 people get educated, the more they will turn them off. Public health has learned that you start with
195 education before you regulate. I would recommend that we send a message back that if we're interested
Il
15
196 health issues that we think about the children and we should try some education first before we use
197 regulations.
198
199 Jeff Schmitt: In all seriousness, I don't know a lot about pollution and how it travels, but I'd suggest with a
200 southwesterly breeze that comes across the County, we're more affected by what's happening in
201 Birmingham, Alabama with the TBA than what's happening in the McDonald's drive -thru line. There are 12
202 home basketball games there are 6 home football games, I'd suggest the pollution generated by cars
203 standing in line over in Chapel Hill is much more significant. If we want to do a policy, we need to do it in
204 an area that's big enough where it can affect what's going on. That's the State of North Carolina, not
205 Orange County, we're one of a hundred. The significance of what happens in Charlotte, Greensboro,
206 Forsyth County as the wind moves this way is much more affected on us than what's happening in one of
207 these lines. The education, and then if we really do believe in this, the Commissioner going to the State
208 legislature to have something done seems to me it might create a bigger impact than trying to micro
209 manage what's happening on a very small scale.
210
211 Earl McKee: After reading over the supporting data and the two options, basically, I decided to write off all
212 the supporting data as being slanted one way or the other. I was left with two basic ideas, one Jeff has
213 touched on of the factor people who are handicapped or have supporting reasons to use drive- thrus, the
214 other thought was the percentage of facilities this will involve. As I am hearing, it will not affect the existing
215 drive -thrus they will still continue to operate, so you are going to have a very small percentage that will be
216 affected by the guidelines. The other thing is the number of cars sitting in a drive -thru at any given time
217 versus the total number of cars, trucks providing these emissions is very small. I am inclined to support
218 Jeffs suggestion that we go' with no action. With the situation the County is facing with tax situation and
219 revenue it may or may not have an effect on a business that is looking to locate in Orange County but I can
220 assure you from running a business that any time I think about doing something or opening a new section
221 of my business, the first thing I look at is what I will be up against as far as regulations. I would suggest we
222 take the option of doing nothing.
223
224 Pete Hallenbeck: A couple of comments, the first one is whenever I see a report and I have number but 1
225 don't' have a percentage, I have a very hard time absorbing that report. It would be nice to see it as a
226 percentage of total use in the U.S. Really from that point of view someone is saying what's the level of fuel
227 efficiency you should have. Do you ban drive -ins unless you're in a hybrid or an all electric car, it wouldn't
228 have the emission problem, so how much of this is based on pollution and carbon output. How, much is
229 based on other concerns, do you look at passenger miles per gallon. If you have four people in a vehicle is
230 it ok to use a drive -in? All of this seems like very difficult stuff to deal with. We talked about convenience
231 and need. I think this would be very hard for any kind of government regulation that could define the need.
232 1 think there are mechanisms for using zoning to say no drive -ins here similar to the Efland- Mebane plan. 1
233 think a lot of this comes down to regulating a symptom and not a cause. We're looking at pollutants,
234 energy use, and so forth just at a drive —in and as mentioned we have basketball games and other things. 1
235 would prefer to focus on the real problem which is fuel consumption of vehicles which helps everywhere
236 and everyone's driving and not just focus on the one thing of the drive -thru. Finally, on the school design,
237 the key there is designing schools so there are places people can park and the flow of children doesn't
238 have them crossing where cars are driving and that problem should be dealt with by encouraging the
239 County to work with schools, it is a special case. There are businesses where their whole model is based
240 on drive -ins. I would tend to go with don't touch this one, use the zoning to protect areas where you're
241 dealing with esthetics, and I'd prefer to see the energy of the County and everyone else go to dealing with
242 the more overall problem of fuel consumption in the vehicles we're driving rather than focus on the impact
243 of all the emissions in one particular context.
244
16
245 Brian Crawford: I looked at the legal challenges, one thing that popped out at me. If you go and do a
246 general ban across the whole County, and we do run into a developer or someone who wants to challenge
247 it, would we be able to sustain it based on such a general ban. It's something we've got to think about in
248 this process. That is the exact thought that lead me to be very neutral on this whole plan and just say, we
249 might want to sit back and not do anything about it. There are just so many issues that we can't anticipate
250 at this point.
251
252 Mark Marcoplos: I am very much in favor of an awareness campaign, I think its key. I think a ban fits in
253 perfectly with it. I just want to put things in perspective. If you don't think it makes much difference, you
254 might take that logic and say we're in a drought, I could change my showerhead to a water saving
255 showerhead but it doesn't make that much difference. That's a flawed argument because every little bit of
256 progress helps and every small action is part of greater progress. I think you have to look at this as one
257 part of a solution. It complements an awareness campaign because it's something that gets people's
258 attention. It shows some seriousness and gets attention, it doesn't mean we are going to immediately go
259 out and bull doze all the existing drive - thrus. It really is a relatively small number of unknown future drive -
260 thrus that may be built. That means it's a pretty easy way to make a point and cut down on future pollution
261 and the problems that drive - thrus cause. There's this idea it's going to have this huge impact on
262 businesses across the County, its not that kind of thing. It has been very successful in Carrboro and 1
263 haven't heard anyone complain about it.
264
265 Michael Harvey: I think there is a consensus that there is going to be some motion made that includes the
266 provision for a campaign on educating people about emissions and idling, I would urge the Board to do this
267 in two steps. The initial motion being made to recommend to the County Commissioner to consider an
268 educational campaign, keeping that separate from any motion concerning the disposition this item.
269
270 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to establish an awareness campaign for the entire County but
271 specifically targeted at schools where young children are present and that it precede any regulation on
272 drive- thrus. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
273
274 Larry Wright: So this has to precede anything?
275
276 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I'm recommending two phases, the first being an education awareness outreach
277 comprehensive and it specifically targets schools where there is a lot of idling waiting for children. Phase
278 two would be that there would be no regulation until this campaign has run and people have a chance to
279 learn about ozone emissions and clean air.
280
281 Larry Wright: I find this motion flawed, I like the first part but the second could make this go on forever
282 where nothing is ever done. I cannot support that because you could educate forever.
283
284 Mark Marcoplos: I agree. I think we should decouple that. The second motion I believe we're going to
285 hear speaks to regulation. I think we would want to be able to vote on a comprehensive awareness
286 campaign with or without any regulations. I think we would want to be able to say we like that in and of
287 itself. I am totally in favor of this awareness campaign but to have the condition that it must happen before
288 any regulation is not something that I can support.
289
290 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke recommending a comprehensive countywide education awareness
291 outreach campaign to specifically focus on schools where there is a lot idling affecting the health of
292 children. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
293
17
294 Michael Harvey: I think it would be prudent if we say, prior to making a formal recommendation on staffs
295 recommendation, the Planning Board proposal is to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners
296 that this education program commence or be undertaken. That's prior to the Board making any formal
297 decision on what has been presented to you this evening by staff.
298
299 Jeff Schmitt: Can I make a friendly amendment? That in the midst of that the educational campaign would
300 go about for a specific time period. Say a year or eighteen months. After the end of that time accessing
301 the results of that campaign we would then go back and entertain staffs recommendations at that time.
302
303 Brian Crawford: That's very different, if she makes that motion, it does address the staffs
304 recommendation.
305
306 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I accept that.
307
308 Earl McKee: I've got one question, that amendment brings us back to either accepting option or option two?
309
310 Brian Crawford: No, we're not going to accept either option. We're putting the education option forward to
311 the Board of County Commissioners and we're not going to make any formal deliberation on the staffs
312 recommendation for another eighteen months as suggested.
313
314 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm clear on the motion, but I really like the statement a) let's educate and then b) put
315 something back on the Commissioners and have those be two independent things. I think that's a lot
316 clearer and something's going to happen. It gets it moving and there's not vagueness about when does
317 this start how do you fund it, what's the impact.
318
319 Nathan Chambers: We are saying eighteen months and the months the schools are out should be
320 considered. If we are going to start let's do it in the school season. Eighteen months is fine but there are
321 three months they are out so it should include two school seasons.
322
323 Larry Wright: Craig, can the Commissioners ask or do they have any influence over the superintendent of
324 the schools to have them start these programs?
325
326 Craig Benedict: Volunteer, yes. There's good dialog.
327
328 MOTION made by Mary Bobbift -Cooke to have a comprehensive countywide awareness education program
329 about idling and the contaminants it puts in our breathing air. It will specifically focus on areas with children
330 and idling vehicles (such as schools, ball fields, etc.) to start in the fall of 2009 and end in the spring of
331 2011. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
332
333 VOTE: 7 -2 (Wright, Marcoplos)
334
335 Brian Crawford: Michael can you read the recommendation on Item 8 to the Planning Board.
336
337 Michael Harvey: What staff is recommending is that we pursue option two which is what we testified to at
338 the Public Hearing. Your options are to a) prohibit or b) regulate. The Board can make a further
339 recommendation as has already been discussed. You can make a motion for a third motion if you so
340 choose.
341
W
M
342 MOTION made by Mark Marcopios to recommend adopting regulations banning development and/or use of
343 new drive -thru facilities throughout the County's planning jurisdiction. Seconded by Larry Wright.
344
345 VOTE: 2 -7 (Bobbitt- Cooke, Schmitt, Hawkins, Crawford, McKee, Hallenbeck, Chambers)
346 The motion was denied
347
348 MOTION made by Ead McKee that the Planning Board not accept either option one nor option two and
349 recommend that the County Commissioners take no action at this time concerning the drive -thru facilities in
350 Orange County's planning jurisdiction. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt- Cooke.
351
352 VOTE: 7 -2 (Wright, Marcoplos)
353
354
Attachment 4 19
Ti
APPROVED 8118/2009
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COI
REGULAR MEETING
June 2, 2009
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 2,
2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
5. Public Hearings
a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishina Regulations for Drive -thru
Facilities
The Board received the Planning Board recommendation and considered taking action
on a staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article Six (6) Application of
Dimensional Requirements to establish regulations governing the development of drive -thru
facilities with the County.
Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation.
ISSUE:
-Concern has been expressed over the pollution generated by vehicles idling within a drive -thru
lane and what effect this would have on the environment as well as passing pedestrians,
•There is also concern over the interaction between vehicles attempting to park versus those
attempting to access the drive -thru,
-Currently there are no regulations governing the developmentluse of drive -thru facilities,
*Drive-thru facilities are banned within the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District
and within the Efland Cheeks Overlay Zoning District (ECOD), which was adopted in 2008
PROPOSAL:
Staff recommended adopting regulatory standards that would include the following
standards:
•Require a fifty (50) foot setback for such facilities from property lines,
*Require a twenty -five (25) foot vegetative buffer separating the drive -thru lane from pedestrian
and parking areas,
T 20
*Require that menu boards utilized in connection with drive -thru facilities shall not be visible
from external roadways,
*Limit the overall number of drive -thru facilities that can be developed within a multi -use non-
residential development to one (1) per ten (10) acres with a maximum cap of five (5) per
project,
*Require one hundred eighty (180) feet of drive isle to support drive -thru facilities,
Planning Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board reviewed this item at their April 1, 2009 meeting where the following motion
was made:
•Recommend the County initiate a comprehensive and countywide awareness education
program about idling and the contaminants it puts in our air, and
*Recommend the BOCC disregard staffs two (2) options and take no action on adopting
regulations banning development of drive -thru facilities within the County's planning jurisdiction
(Option 1) or adopting comprehensive development standards for drive -thru facilities (Option 2).
Administration Recommendation:
*Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
*If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
*Close the public hearing, and
*Adopt Option Two (2) — specifically adopt the proposed regulations detailed within Attachment
One (1) of the packet.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are possibilities of a standalone drive -thru facility
and Craig Benedict said yes. The existing regulations allow this.
Commissioner Pelissier said that the Planning Board minutes seemed to be focused on
emissions. She said that a lot of it is based on aesthetics of a drive -thru. She said that part of
the goal is to encourage walkability and she does not understand why they would want up to
five drive -thrus in a mixed -use area given the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested tabling this item. He said that at the public hearing, he -
asked for information and the Planning Board got the information, but the Board of County
Commissioners did not. He wants to see what other governmental entities have done. He said
that one Planning Board member thought that the OUT Board had taken up this issue and he
would like this information. He said that if the County is serious about an educational effort on
emissions, then the school boards should be involved since families sit and wait for children to
get out of schools or to drop them off. He would also like some data on whether it is better to
turn off cars and then start them up again, orjust keep them on. He would also like to know
who is going to do the public awareness campaign and with what funds.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he supports Commissioner Jacobs' recommendation to
table this item. He is opposed to an outright ban of drive - thrus.
Commissioner Nelson said that he does not support Commissioner Jacobs'
recommendation. He said that the Board often tables items and drags them out. He said that
Carrboro and Hillsborough have already prohibited drive -thru windows. He said that the two
issues are walkability and the need to deal with global warming.
There was no public comment.
21
Ti
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
approve option 1: Adopt regulations banning the development and /or use of drive -thru facilities
throughout the County's planning jurisdiction.
VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Nelson, and Commissioner Gordon);
Nays, 4
Motion failed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
table this item and wait for additional information that was originally requested, collaborate with
the school boards for an awareness campaign to reduce idling, and receive information from the
OUT Board regarding these issues.
Craig Benedict said that if this is tabled, it would have to be re- advertised.
Commissioner Hemminger said that tabling this will be sending a bad message. She
does agree with the education campaign.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is any data that shows that banning drive -thrus
does not detract from business operations.
Commissioner Nelson said that there is data in Carrboro and they have not been
negatively impacted at all.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would entertain an amendment to the motion to
include soliciting from Economic Development Directors of governments that have banned
drive -thrus information about the impacts. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with the amendment.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
EXPOSED I CBC News I Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive -thru grow .. Page 2 of 7 2 2
Health I Children Most Vulnerable Idlin g Idling I Learn the Issues Indus" duS Lifestyle media
Moratorium o_ besity oMn outsourcing Peak oil Personal Rem nsibility Plannin Pollution
RepoliS Resources Risks RWDI smo Studies SusiainabilitV TlmHortons Urban Plawriing Video
• Home
• drive thru lies the truth about the industry's greenwash
• EXPOSED 1. CBC News I Feds revamp stance on Idling after meeting
with drive -thru group
F
Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive -thru group
Monday, August 11, 2008
CBC News
A federal government-website that highlights the negative health and
environmental effects of idling your engine has revamped its message after
meeting with a group representing drive -thru restaurants.
`It's gonna make it harder for every city politician to make the argument that
we need to have restrictive legislation on idling.'— Ottawa Coun. Clive
Doucet
The "Idle -Free Zone," a website managed by Natural Resources Canada's
office of energy efficiency, was removed for review following a meeting with
the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. A revised version was
`. posted five months later, on July 22, that:
Advises drivers to shut off their engines after 60 seconds of idling; the
,,t ;P�,,,nrdnreae.rnm /exnosed -cbc- news -fells- revamp - stance -on- idling - after -... 2/13/2009
EXPOSED I CBC News I Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive -thru grow... Page 3 of 7 23
previous version advocated turning engines off after 10 seconds.
Does not refer to 5,000 premature deaths annually in Canada linked to air
pollution, as the previous version did, and no longer includes posters bearing
images such as a girl choking and slogans such as "Idling is killing our
environment."
The website says its purpose is to help communities and environmental groups
stop engine idling.
Carol Buckley, director general of the office of energy efficiency, confirmed
that the restaurant association met with Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn
on Feb. 7.
According to Lunn's spokeswoman, Louise Girouard, no one from the office
of energy efficiency attended the meeting. Girouard confirmed that an e-mail
was sent from Lunn's office on Feb. 8 asking the site to be taken down.
Buckley said the site was temporarily removed because the office didn't want
to leave any misleading information online while it was being revised.
"We wanted to make sure that the website reflected all of the latest data and
information that was available about this topic," she said, adding that in the
end the changes were "not really significant."
The change to the recommended amount of idling time was made because of
? access to new research taking into account the wear and tear on a car's battery
and starter caused by shutting off and restarting the engine, she said.
Previously, the site said such wear and tear was minimal.
The new site now also refers readers to Health Canada instead of detailing the
health impacts of idling because Natural Resources felt that wasn't really their
jurisdiction and they wanted to focus on the effects on climate change,
Buckley added.
"I think the emphasis in the earlier text was a little strong. Today's vehicles
are more efficient when it comes to smog emissions," she said.
Site `lacks balance': restaurant group
Joyce Reynolds, executive vice - president for government affairs for the
Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, said the group
corresponded with a number of government officials at various levels about
the website, which was used by many municipalities to develop their own
anti - idling bylaws. .
`What I would like to see is that Natural Resources Canada put the same
amount of emphasis on these other driving behaviours that they do on
idling.'— Joyce Reynolds, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association
"Our concern is that municipal decision - making must be based on facts and
i.,,...uari,.>rt,,,;r ;Pe wnrdnrecc.com/exnosed -cbc- news -feds- revamp- stance -on- idling- after -... 2/13/2009
EXPOSED I CBC News Feds revamp stance on idling after meeting with drive -thm grow.. Page 4 of 7
24
scientific evidence," she said. "And we were seeing some municipalities that
were focusing on the health impacts of idling based on information that was
incorrect and misleading."
The association argues Natural Resources Canada didn't put enough weight
on pollution caused by a puff of contaminants produced when an engine is
restarted after being shut down.
Reynolds said some of that misleading information on the "Idle -Free Zone"
site has now been corrected, but the site still "lacks balance."
In particular, she said, it doesn't deal with other driving behaviours that cause
greenhouse gas and pollution emissions, such as excessive speeding, rapid
acceleration and poor vehicle maintenance.
'What I would like to see is that Natural Resources Canada put the same
amount of emphasis on these other driving behaviours that they do on idling,"
Reynolds said.
With regards to idling, the changes to the site will have an impact on
municipalities, Ottawa city Coun. C1ive.Doucet said.
"It's gonna make it harder for every city politician to make the argument that
we need to have restrictive legislation on idling. It's not good news for cities
anywhere," said Doucet, who pushed hard for an anti - idling bylaw in Ottawa.
A bylaw banning idling for more than three minutes in Ottawa went into
effect on Jan. 1, 2008.
With the aim of reducing pollution from idling cars, a number of cities in
Canada — including London, Ont., North Vancouver and Sarnia, Ont. — are
thinking about making it tougher for restaurants to build new drive - thrus.
Gordon Taylor, an engineering consultant who has done air - quality studies for
Natural Resources Canada, suggested that the restaurant association could be
taking another approach to deal with criticism of drive - thrus.
"I think the restaurant association should have some kind of a pro - active
campaign to say, `Hey, if there's a big long lineup, consider walking in the
door.' "
http: / /www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008 /08 /11 /ot- drivethm- 080811.himl
No Comments
No comments yet.
Comments RS S TrackBack Identifier iJRi
Leave a comment
,..,,1 -. -,..A_Pl, - „PU..Q- fPicz- revamn- stance -on- idling- after -... 2/13/2009
Report No. SR97 -11 -01
j
An Analysis of -the Effect
on missions of Allowing
:Drive -that Service Lanes
prepared for � }
(� California Business Properties Association.
November i o, 1997
prepared by.
Sierra Research, Inc.
1801 J Sheet
Sacramento; Carfomia 95814
(916) 4446666
. i
1 ' t `
:1
r
.._,r
i
i
AN ANALYSIS OF �M EFFECT ON EAUSSIONS
OF ALLOWING DRIVE -THRU SERVICE LANES
prepared for.
-'"" ' Caffo rnia Business Properties tlssnciatiorf "
November 10, 1997
26
prepared by:
.r.
Sierra Research, lno.
1801 J Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 444 -6666
. i
3
_i
t
,J
A
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT ON EiMSSIONS
OF ALLOWING DRIVE -'THRU SERVICE LANES
FROM t
1. Summary and Conchrsions ........................ :................ I
2. Overview .............:......... ............................... 3
2.1 Emissions Modeling Methodology ............................... 3
2.2 Analysis of Restaurant Activities .......... .......1 4
3. . Introduction .................•.... ....... ........................ 8
3.1 Purpose and Scope of This Study . . ............. .....:........... 8
3,2 Guide to the RemainderoftheReport..:...... .... 9
4, 'Emissions Modeling Methodology ................................... 11
4.1 Modal Emissions Description .... ..............................: 'i I
4.2 Standard Mobile Source Modeling Approach ............. . ........ 15
4.3 Modeling of Exhaust Emissions .. .. ............................. 18
4.4 Modeling of Evaporative Emissions .......................... . 24
5. Convenience Restaurant Activity Levels ................ ............ 26
5.1 Collection and Analysis of Representative 15ata ...................... 27
6. Re`Iatan`ve'En -5 ion3 Analysis ...............: ...................... .
6.1 Average On -Site Vehicle Emissions ............................... 30
6.2 Average Total Trip Vehicle Emissions ............................ 33
6.3 Effect of Eliminating the Drive -Thru Prohibition .........:.......... 37
7. References .................. ...............r............... 41
J
l
Appendix A - Emission Calculations
27
t
4
•
1 ast of rim]
[[
1
a
`
1.
Effect of Eliminating the Ban on Drive -Thru Windows on
2
Average aUy Restant Emissions .......... .......
D aw
2.
1997 On-Site CO Emissions by Scenario ........................
S
3.
1997 Total Trip CO Emissions by Scenario ....... .............'....
6
Without
4.
1997 Da7y Total Trip Emissions Per Restaurant V1rth and
Drive -Tliru Windows:. :..... .........................
31
5,
...... .
1397 On- �iteROG Emissions by Scenario ........... ..
-
Emissions by Scenario and Mode - Summer 1997 .............
31
6.,
On -Site ROG
7.
On -Site ROG Emissions by Scenario and Mode - Winter i997 ............:
32
8..
1997 On -Site CO.Emissions by Scenario ....... . ..
34
9,
1997 On-Site NOx Emissions by Scenario ' ...........: ...
34
'
10.
Total Trip ROG Emissions by Scenario and Mode - Summer 1997 ..... , ....
35
by Scenario and Mode - Wmter, 1997 ...........
33
11.
Total Trip ROG Emissions
a
Total Tii
•i
i
r
..Y
.t
.'.k
,s
i
List of Tables
W
1.
Emission Changes Resulting from Eliminating Drive -Th:u Prolubidon .......
• 7
2.
1997 Lake Tahoe Convenience Restaurant Fleet Composition .............
19
3.
1997 V&-Duty- Vehicle Idle/Low Speed Emission Factors ..............
23
4.
Hot Soak Correction Factors Based on GM Data .......................
24 '
5.
Summary ofResults from Survey of Quick-Service
Restaurant Owners ............... ...............................
28
6.
Time-In-Model foi• Each.ModeUDomain Scenario Evaluated ........... . ..
29
7.
Emission Changes Resulting from Eliminating Drive -17uu Proiu`bition .......
38
W
r
30
1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In response to the problems of continued air pollution throughout California's urban areas,
i some local air pollution control officials have proposed or enacted bans on the use of
drive -thru service lanes at locations such as banks and convenience restaurants.
Proponents of such a measure argue that drive -thru lanes generate more air pollution than
park -and -stop activities.
-4
A detailed analysis of the effect of a ban on drive -thru lanes in the'Lake Tahoe region
" tt , fs hat.eWonn'Qa g %lt8 rit pah in tit lea- o�ild rgs'r�lt 14 ii deage`� e
r ain, o }e _ s of cubpn nonoxid 0• rid s.Mo f. CO emissions for an average trip to
a convenience restaurant would decrease by 10% if the ban were eliminated. Emissions of.
gases.(Ris?Cs, one of the two main ingredients of smog) would decrease
3 by 13% in the summer. and 19% in the winter. Respective decreases of 18% and 15% in
summer and winter emissions of oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) would also be realized.. (NOx
emissions are the second main ingredient of smog) The results of the analysis for a
typical convenience restaurant in the Lake Tahoe region are shown in Figure 1.
These results are consistent with a 1991 study of the effect of banning drive -thru service
lanes at convenience restaurants in Southern California.'* Previous analyses that have led
to other conclusions have suffer om two rinoipal errors. First, none of the earlier
i yses looked at the evaporative emissions from cars. These emissions, which consist of
gasoline vapors coming from the gas tank and fuel system, ar6 responsible for the majority
of the ROO emissions in convenience restadrhtt parking lots, Second, none ofthe earlier
analyses used an accurate method for evaluating minute-by- minute emissions of cars in
restaurant parldng lots and for a short time after they leave the restaurant.
In this analysis, both "hot soak" and "running loss" evaporative emissions were included in
the calculations. in addition, existing motor vehicle emissions models were supplemented
with a more accurate technique to predict parking lot-arid drive -off emissions ort a minute -
by- minute basis. This technique is described in detail in Section 4 of this report
In conclusion, there are no emission benefits being realized by the etuient ban on drive-
- lint windows ai diher existing or new c6tiveii16nce i estauaants Tn fact, th6rd ill likeeTY id
be a slight decrease in emissions of all pollutants if the current ban on drive -tluu windows
is eliminated We this analysis is based on Lake Tahoe ambient conditions and data
validated for convenience restaurants in this region, the some general conclusions are
likely to hold true for shaar restaurants in other locations and under different ambient
conditions. It thus appears that efforts in California and other states to prohibit drive -thm
windows for air quality purposes are. counterproductive and may result in higher rather
than lower emissions.
Superscripts denote ret'ereaees provided in Secdon 7.
4-
4
i
e
d
i�
Fiji
Effect of Eliminating the Bari on DRve -Thru Windows
on Average Daily Restaurant Emissions
14
-13% -19% �TWtui Woows
„ iz
a 10.8
1a 8.5
$ ..v;� �, ROG
1997 Whiter ROt
-15°fa
NOx
®Without Drive
W D e-
Thm Windo�rs
CO
Without Dft-
Wffi Dilviroo -ri
Thnu Windows
Nax
31
0
i I .et
4
f
1
1 C .
e 4 3
rr }
�4
e i+
O
U
C6 y.=
O O ua O
p Co .��_,
V1 r � C6
cn
cT o
cn O s- O
N
Q > O O
�'S� Ocn U U Q
N
Fes'
O
O
O�
O o
M
O
,._
U
T3
•—
._
co
O
CU
N
N
1
-0
U
U
.o
U)
C:
U)
E
-
O_
�_
�
Jr.
O
N
N
�U
->
-j
O
L'
cn
=3
CD
0
70
T
. V
c:
ii
i
U
c
m
O
N
U
cn
cn
U
U
0-
o
co
c
U
.E
W
«5
75
N
..
� Tii L
I;�
ql
9
S ,
1
F
Vr sa
g�i�2 r -c
�
o
�
CD
co
CL
°
U
i
I
^� U
U �
.o
N � �
°
N O E °
° CD
°
N L Q L
U
U
O v o 7 o U
m
y, i!
FF
IV
i '
� I
•z` j
��ajs � > �Ht�
AN I
wI
i ir-' -' 4
��
:M
r
v "4-
aV A
40
F
y�y
t i
V
►�
'� I G
IM
a ` {3
EEr
�i c ei
vp I ��I
Frei
5�
wo
FZ
!h iX
T
z S s it ✓ l:
! }f 3
� • • � Y t19 ' �� •,,, cii a
y��ss:•weT t r � } 1
3
�M s
IL[l F`hfG.. 1 y' ll
3 x
i \4t
r „e
_ fl
• i ? ,y
C � O
Aq
ct
f•
ct
�
n
�
O
T
O
LL
O
.�
i
O
U
co
°
O
z�
a)
cn
�
—
U
p
U)
•—
O
.�
O
,�
O
N
O
N
p
Q
r.
a)
C�
N
0
O
O
O
O
u
ry
U
u._
-
_
WA
e\
.
\\
{
�
%\
a
»
e
\ \\
-
vv
\
a«
it
\\
\
'
6
.
/
-
_
WA
43
44
45
Z
41 '.
:!:'r .1 ifa'i•!
''
• ::,::
::qi
iy 4 W
".';:ii :i
ii:E.::
!:i tji:' T, if 1 1 i'IyE{
6i
t
F
. {r �
ti:: 4.i;.1•,+.
rV%;i:.:
.
:.i n•r a.i':. i.. :.
;
'I
!:,,, ,+
�
:•E'
111 :I
<j;r..::
:,f;+ �
�� i:i.` :i.:
s!i;.::;ri :i.,i
! :
�.i:j:l: ! :i 'i:
�: , i : 1: {n.
�.: '.;:;'
'1:+� ;
41 '.
:!:'r .1 ifa'i•!
''
• ::,::
::qi
{:: �ir:`i.iF.�^'^
".';:ii :i
ii:E.::
!:i tji:' T, if 1 1 i'IyE{
6i
t
.. I/� {�J{
:'I i'I:j,i
::f
. {r �
ti:: 4.i;.1•,+.
rV%;i:.:
.
:.i n•r a.i':. i.. :.
;
'I
!:,,, ,+
�
:•E'
111 :I
<j;r..::
:,f;+ �
�� i:i.` :i.:
s!i;.::;ri :i.,i
! :
�.i:j:l: ! :i 'i:
�: , i : 1: {n.
�.: '.;:;'
iti t (I;.:
i ..
i'i:�.i;�::!i:,.i:.i�
� i.,... I'
1i.1•i•
i;B : �, 1 'P
...
, +. . y
?:
i:(i �
::!,. i,i i:,'.
r (�i: ,..j.
r•:.'.I,;I ,_r ;.!_t
�,
+j,..l;
i
�:ii i
r
i
i—;
r. ;r !.
'a
,:;
��:f:•�f,i.:,•�:I
�
I:i.1j.: �!�i
;�
, t.. r °•"•'
.
!'::,;
- k
.y.;r..� .;.li:
:!ia ii °` r
":'
• ' i i.
,:;I
{ir
.:I:li. :i�iyii :11;;!':i:ili;l!,:.
;!!..pil4 i:I{ ;Ifi'`i'i.
.h i 7 i(iji. {•!'
:
iili :l.:..i:i
?I:f
�.I:Ij'';�
:i :
�{.i: i�•,.
:'i+:itii
i, `.'' ,ti:::
{ Li lii•Ithll
,'Li �:�+ ?!q.l i.,�
+'iii .
liil.;i;
i
lii ii!,,
!: <::i;;li'i:j i,;'r....:;
{�i:i�+
X.
it::
'i�'�•
iI'rii
;�iiil 1 „i; •'!
-i.."
'r Cr
r,:: i,....ti:l.
•.
.ti'.
: ril :I:;
.::
;au �: v;�.':
:.1 i'!iE �
'�i'� r,. �'
'`j:1
';t7` "�•
+r" � {'I'0'
r
{;:!'i'
is �:••
:�
� I
''n
:I!,; .u.; .jii 1•,:r.�
.I,:. .,I
° }'��
i�ij ...
{'::.�4 �i�:
°��.�;:�:�.::.
�.:.�):.r:•i,��ti.i'i
:)
.., i:LE:r
'l:!I :
..mil.:+
{.�
:
..;. !• ; :;
;
ll!i. I
n',;�.;:•`;f'
r(ia!
•� � i .
;:L :i
.
.._'
ii:�,;
/'� �
ir''
,� ' it..
I iFF::.IE
.ia,.!1,: 2,.
'i'il ^j�{ [i,
`:f,Fj� : 1 b S. i;:Fl;:
l i.. !!.:: li >`
:'{'l
-. :!
:'ri'
I :ii•t::'
;;.i'�
: , t:� °ia:'i.i:.
. ri;�'
!
� +,��y I'
�F�! :.:
''
� {.i.+
� ..�t .:i • Lr::L
{.'. '>.
:n Ei
i �., i• �
" ?'
(� (j
ii I {ri:i:�.'l:.'•${
'r.
•liii
::1:,
I :t:i:•:,I:.
ii: iai..:.,, 11:�:';,•W.�:,
`+i.t!.•''
� �
Ilt ;: {.'
'
ii
:;
::Iti{r:l lt: i
:.ril !.: i! i
� .lif ♦,li(:
il.�i t.:i ' i;.
'i { ,i.;
,::. ,�.:�
r:: •:�.:t ,•:ii
i �':: .'
��i:;• .� �
i
.1':.i..,�'
;'F'.i,ll. !
!
(, �11II v'i:'
i ,:It!'; i
'I
+i,.i
:!<I'j i
1: ;�
1..: f.ii'
il
•_ t�r
t!r..
TILT_.:
':i;l
i !'.:'t
:',W"
.,..r;.�:.;!�.::�,�.
is P ::{
7n,
I:i
I . JIM;.
: � ;
r �!.::,
'ir' 1
`�i 7 .I:;i. �:1 I{ r f
•f�''i:'.
;i.d
^i%
''{ .y
;,:,!
•:.
%.i
' <� I:';
i:•:i ii
'...I !,:I; .:,,
�i :i•i°
iiF'•:;I. ( :I:` I
.111A ` :'D•
„',.•��'l�i�.i
ii i•.
:•I ':_i ,
.I l :..`:[`I :i''
:.!'
47
F
EE
50
51
52
53
54
55
0
�t
C }'
MY
r
57
v
`ally
59
M-1
61
L�
L
63
64
65
M.
67
T
a
a
<Y.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
W
a�
d
Li
L
O
:n
0
CL
O
L
CD
L
0
A461w-r,�,+ 6 79
d�=
m
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
€ 0
c 7
x
X
x
a` LL
a
L a
a p 3
X
X
X
B LL
4
a
[L > C
x
X
x
x
x
0
= or
a` i° ~
i
O j3
IL �
(a
E
°
C
N
L
0
V/
ro
3
U
'�
m
N
m
s
co
U
c
0
0
O
N
N
O
wV
(6
S
q
e
C
U
C
U
>
0
Cr,
O
C
0)
C
U)
N
co
`
h°
�S
Q
E
Y
N
a
ai
N
N
C
3
N
G5
0
d
m
U
NyO
N
Ti
'o
A
t
G
a
s
c
0
LL
m
DRIVE - THROUGHS
Data and Correspondence
When researching drive - through restrictions and prohibitions, the following
jurisdictions are commonly cited as either prohibiting or limiting drive - through
facilities. Staff reviewed each jurisdictions' zoning regulations and summarized
the findings In the attached table, entitled "Drive- Throughs: Prohibited or
Permitted ". In addition, several jurisdictions were contacted to confirm their
drive - through regulations and inquire as to the economic impacts of their drive -
through limitations. Staff contacted Planning and Community Development
Directors or City Managers for jurisdictions that did not have economic
development departments or staff. Correspondence received from participating
jurisdictions is shown below.
CALISTOGA, CALIFORNIA
• population (2000): 5,190
• 2.6 square miles in area
• Median Household Income (1999): $38,454
• Median Home Value (2000): $273,100
• approximately 75 miles north of San Francisco, in Napa Valley
❑ contacted via email 07 /27/09; 08/21/09
CARMEL -BY;THE -SEA, CALIFORNIA
o population (2009): 3,894
❑ 1.1 square miles in area
• Median Household Income (1999): $58;163
• Median Home Value (2000): $675,300
• approximately 120 miles south of San Francisco
❑ contacted via email 07/27/09; 08/21/09
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
o population (2000):16,782
❑ Median Household Income (1999): $33,527
❑ Median Home Value (2000): $172,800
RE
From: James Harris [JHarris @ci.carrboro.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 200912,49 PM
To: Shannon Berry
Subject: RE: Drive - throughs in Carrboro
We certainly have experienced setbacks due to the ordinance: As you may be
aware there are certain kinds of businesses that need drive throughs such as
restaurants and drug stores. We have been unable to recruited or consider the
new stand alone concept drug store because of this ordinance. Therefore we
have lost a lot of potential tax revenue for property and sales tax.
From: Shannon Berry [mailto:sberry@co.orange.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:42 AM
To: James Harris
Subject. Drive -throughs in Carrboro
Good morning Mr. Harris.
As you may know, Orange County is looking at possibly modifying our Zoning
Ordinance to limit or more strongly regulate drive - throughs in the county.
I understand Carrboro limits drive - throughs in the central business area. What, if any,..
economic impacts has the town experienced following the drive - through prohibition _
downtown? Has the town experienced any issues with business recruitment or backlash
from the business community? Any positive economic results?
Any information you may have on the economic impacts of the drive - through limitations
within the town would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Shannon
Shannon Collins Berry, AICP
Special Projects Planner
Orange County Planning & Inspections
(919)245 -2589
(919)644-3002 fax
www o0 orange.nc.us
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
• population (2000): 16,993
• approximately 20 miles west of Boston
• Median Household Income (1999): $95,897
• Median Home Value (2000): $453,400
From: Marcia Rasmussen [mrasmussen @concordma.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 200912:23 PM
To: Shannon Berry
Subject: RE: Concord ddve4hroughs
Shannon,
W
We have not collected data on the economic impacts to the Town of prohibiting
fast food drive - through restaurants or fast food restaurants in general (the
Concord Zoning Bylaw is available on the Town's website at
www.concordma.aov, the fast food prohibition is found under Section 4.7.1 and
restaurant is defined under Section 4.5.4). The zoning bylaw was initially adopted
In 1981 in response to traffic impacts, air pollution and littering issues. We have
not had a legal challenge to the bylaw, nor have we had a problem attracting
restaurants to the area although we don't have a national chain such as
McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's in Town.
Concord doesn't prohibit drive- through facilities for banks or dry cleaners (the
one dry cleaner that had a drive- through window ended up relocating to a site
without that feature). We have not had a request for a drive -up window by a drug
store (there is a Rite -Aid and a CVS in the town, along with a privately owned
drug store), which I think is more due to the fact that these stores were
developed before the drive - through feature became widely expected, the high
cost of real estate and the limited parking /access to the existing buildings.
There are three village centers in Concord - the most historic, Concord Center,
is also a local Historic District and I doubt that a drive - through window would be
approved today without extensive review and discussion. There is only one bank
with a drive - through window in the historic district that I am aware of.
Concord is a relatively affluent town that has had a vibrant business community
supported by the residents. I don't think the prohibition on fast food restaurants or
fast food drive - through restaurants has negatively impacted the community; I
think that if they were allowed there would be a negative impact on the
community.
Marcia Rasmussen
Marcia RasmussenDirector of Planning & Land Management
Town of Concord
141 Keyes Road
phone: (978) 318 -3290
From: Shannon Berry [mailto:sberry@co.orange.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 200910:52 AM
To: Marcia Rasmussen
Subject: Concord drive - throughs
Good morning Ms. Rasmussen.
I am a planner with Orange County, North Carolina, located in the Research Triangle of
North Carolina. We are looking at possibly modifying our Zoning Ordinance to limit or
more strongly regulate drive - throughs in the county and I am trying to gather as much
information as possible regarding the Impacts other communities have experienced due
to regulations or prohibitions.
I understand Concord prohibits fast food drive - throughs and all fast food restaurants
within the city. Does the city also prohibit drive - throughs for banks, dry cleaners, etc?
What, if any, economic impacts has the city experienced following the drive - through
M
rim
prohibitions? Has the city experienced any Issues with business recruitment or backlash
from the business community? Any positive economic results?
Any information you may have on the economic impacts of the drive- through limitations
within your city would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA
• population (Jan. 1, 2005): 64,401
• located in the Central Valley of Northern California
• approximately 11 miles west of Sacramento
• Median Household Income (1999): $42,454
• Median Home Value (2000): $238,500
• home of UC Davis
OGUNQUIT, MAINE
• population (2000): 1,226
• approximately 4.3 square miles in area
• Median Household Income (1999): $47,727.
• Median Home Value (2000): $208,600
From: Muriel Freedman [mure @maine.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:50 AM
To: Shannon Berry
Cc: Thomas Fortier'
Subject: Ogunquit drive - throughs
bear Shannon,
As chairperson of the Ogunquit Planning Board, I have been asked to answer
a few questions you have regarding our Zoning Ordinance and drive - throughs
in the Town of Ogunquit.
There is nothing specifically written in our ordinances, but we do not have
drive - throughs. The only drive- throughs that we have in this Town are
three banks and they were here before Zoning Ordinances were written.
These banks are "grandfathered ". We have never had a problem with anyone
asking for a drive - through. However, this is a small Town with approximately
4+ square miles and very little land to allow something like that.
F II
If you would like any further information, I would suggest you get in touch
with our Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Lempicki. You can get his
information and email him through our website. www townofogunquit.ora ,
then Use the pull -down Town Hall - Town Department - Code Enforcement.
If you would like to see our ordinances go to Town Documents - Municipal
Code - Title X- Zoning Ordinance.
I hope this is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact me if you need any
further help in this matter.
Muriel Freedman, Chairman
Ogunquit Planning Board
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
❑ population (01/01/2008): 44, 697
❑ 10.7 square miles in area
❑ Median Household Income (1999): $31,926
❑ Median Home Value (2000): $278,800
❑ Central Coast of California; home of California Polytechnic University (Cal
Poly) and Cuesta College
From: Clark, Claire [cclark @slocity.org)
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Shannon Berry
Subject: RE: San Luis Obispo drive - throughs
Hello, Shannon.
Thank you for your inquiry about our City's drive- through prohibition. As a backdrop, our
City (including the Chamber of Commerce) has an environmentally conscious nature that
permeates much of the decision making on Land Use here. When our Economic Development
Program was started, a complimentary Natural Resources Protection Program was
established at the same time. Furthermore, there is always an active and outspoken
contingent that organizes around issues related to development in our City.
On the issue of the drive -thru prohibition, as with the smoking prohibition, the business
community was initially concerned about the effects of the regulations on new and existing
businesses. However, these fears have not been realized. In fact, these prohibitions have
helped to fuel the branding of our City as a health- conscious place to live and do business.
From time to time, a request to reconsider the ban comes to the Council. So far, there has
been no interest on the part of our Council to reconsider the prohibition. Anecdotally, I
believe that this is due to the strong community support for the prohibition and the high
degree of interest in conservation that has grown in recent years. That said, there are a
IR
coupleof enterprises that will not locate here because of the prohibition. These include In-
n -Out Burger and Walgreen s. i am sure there must be others of which we are unaware.
However, the drive thru prohibition has grown into a hallmark of our community.
Fortunately, the City of San Luis Obispo enjoys a high level of interest from businesses
wishing to locate here. This did not change with the prohibition. In fact, in the intervening
years, it seems that our Downtown and mall areas have continued to grow and prosper
despite the rigors of our permitting processes and various regulations. I do not track the
effects of the prohibition and do not know of any studies done prior to adoption so do not
have any hard data to offer you.
I hope this 'sense" of the economics will help you with your considerations. Good luck.
Sincerely,
Claire
Claire B. Clark I Economic bevelopment WNW
tel 805- 781 -7164 1 fax 805- 781 -71091 www.slocltMra
City of son Luis Obispo 1990 Palm street I son Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From: Shannon Berry [mailto:sberry@co.orange.nc.us1
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:47 AM
To: Clark, Claire
Subject: San Luis Obispo drive - throughs
Good moming Ms. Clark.
I am a planner with Orange County, North Carolina, located in the Research Triangle of
North Carolina, We are looking at possibly modifying our Zoning Ordinance to limit or
more strongly regulate drive - throughs in the county and I am trying to gather as much
information as possible regarding the impacts other communities have experienced due
to regulations or prohibitions.
I understand San Luis Obispo has had a long- standing prohibition of new drive - throughs
in the city. What, if any, economic impacts has the city experienced as a result of the
drive- through prohibition? Has the city experienced any issues with business
recruitment or backlash from the business community? Any positive economic results?
Any information you may have on the economic impacts of your city's drive - through
prohibition would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
❑ population (01/01/04): 56,300
❑ 12 square miles in area
❑ Median Household Income (1999): $50,605
❑ Median Home Value (2000): $411,900 approximately 74 miles south of
❑ located on the northern part of Monterey Bay, app Y
San Francisco
❑ home of UC Santa Cruz
LOAN WA
SIERRA MADRE, CALIFORNIA
❑ population (2000): 10,687
❑ 3.0 square miles in area
❑ Median Household Income (1999): $65,900
a Median Home Value (2000): $370,500
❑ located 19.4 miles from Los Angeles; foothills
❑ contacted via email 07 /27/09; 08/21/09
TORONTO, CANADA
ri. population (2006 Census): 2,503,281
❑ 641 square kilometers in area
❑ Median Household Income (1999):$54,800 USD
❑ Median Home Value (2005): $379,866 USD
❑ contacted via email 08 /05/09
WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS
• population (2000): 32,986
• Median Household Income (1999): $59,764
• Median Home Value (2000): $270,600
❑ approximately 6 miles west of Boston
From: Magoon, Steven [smagoon @watertown - ma.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 200911:32 AM
To: Shannon Berry
Subject: RE: Watertown drive - throughs
Watertown does permit drive throughs by special permit, however we do not allow drive
throughs for food, which I understand has been in place for many years.
As to impacts, I have only been with the Town for about a year, but I understand that there
really has not been a dramatic impact either way. Watertown has a history of significant
industrial uses which has transitioned over the years to more suburban uses. One could argue
that the lack of drive through restaurants has probably had the greatest impact on the health of
our residents. We have had significant economic growth and a pretty strong tax base.
I have not heard a great concern from the business community, other than fast food operators,
regarding the prohibition.
i hope that helps. Feel free to forward any additional questions.
Steve Magoon, Director
NW
Community Development and Planning
Town of Watertown
149 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
(617) 972 -6417
(617) 972 -6484 fax
(617) 987 -1136 cell
smagoon @watertown - ma.gov
From: Shannon Berry [mailto:sberry@co.orange.nc.us]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:00 AM
To: Magoon, Steven
Subject: Watertown drive- throughs
Good morning Mr. Magoon.
I am a planner with Orange County, North Carolina, located in the Research Triangle of
North Carolina. We are looking at possibly modifying our Zoning Ordinance to limit or
more strongly regulate drive - throughs In the county and I am trying to gather as much
information as possible regarding the impacts other communities have experienced due
to regulations or prohibitions.
I understand Watertown prohibits fast food drive - throughs within the city. Does the city
also prohibit drive - throughs for banks, dry cleaners, etc? What, if any, economic
impacts has the city experienced following the drive - through prohibitions? Has the city
experienced any Issugs with business recruitment or backlash from the business
community? Any positive. economic results?
Any information you may have on the economic impacts of the drive - through limitations
within your city would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Excerpt of Minutes Attachment 7
MINUTES
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY18,2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Advocate; Julian
(Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Bryn Smith, CFE Representative; Alice
Gordon, Board of County Commissioners; Eric Tillman, EDC Representative; Karen Barrows, Little River Township
MEMBERS ABSENT: At Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Marabeth Carr, RLA, Open Space Design Specialist, Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager;
Stephanie Trueblood, Town of Hillsborough Planner, Paul Black, Triangle JCOG
Rural Traffic Impacts of Development
Sam Lasris asked for Board comment on the topic of Drive- Throughs. The group discussed all the different types,
definitions, and uses. The general consensus was split with the majority of the members expressing disagreement
with any plans to ban drive throughs. It was a mixed reaction with the consensus to wait until after the public hearing
and to gather more information.
1E
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
MINUTES
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 18, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township;
Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Bryn Smith, CFE Representative; Alice Gordon, Board of County
Commissioners; Eric Tillman, EDC Representative; Karen Barrows, Little River Township
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Lasds, Cedar Grove Township; Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT:
Call to order
II. Consideration of additions to the agenda
III. Board Comments /Updates
Karen Lincoln gave an update on the Joint Public Hearing outcome on drive throughs and related that Michael
Harvey had given the presentation on the topic and he advised that one Commissioner was absent and of the six
present, three seemed to favor banning them and the other three were leaning toward developing regulations. The
Planning Board is discussing it now. She will keep the OUTBoard informed.
Per Section
6.9 (3) (c)
drive -tluu
areas shall
be screened
by a
twenty-five
(25) foot
vegetative
buffer
V
e
9
e
a
t
i
V
e
A
r
e
a
Vegetative area
D
r
1
V
t
r
u
A
r
e
a
Per Section 6.9 (3) (b)
drive -thru menu boards
shall be screened from
external view
Building
Vegetative area
Vegetative area
Per Section 6.9 (4) (g) twenty (20)
percent of the property is required
to be landscaped if a drive -thru is
proposed
Per Section 6.9 (3) (a)
drive -thru lanes and
parking areas must be fifty
(50) feet from property
lines
Roadway
Attachment Eight (8) �9 0
Stub -out for future
connectivity
Vegetative area
This sketch assumes a lot size of
approximately two (2) acres given the need
for septic /well sites and compliance with
recommended setback requirements
1 \
}
r
m
#
� F^5`a
4 I x 1 � • �'
�1t
iu �tQ �'Ni
Steil �4 V { 3t }i y41 �}y ii3F�` 1pq f R
1 � TA � 1•
S
j 1
4
F
S
a�
4 �
� r,
�
}
... SQW��m�. REAM ::i_
a
93
Attachment Nine (9)
Attachment Nine (9) Air Quality calculations
-- Prologue:
- The attached material is from two (2) sources:
1: 2005 Orange County Greenhouse Has (GHG) Inventory developed as part
of the local action plan document to address air quality non - attainment in
this area of the NC triangle region. The expert states that this
transportation sector /vehicle miles traveled (VMT) accounts for 48% of
GHG emissions.
Of that, staff has approximated that ten (10) minutes of idling in fifty (50)
drive -thrus that each service two hundred fifty (250) cars a day would
amount to approximately .3% of the total GHG emissions or .6% of
transportation emissions.
2. A document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated
2001, entitled 'Extended Vehicle Idling'. On page two (2) of this
document, specifically Table One (1), there is a reference to a'breakeven'
point(s) of re- starting vehicles versus idling time in minutes. Page(s) three
(3) and four (4) of the document describes some measures to ameliorate
drive -thru emissions. Implementation considerations on page(s) six (6)
and seven (7) offer a reasonable EPA perspective on Idling issues of both
drive -thru facilities and heavy -duty vehicles.
94
Orange County GHG Inventory
3 2005 GHG INVENTORY
The inventory section of the report provides estimates of the GHG emissions within the
communities as a whole and emissions produced by local government operations. in the baseline
year 2005. In the sections below, emissions from each module (community and local government)
are broken down into five different sectors to provide a detailed analysis of each module. This
model of categorizing emissions into modules and sectors follows the Cities for Climate
protection (CCp) protocol which has been developed to facilitate and standardize emissions
inventories that take part in the CCP program. It is important to note that the local government
operations module is a subset of the community module and to add them together would be
double- counting emissions.
3,1 Community Inventory
3.1.1 Overview
The community inventory provides an estimate of all of the GHG emissions produced within
Orange County both by residents in their homes and by local businesses and agencies as they
carry out their operations. Five key sectors are included in the community inventory: residential,
commercial/institutional, industrial, transportation, and solid waste.
During 2005, Orange County (including Carrboro, Hillsborough and Chapel Hill) produced
approximately 2,777,281 tons of GHGs. Table 3 provides a summary of the energy used and GHG
emissions produced by each of the sectors. Figure I provides an illustration of the contribution to
emissions from each sector. The transportation sector was the largest contributor to total
emissions, responsible for 48% of the GHG emissions produced within the county. This was
followed by the commerciaVinsiitutional sector (29 %) and the residential sector (20 %). The
industrial sector (2 %) and solid waste sector (1 %) contributed a relatively small amount to total
emissions.
5 Numbers may not add correctly because of rounding.
Orange County GHG Inventory and Local Action Plan Document 23
95
Orange County-GHG Inventory
Figure 1.2005 Community GHG Emissions by Sector
Solid Waste
Residential
1%
20%
Transportation
48%
Commercial/
Industrial
Institutional
1%
29%
It is difficult and sometimes misleading to compare per capita emissions in different communities
because of the multiplicity of factors that contribute to a community's emissions. Factors such as
the fuel used to generate electricity, the availability of altemative fuel in the community and the
type and pace of business development in the region can make comparison difficult. That said, it
is useful to understand Orange County's per capita emissions in regards to broader state and
national per capita emissions as reduction efforts wrought at these levels should benefit Orange
County's emissions and likewise, Orange County's efforts to reduce its emissions will influence
state and national emission outputs.
ht 2005 Orange County generated approximately 22.8 tons of GHGs per capita, only slightly less
than the U.S. average of approximately 24.09 tons per capita .6 However, it is important to
consider that total US emissions include some sources not included in a CCP inventory (e.g.
agriculture, soil management, air transportation and others) and given Orange County's relative
lack of industry, this emission profile is high. Furthermore, given the serious nature of the global
problem of GHG emissions, it is our hope that Orange County can serve as local, regional, and
national leader through coordinated efforts to lower emissions.
In the following section of this report, energy consumption and resulting emissions produced
within each of the community sectors will be discussed in detail.
6 Source: Based on 2004 populations estimates published by US Census Bureau and total GHG emissions produced in
US in 2004 as published by US EPA.
Orange Corcnty GHG Inventory and Local Action flan Document 24
..
Q>A Qepv?,-f- Zaac
97
Extended Vehicle Idling
® Introduction
Item (xi) of Section 108 (f) of the 1990 amended Clean Air Act defines "programs to
control extended idling of vehicles" as a candidate transportation control measure. The
Idea is that vehicular emissions fan be reduced by eliminating vehicle idling, either by
turning the engine off while the vehicle is stopped or by limiting the periods of time in
which a vehicle must be stopped and idling. One method of reducing vehicle idle time
is through the use of traffic flow improvement techniques, and these are discussed in the
corresponding chapter of these information documents. This chapter addresses two
other sources of extended idling of vehicles:
• Passenger vehicles using drive - through facilities, such as those existing at banks and
fast food restaurants, where the vehicle is kept idling during the service period.
• Hea-.7 -duty vehicles that are not in use and are kept idling rather thai being shut
off, such as buses that are kept idling at layover points or trucks.that are left to idle
while being loaded or unloaded.
The tradeoff between idling emissions and hot-start emissions by vehicles of a particular
type depends on a number of factors including the age of the vehicle, the type of control
equipment used, the type of fuel used, the pollutant of interest, and the ambient tem-
perature. For ekample, catalytic controls work well in the idle mode, so that idle emis-
sions from newer vehicles are far less of a problem then from older, non - catalyst
equipped automobiles. It is difficult, therefore, to develop a single transferable number
that represents the maximum desired idling time,. The. following is an.analysis for one
urban area which indicates the factors which should be considered.
in preparing the 1982 Revised Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South •
Coast Air Basin, a strategy for reducing idling emissions by restriction or elimination of
drive - through facilities was considered (3). An emissions analysis of drive - through
facilities was done by comparing the emissions from idling with those from a hot
start /hot soak cycle, which would represent a person parking, carrying out a business
transaction within an hour, restarting the car, and leaving. The results are summarized
in Table 1.
According to this analysis, for CO a car could idle for 6 minutes before it would generate
the same emissions as when it was restarted. The equivalent idling times are even
greater foi• HC and NOx. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the banning.of
drive - through fadlities would be counter- productive.
Extarded Veh7cfe1dt8rg t
Table 1'. Vehicle Idle vs. Hot Start/Soak Emissions
Idling Time
Hot Start Hot Soak idling Equivalent to
WoolOns Emissions Emissions Startlstop_
Year pollutant
tpwsrary
jg r"v
,a"..
— + -- --°
1987 THC
4.16
1.67
.2217
26
NOx
.71
.0551
13
CO
13.18
'2.3541
6 '
2000 THC
4.06
.67
.1743
27
NOx
.41
.0386
11
CO
10.93
1.8164
6
Source: (3)
2
Evlaided WtIdeIdlins
royal
r:
Heavy -duty vehicle idling repiesents a different problem. Trucks are often left idling
while their drivers await access to facilities• to make pickups or deliveries. Older trucks
often required longer amounts of time to warm up and cool down, and some operating
habits have carried over in the use of-modern vehicles. Modern vehicles, however, re-
quite less than five minutes to reach an operating temperature that assures proper
engine lubrication under load.
Not all engine idling is at the discretion of the driver. Many facilities are operated in
such a manner that idling is required. For example, at some facilities, trucks are
required to be in• a slowly moving queue to make pickups or deliveries; trucks are
required to move at a moment's notice, and are therefore kept idling to be ready to
move.
Public transit vehicles such as diesel buses and diesel locomotives also may be left idling
for long periods of time. Examples include the period between runs, midday layovers,
or even overnight. Transit authorities increasingly are instituting operations policies to
limit this idling as a means of controlling fuel costs and minimizing community com-
plaints over excessive emissions and noise.
Descrlpfion•of Measures
The following types. of measures have been considered to control extended vehicle
idling:
'Controls on drive - through facilities;
i • Laws or operating policies that limit idling of heavy-duty vehicles; and
Mechanical modifications to the vehicle that restrict the amount of time that it can
idle.
Possible controls on drive- through facilities include:
o Limitations on the construction of new drive- through facilities,
a Removal of existing facilities, and
Specification of design standards applicable to the development and operation of
new drive- through facilities.
The removal of existing facilities would affect the largest market, but also would involve
a retroactive control or reversal of previous development decisions. Proposals to elim-
inate existing drive- through facilities have resulted in considerable opposition and been
abandoned as being politically infeasible. More realistic approaches are to manage the
way in which new drive - through facilities are developed and-operated. For example, a
fast food window configuration could be required where there are three stops — one to
Wended Vehicleldlhrg 3
100
place the order, one to pay, and one to receive the food. Such 'an gpproachcould shorten
the total length of time a veNcle is in queue, and thereby lead to both reduced idling
time end fewer acceleration /deceleration cycles. As described in the following section,
this kind of management approach is receiving current interest as a means of controlling
both congestion and emissions
Interest also is increasing in more carefully managing the emissions of heavy -duty
vehicles while operating in the idle mode. For example, a law to restrict heavy -duty
thirst type o Volkswagen control, ids workin og n an engine that may Increase lfuelthe
ef-
fidency by as much as 90 per cent, using measures such as computer control that shut
off the engine during idling and storing energy in a fiywheel. to provide' an instant
restart.
® Case Study Examp{tq
Proposed California legislation to Limit tfesury Truck telling
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has worked with the
California state legislature to develop legislation that would restrict truck idlifug. The
proposed law was developed by the California AB 2595 Technical Adv#sory.Clroup with
the cooperation.of the trucking industry (2). The trucking industry cooperated because
they believed that it would be better to have a single, consistent statewide law on heavy
duty vehicle idling than to have a number of possibly different regional or local regu-
lations.
The proposed law has two significant provisions:
o No person shall cause, allow, or permit the engine of a heavy -duty motor vehicle to
idle for more than five consecutive minutes if the vehicle is not performing useful
work.
o No person responsible for the shipping orreceiving of goods by a heavy-duty motor
vehicle shall operate a facility in such a manner that causes, allows, or permits, a
heavy -duty motor vehicle to idle for more than five consecutive minutes when the
vehicle is not performing useful work.
The proposed bill contains exceptions for buses picking up passengers, motor vehicles
stopped in the line of traffic, snow removal equipment, and emergency vehicles. It also
provides for the following exceptions that pertain especially to trucks:
4
Esle,rdaiVdricle&Ring
101
• Motor vehicles whose primary power source is utilized in whole or part for neces- .
nary and definitively prescribed mechanical operation other than propulsion,
passenger compartment heating, or air conditioning (e.g., refrigerated trailers that
require an idling engine to receive power).
• Motor vehicles manufactured with a sleeper berth while the sleeper berth is being
used, in a non - residential area, by the vehicle operator for sleeping or•resting, pro-
vided that the vehicle is not in a queue, and provided that the operation of the vehi-
cle does not create a public nuisance.
• Motor vehicles used under adverse•weather conditions, including rain, show, tem-
peratures below freezing, and temperatures in excess of .100 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Motor vehicles when the driver compartment is in direct sunlight and the tem-
perature is in excess of 86 degrees Fahrenheit, provided that the engine idling is
required to operate an air conditioning system.
The Technical Advisory Committee also determined that a truck operator education
program would be a cost - effective measure in conjunction with the proposed law.
Limitations on Drtva -Up Windows
In the Sacramento metropolitan area, the 1982 AQMP pfograms for the County of Placer
and the Cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville included drive -up window limitations
(3). The measures are intended to limit the number and design of new drive -up window
facilities to reduce idling time and congestion.
The County of Sacramento regulates drive up facilities by a use poxmit. The code is
intended to ensuke that the design and location of a drive -up facility will not contribute
to increased tongestion on public or private streets adjacent to the facility.. The code
requires that:
• Design and location will not impede access to of exit from the parking lof serving the
facility, nor impair normal circulation in the parking lot;
• No drive -up lane shall extend closer than 25 feet to the access- driveway;
• Advance ordering stations be located a minimum of 120 to 180 feet from the win-
dow;
• The window cannot be used to justify fewer parking spaces; and
• The use permit is revocable if congestion due to the window regularly occurs.
Extardcd Vddck Idling 5
102
®' Estimated impaots
Thg regional emission reductions • associated with reducing the number of new drive -
through fadlities are expected to be minimal, primarily because of the small amount of
travel impacted relative to the total highway vehicle mobile source inventory. At best,
such measures may be effective in reducing localized CO hotapots.
Controls on extended vehicle idling of heavy duty vehicles may have a Larger emissions
reduction impact in commercial urban areas than will the limitations of drive - through
facilifies. This is because of the higher unit ernissioits of heavy duty vehicles compared
to light duty automobiles.
Program Costs and tatter Considerations
The proposed California law on heavy duty truck idling would require funding for
public awareness, facility inspection, law enforcement, and truck operator-education. It
could also incur additional cost to truck operators by shortening starter life, but would .
also reduce the costs of fuel consumption and engine wear.
Elimination of existing drive through facilities would require compensation of the
affected businesses and physical modifications to the facilities. The affected market
segments would be shopping and personal business trips that use-these facilities,
primarily in.suburban areas. _
The costs associated with efforts to influence the design or limit the number of new
drive - through facilities would largely be limited to small administrative costs to manage
the new development code. Costs'to building owners and operators could be mixed;
with lower construction costs and higher operating costs if buildings must be kept open
for longer periods of time.
Implementation Considerations
Because most heavy-duty -vehicles operate across jurisdictional boundaries, laws to
restrict heavy-duty vehicle idling should be implemented statewide rather than locally
so. as to ease enforcement. Tit the case of California, the proposed law would be enforced
by air pollution control districts through routine inspections of facilities with heavy -
duty truck activity and through response to public complaints. The Californta Highway
Patrol and local law enforcement agendas would have discretionary enforcement au-
thoriry. the Technical Advisory Committee suggested that current zesource constraints
on enforcement of traffic safety regulations might make it necessary to develop new
funding or cost sharing mechanisms between law enforcement and air pollution control
agencies in order to enforce the proposed restrictions (2 ?•
6
Extended Vehic khtting
103
Affecting the development of drive - through facilities currently Is controlled through the
zoning process and limitation of conditional use permits, which is exclusively under the
control of cities and counties. Hence, this type of control measure may be difficult to
implement on a regional, statewide, or national basis.
Equity considerations are an issue that has arisen in pastpublic policy debates over the
possible limitation of drive - through facilities. Is it fair to remove existing, already ap-
proved and operating drive- up.facilities? Conversely, is it fair to ban or even limit new
drive -up facilities and allow existing services to continue to operate?
The following implementation guidelines can be summarized;
• Controls on vehicle operations are probably most effectively implemented at the
state level.
• Contiols on development are the province of local jurisdictions. In this case, regional
and state agencies fan play a valuable technical assistance role.
• Controls on drive - through facilities generally are most effective as limitations rather
than outright bans.
• Design standards represent an appropriate implementation mechanism, based on
congestion as well as emission considerations.
• Data should be collected prior to enactment of any measure so as to establish the
magnitude of existing idling emissions that'would be impacted.
• Controls on extended idling of vehicles will impact existing businesses as well as the
public. It is important that representatives of both groups be actively involved iP the
planning, analysis, and development of any such controls. As evidenced by the
history of the proposed California legislation on heavy -duty vehicle idling, imple-
mentation prospects can be enhanced by actively involving potentially impacted
business interests in the development of proposed control measures.
IN Bibliography.
1. Guensler, Randall, Daniel Sperling, and Paul Jovanis, "Uncertainty in the Emission
Inventory for Heavy�Duty Diesel Powered Trucks", report prepared for the TRED
Foundation, Sacramento, California; Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Davis, Research Report No. UCD- 115 -RR- 91.02, June 1991.
2 Guidelines for Local Air Districts Considering Transportation Control Measures
Directed at Heavy -Truck Operations ", report prepared by the AB2595 Technical
Advisory Group Established pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (Assembly Bill
rstradal Vditcltldliq 7
iO4
2595,1988), Business, Transportdtion and Housing Agency, Air Resources Board,
California Highway patrol, September 1990.
3. • "Information Document H: Control of Extensive Idling ", California Air Resources
Board,n,d.
' e
waded VddcleJdlf tg
Attachment Ten (10)
2030 Comprehensive Plan — Following is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan
that addresses the concept of "sustainability ". This excerpt can be found in Chapter
1, "Plan Overview", which ties each Element of the Plan together.
1.3. TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
An emerging point of consensus in Orange County Is that we need to move toward
becoming a sustainable community. What that means is that we must seek to
develop a community that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Current
global trends have demonstrated the need for planning healthy and sustainable
communities. One trend is the increasing impact of greenhouse gases on the
world's climate and another is the decreasing supply of resources that support
life.
Sustainability is defined as aligning our built environment and socioeconomic
activities with the natural systems that support life. In the long run, sustainability
means adapting human activities to the constraints and opportunities of nature.
The figure below is a graphic
representation of a sustainable
community. Each ring
represents one of the Three E's:
the environment, the economy
and social equity. Each of
these rings is connected to,
and dependent upon the
others.
The design of a sustainable
communes in Orange County
means that this Comprehensive
Plan will strive, in its
implementation, to link the
economy, the environment and
social equity to Improve the
vitality of all three of these
domains.
FIGURE 1 -1: THE THREE SPHERES OF
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
The meaning of sustainability Often termed the "tdple bottom line," sustainable
can be further understood by growth can be achieved in Orange County by
examining four basic principles balancing environmental, social, and economic
regarding human needs, factors when setting County policies and
natural systems, and the regulations.
relationships between them.
For a given natural resource, if the depletion rate exceeds the
replacement rate, the resource will be available for only a finite
time. Thus, unchecked use of resources has implications for our
future generations.
2. Human activity produces harmful substances, which must be
mediated to maintain balance in the natural systems. Human -
generated waste, such as plastics, sewage, and carbon
monoxide, must be carefully managed to minimize and
eliminate damage to the earth.
105
U16
3. Earth's ecosystems, of which humans are a part along with
other living beings, are interdependent and most stable when
they include a diversity of species. Overuse and pollution of the
natural environment has implications for maintaining the earth's
biodiversity.
4. Human needs span physical, economic, environmental, cultural,
social, and spiritual dimensions. Human needs can be met
equitably, justly, and with dignity without compromising the
physical environment. Achieving greater fairness is essential for
social stability and the cooperation needed for making large -scale
changes within the framework laid out by the first three principles.
These global principles are locally relevant because our community is part of a
region, part of a continent, and part of a world. Our individual and collective
decisions and actions affect the quality of human life and the quality of our natural
environment not only in the local community, but also in the world. By
understanding these principles and the consequences of continuing to violate
them, we establish a common basis for working toward becoming a sustainable
community.
Sustainability is a theme that runs throughout this Comprehensive Plan. Orange
County residents understand the linkages that support a sustainable future.
Examples abound: To help preserve rural character, shop at a farmers market to
help keep local farms in production. To help pay for schools and services,
encourage growth of the non - residential tax base by locating residences close to
business and retail centers. Reduce growth in carbon emissions by achieving
compact development patterns. We need to use the resources that are available to
us today in a manner that protects them for future generations. Following is a
summary of the key ideas presented in this Comprehensive Plan that relate
directly to the goal of achieving a sustainable future. Refer to each of these Plan
Elements for more details.
1.3.1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The County has established Economic Development Districts wherein public
Investment will be focused to stimulate and accommodate development in
strategic locations that can be served by transportation systems and public
Infrastructure, and be convenient to housing opportunities.
The County's Economic Development Commission works with local, regional
and state governments and agencies to attract and promote the types of
businesses suited to Orange County. These efforts focus on recruiting
appropriate businesses that will provide jobs to local residents and provide a
more balanced tax revenue structure that relies less on the generation of
private property taxes.
The County and Economic Development Commission have identified Action
Steps in the report: "Investing in Innovation: Orange County Economic
Development Commission Five -Year Strategic Plan."
To meet the demand for locally grown products, the County is working with
Alamance, Chatham, and Durham Counties to establish a value -added food
processing center, where farmers and others could make value -added
products, such as jams, pickles, or tamales.
OaP�- n2ae� -J�
64
Serena Fenton said that people were so excited last spring when they all thought the arts
wing was a done deal and then they found out last week that there are problems with the funding.
She said that she hopes that their money is not going to Elementary School #11 first.
Carol Barrow said that she also thought the arts wing was a go. She said that not all
students are athletic or academic. She asked the County Commissioners to please pass this arts
wing for the students.
Mike Taylor thanked the County Commissioners for their service to Orange County and
said that it is admirable for the Board of County Commissioners to let parents and school board
members to come forward and comment on this plan. He said that this is a good time to stimulate
the economy for a shovel -ready project. He said that his son is in the performing arts at Carrboro
High. He respectfully requested the County Commissioners to support this item.
Michael Barrow said that he attended Chapel Hill High years ago and made it to Broadway
in the performing arts. He said that his high school and past experiences changed his life.
Commissioner Gordon said that there needs to be a definite financial plan to get LGC
approval. She said that the CHCCS Board Chair said that she could find the pay -as- you -go
funds. She suggested that the Board go forward with these bonds, get pay -as- you -go funds from
CHCCS, and then Orange County can provide the administrative funds.
Bob Jessup said that this would be sufficient for the idea of a plan to present to the LGC
for construction costs in showing a complete package of the funding.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
close the public hearing and approve moving forward with the issuance of Qualified School
Construction Bonds, and to have a conversation with the CHCCS about reimbursing the funds
provided by CHCCS.
Commissioner Gordon suggested including the proposed funding offer from CHCCS and
suggested adding an amendment to the motion stating that Orange County would provide
administrative costs. The Board agreed with the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this Board has always been supportive of this arts wing but
they are also trying to put their financial affairs in order. He said that there were discussions
years ago about whether arts should come before athletics and this was a choice of the CHCCS
Board and not of the Board of County Commissioners.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Regulations for Drive -thru
Facilities
The Board reviewed and deliberated on a staff - initiated Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements to establish regulation
governing the development of drive -thru facilities within the County.
Planner Michael Harvey made this PowerPoint presentation.
AGENDA ITEM: 5 -13
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of a proposal to amend
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive -thru facilities
Tuesday October 6, 2009 — BOCC Meeting
Options relating to drive -thru facilities:
•Option One (1): Prohibit drive -thru facilities within the County's planning jurisdiction,
0
*Option Two (2): Regulate as to the location and operational characteristics, required
landscaping, and cumulative number of drive -thru facilities.
*Option Three (3): Implement a County -wide educational program on the problems of vehicle
idling while not taking any action to amend existing development regulations.
What is before you:
*Minutes of the various related meetings where item was discussed (Quarterly Public Hearing,
Planning Board, OUTBoard,etc)
*Study presentation materials reviewed by the Planning Board (Attachment 5)
*Staff report on the regulation drive -thru facilities as requested by the BOCC (Attachment 6)
*Sample site plan and physical examples of how proposed regulatory concept would work as
requested by the BOCC (Attachment 8)
Attachment Eight (8) - Site Plan:
Attachment Eight (8) - Example
Attachment Nine (9)— Additional Information
02005 Orange County Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory. Idling of cars represents approximately
.06% of total vehicle emissions,
•A 2001 report from the EPA entitled 'Extended Vehicle Idling. Document suggests mitigating
drive -thru impacts, most of which we are proposing.
Planning Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board reviewed this item at their April 1, 2009 meeting where the following
motion was made:
•Recommend the County initiate a comprehensive and countywide awareness education program
about idling and the contaminants it puts in our air, and
•Recommend the BOCC disregard staff's two (2) options and take no action on adopting
regulations banning development of drive -thru facilities within the County's planning jurisdiction
(Option 1) or adopting comprehensive development standards for drive -thru facilities (Option 2).
Administration Recommendation:
•Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
•Receive the additional requested information,
off necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
•Close the public hearing, and
•Adopt Option Two (2) — specifically adopt the proposed regulations detailed within Attachment
One (1) of the packet.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ben Lloyd is a resident and taxpayer of Orange County. He said that he obtained a copy
of this abstract and that adopting this will contribute to Orange County's "No Growth" image. He
said that in 2005 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an Economic Development plan to
create 5,000 jobs. He said that no one will come to Orange County if the Board of County
Commissioners adopts this. He said that this regulation is not good for Orange County. He said
that mothers with kids and the handicapped are referred to in this abstract regarding drive - thrus.
abstract regarding drive - thrus. He said that the County should focus on the real problem, which is
fuel consumption. He said that he would support a ban on drive -thrus if there is a ban on
stoplights or UNC ballgames because of the idling pollution. He said that he supports option 3,
which is to do nothing.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Chair of the Economic Development Commission said
that the EDC was not consulted to participate in this process. He would like to incorporate the
EDC on economic development matters and Chair Foushee agreed.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she was disappointed that the minutes from the OUT
Board were insufficient. She said that Orange County now bans drive -thrus in the Hillsborough
EDD and the Efland- Cheeks Overlay District. She asked how this decision was made and the
rationale.
Michael Harvey said that in the Eno EDD overlay, one of the reasons they recommended
banning drive -thrus was because this was primarily for residential areas and they did not want
franchise businesses to be there.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she is excited about the education portion of the
program and the more education that can be done can affect the idling issue. She said that
families sit in carpool lines and more education would be helpful to these types of people. She is
concerned about the banning component in regards to older citizens and how this will affect them.
Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with Commissioner Hemminger about the education
component. He said that an outright ban of drive -thrus may affect commercialization and he does
not want to discourage the development of economic development. He said that there are a lot of
other sources of idling besides drive - thrus. He said that the County should promote the education
component of this and continue to monitor what will happen.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
approve Option 3 — Implement a County -wide educational program on the problems of vehicle
idling while not taking any action to amend existing development regulations.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County Commissioners could ask for more extensive
minutes from the OUT Board and all agreed.
Commissioner Jacobs said that they are all in favor of education. He would like to see a
definite timeframe on the education process as well as a plan. He thinks that there should be
some performance measures in regard to education so that there is an end result.
Commissioner Nelson said that he will vote against the motion. He is not against
education, but he supports an outright ban. Commissioner Nelson said that he is frustrated
because this room was not designed for meetings and the acoustics are horrible. He said that the
symptoms are being treated, and he would like to solve the problem. He suggested meeting
somewhere else or fixing the acoustical problems.
Commissioner Nelson said that the economic development question needs to be dealt with
and Carrboro has had a ban on drive -thrus for 15 years and it has not hurt the economic
development there. He said that the underlying issue is greenhouse gas and global warming and
there is no silver bullet. He said that the community will survive without drive - thrus.
Commissioner Pelissier said that she agreed with Commissioner Nelson's comments, and
in rereading the minutes of the Planning Board and previous quarterly public hearings, she thinks
that everyone has forgotten some of the major goals. She said that there were plans to put drive -
thrus in the Buckhorn area when she was on the Planning Board, and now that is a moot issue. In
the Planning Board minutes, it all started with greenhouse gas emissions and educating parents
to not idle in the drop off lane at a school. She said that the real issue is that drive -thrus are a
symbol of the car - oriented culture. She thinks that if the County wants to move in the right
move in the right direction, it has to change the symbols and the messages. The County wants to
create developments that are transit - friendly, pedestrian - friendly, and bicycle - friendly. She said
that there is no clear evidence that if drive -thrus are banned that a message is sent to the
business community that they are not wanted. She thinks that banning drive -thrus sends a
message about the kinds of businesses that the County does want.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to formally ask the school districts to
educate their students and families about the issue of idling.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the areas that this would affect are the EDD's that are not
in Chapel Hill or Carrboro, and the environment and atmosphere will be different in Orange
County. There will not be a lot of development where people can walk to the places that are going
to develop. He said that there is significantly more greenhouse gas created by the kiss - and -go
lanes at the schools than will ever be created by all drive -thru restaurants that ever might be
created in Orange County, and this ban does not address that at all. He said that this ordinance
would not minimize greenhouse gas. He thinks that the message with this is that Orange County
does not like drive -thrus and the food that is served and the people that go there. He does not
want to send that message.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he originally proposed this idea about banning drive -thrus
and it has nothing to do with the kind of people that use drive- thrus. He said that once he
proposed it, he has never used a drive -thru anywhere, even at a bank. He said that he has
always been opposed to the size of the kiss - and -go lanes at schools. He said that someone has
to take the lead in addressing a culture that is so car - oriented. He is willing to consider a motion
to do education before a ban. He said that this has to do with emissions, but there needs to be a
clearer and targeted message. If not, then the Board will vote 4 -3 for the ban.
Chair Foushee asked Commissioner Yuhasz to restate his motion.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
accept the Administration's recommendation, substituting option 3 for option 2 in #4. He said that
he might be willing to accept some modification of the motion to put some reasonable time limit on
the education component to see if it has had an effect, and to involve the schools.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking staff to come back with a proposal with a specific
timeframe, a way to measure the effectiveness of the educational component, and a plan for the
education. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed to add this to the motion.
VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Yuhasz, Commissioner Hemminger, Commissioner Jacobs);
Nays, 4
MOTION FAILED
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to approve the Administration
recommendation, Option 2: Regulate as to the location and operational characteristics, required
landscaping, and cumulative number of drive -thru facilities.
There was no second and the motion failed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to recommend that the Board take no action at this time.
VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Chair Foushee, Commissioner Hemminger, Commissioner Yuhasz); Nays, 4
MOTION FAILED
kniwl-ji
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
defer this item /discussion until the Economic Development Commission has had a chance to
review this information and to submit comments.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner
Nelson)
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Resolutic
The Board considered approving a resolution authorizing application to the Local
Government Commission to issue up to $27 million in General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Gary Humphreys said that staff is asking the Board to approve a resolution authorizing
application to the Local Government Commission to issue up to $27 million in General Obligation
Refunding Bonds. He said that staff maintains contact with several financial advisors who track
the County's bonds against market conditions to identify opportunities to achieve debt service
savings through refunding outstanding debt of the County. Municipal bond interest rates have
continued to fall in recent months. BB &T Capital Markets has identified an opportunity for debt
service savings and brought an analysis of the potential savings under current market conditions.
The current proposal is to refund $9.19 million of General Obligation (GO) debt issued in 2001
and $6.525 million of GO debt issued in 2003. The analysis shows a potential savings of
$589,000 over the remaining life of the debt with a net present value of $496,000. The analysis
shows a reduction in debt service would be approximately $30,000+ in the current fiscal year and
would average a little over $50,000 a year for fiscal years 2011 through 2021.
He said that the Local Government Commission requires the percentage savings of debt
service to be approximately 3.0% or more of the amount of the refunded bonds. The proposal
shows a 3.16% savings. Market conditions could change between now and the time of issuance
either increasing or decreasing savings. The refunding analysis proposed does not refund all of
the outstanding maturities of these bonds. The application to the LGC is proposed for up to $27
million in order to allow the flexibility to refund the additional $6.8 million of outstanding maturities
if there will be sufficient additional savings.
A motion was made by Chair Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to 1)
authorize staff to proceed with an application requesting the Local Government Commission's
approval to issue up to $27 million of refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding a part of the
County's outstanding 2001 and 2003 General Obligation Bonds; and 2) authorize BB &T Capital
Markets, a Division of Scott and Stringfellow, LLC ( "BB &T Capital Markets "), to serve as Financial
Advisor and the firm of Sanford Holshouser, LLP represented by Bob Jessup to serve as Bond
Counsel.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance — Recommended Update to
Student Generation Rates
The Board considered approval of revised Student Generation Rates (SGR) for Orange
County Schools and Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools to be incorporated in the Schools