|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A tobacco retail owner looking to set up shop on El Camino Real was recently denied a permit to open in Mountain View over concerns that the store was too close to where children congregate and had limited visibility from the street.
The administrative zoning hearing was originally scheduled for July 10 but postponed to Aug. 28 after the city received several public comments in opposition to the tobacco store’s proximity to parks, playgrounds and a school.
Located at 1313 W. El Camino Real near Shoreline Boulevard, the commercial property used to operate as a bar. The applicant, Mohammad Taha, proposed to take over the site and turn it into a “specialized cigar shop” that would sell cigar and tobacco products, accessories, apparel and souvenirs.
Taha requested a provisional use permit to open, with business hours from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. There were no plans to remodel the 1,320 square foot tenant space, according to documents submitted to the city.
Mountain View’s zoning allows for tobacco retail on El Camino Real, as long as it is not within 1,000 feet of sensitive areas like schools, playgrounds and parks. If allowed to open, the proposed tobacco shop would have been in close proximity to all three kinds of sites – in this case, Schaefer Park, Eagle Park and McKelvey Park Ball Fields as well as St. Joseph Mountain View Catholic School.
“I went out to the site. I could see how close it was to those parks. There were a bunch of kids on the ball field when I was out there … so I can really see the proximity issue to these sensitive uses,” said Assistant Community Development Director Amber Blizinski, who presided over the public hearing on Aug. 28.
The proposed location of the tobacco store also failed to meet a safety criteria. The building does not have exterior storefront windows, limiting visibility for law enforcement to monitor the business and ensure compliance with city, state and federal regulations, according to the city’s report.
Taha did not dispute the findings of the report, but he expressed immense dismay with the city’s process. According to Taha, the planning department did not indicate there would be any issue with the store’s location when he and his business partner asked about it and applied for a use permit in December.
“What surprises us after eight months of waiting, that the city discovered after seven months, that there’s kid’s parks and a school, which if they said that from the get-go, we could have not even signed the lease with the landlord, paying all that money that we paid just to keep the project running,” Taha said. They were out about $50,000, he said.
But from the city’s perspective, these outcomes aren’t always obvious during the early stages of the permit process – a situation that has caused a lot of frustration for other small businesses trying to open storefronts in Mountain View as well.
“It’s an iterative process,” said Community Development Director Christian Murdock, who attended the hearing. “It’s unfortunate in this instance that the conclusion, in relation to staff’s recommendation, evolved and was clear later in the process.”
Taha also made a point to bill his business as a specialty cigar store, distinct from other kinds of smoke shops. These establishments often operate under the radar and give a “bad reputation” to legitimate businesses that follow regulations, he said.
Earlier in the summer, law enforcement raided two smoke shops in Mountain View that allegedly sold products to underage teenagers, as well as illegal substances. One establishment also had several possible building violations.
While city staff ultimately denied the approval of a use permit at 1313 W. El Camino Real, they proposed alternative sites that were not near sensitive areas and would allow for the opening of a tobacco shop in Mountain View.
It also was possible to appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 days of the public hearing, Blizinski said.
Dear city: the Palo Alto library…is a box of books on the sidewalk.
Signed, amused citizen.
This is just another example of how the City literally hates businesses. They make it nearly impossible for some businesses to get started and even harder to flourish. I have yet to hear a single soul give me a logical answer regarding the purpose and effectiveness of these arbitrary distance restrictions to so called “sensitive” locations. Does it really make a difference if a tobacco retailer is 1000 feet or 1001 feet from a school or park? These arbitrary restrictions are simply because our civic “leaders” want to look like they are doing things to “protect” us. Tobacco is not alone. Alcohol, guns, porn, doesn’t matter, if it’s something they fear or despise, despite being legitimate businesses, they will regulate them into oblivion. The city went so far as to exclude certain businesses from their Covid grant program, even though they shut them down as non-essential like every other business that got the grants. This is just how city politics seem to roll in our troubled state. I hope this guy files a lawsuit against the city for misleading him and he gets a big out of court payout.
This is a good decision by the city. We do not need more addictive chemicals to mislead the current and next generation. They should not even have suggested alternative sites inside MV city limits. If they want to smoke, why not go to atherton or just San Jose?
It seems the business is required to lease the physical location before it can apply for a use permit. Thus the city gets paid to delay the process. I sure wouldn’t choose to open a business here, esp. when Palo Alto is looking to rebuild California Avenue.
The ordinance about no tobacco near parks/playground/schools has been in the books for over 20 years. Schaeffer Park/Playground has not suddenly appeared it was opened in 2020. Schaeffer Park is only 500 feet from that location and is VISIBLE from the corner of the property. It doesn’t require a lot of research to figure out that location would not work or be problematic at best.
Mountain View City Permitting has a lot of issues. But I don’t think City should be responsible for poor business plans or investments. If applicant wants someone to blame maybe they can turn to the landlord for not disclosing or not being informed of what uses are allowed on their property.
Could you explain how exactly it would be problematic? Please elaborate.
Ordinance clearly identifies sensitive areas to be considered. When applicant did his business plan, he could have just stepped out to the corner and seen a playground 500 feet away.and realized that getting a permit for this location would be problematic at best.
Also funny that applicant claimed to want to open a “cigar store” ….while there are still “smoke shop” banners by the property.
You just regurgitated what you said before. I don’t argue that there is an ordnance and I don’t argue that there is a school within the prescribed perimeter, but how exactly would you say this ordnance makes a difference?
Is a tobacco shop 550 feet away somehow less “hazardous” somehow to children than one 450 feet away? I could understand certain industries creating emissions or noise, but how does a highly regulated business selling tobacco, alcohol, guns, or whatever distasteful product du jour, create some sort of hazard to anyone simply by where it is located?
You’re putting words in my mouth, I didn’t say ANYTHING about the benefits of the ordinance. My point was that applicant should have done a modicus of research when developing his business plan for a smoke shop at this location.
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. You said there’s a long standing ordinance. I ask you your opinion on the effectiveness of the ordinance, and you replied with basically the same answer that there is an ordinance and the applicant should have known. Never did I put words in your mouth. I asked a question that apparently you are not interested in answering.
I’ll ask one last time to offer you the opportunity to share your opinion.
What about this ordinance do you think makes it effective?