Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-04-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1994, AT 7:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed Session to discuss the following Closed Session items: 1. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) ■ Case name: maple, et al. v. City of San Rafael, Marin County Superior Court Case No. 148065 b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation ■ Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): One (1) case(s). Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (Jarvis Assn.) California Supreme Court Case No. S036269. (Request for City of San Rafael Amicus Participation) C. Conference with Labor Negotiator, Austris Rungis Employee Organizations: ■ San Rafael Police Association ■ San Rafael Firefighter's Association ■ M.A.P.E. ■ Police Mid -Management Association The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above mentioned items. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1994, AT 8:00 PM - OPEN SESSION RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS la. City Attorney Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. lb.City Attorney Ragghianti announced that City Council had authorized City Attorney to enter into Amicus Curiae Participation. (Unanimous vote - Councilmember Cohen absent) lc.City Attorney Ragghianti announced that item was not discussed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Approved as submitted. Meetings of April 4, 1994, and Special Meeting of April 6, 1994 (CC) 4. Acceptance of Resignation of Marilyn Englander Approved staff recommendation. from the Cultural Affairs Commission and (Mayor Boro congratulated Wayne SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 2 Appointment of Wayne Lechner, Currently Lechner, who was in the audience) Serving as Alternate (CC) - File 9-2-24 5. Resolutions Authorizing Conveyance of Two Item pulled from Agenda. Temporary Construction Easements to CALTRANS for California Park Overhead Seismic Retrofit Project (PW) - File 2-14 x 11-16 x 171 x 9-3-40 6. Resolution of Findings Granting Appeal of RESOLUTION NO. 9133 - RESOLUTION OF Disabled Access Requirements - 95 Racquet THE CITY COUNCIL (In Its Capacity as Club Drive (PW) - File 13-1-1 x 1-6-1 the Board of Appeals) GRANTING CONDITIONED APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL FROM STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, 95 RACQUET CLUB DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL 7. Resolution Approving Renewal of Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9134 - AUTHORIZING with C.G. Uhlenberg for Audit Services THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH (Fin) - File 8-1 C. G. UHLENBERG FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR 1993/94 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 3.REPORT ON ANNUAL FILINGS - FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION FORMS 730, STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING CONSULTANTS, GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (CC) - File 9-4-3 Councilmember Zappetini asked for an explanation of the disclosure categories. City Clerk Leoncini stated that the form is in the report, and was established by the City Attorney's office when we adopted the Conflict of Interest Code. Appendix A needs to be cross-referenced to Appendix B. Mrs. Leoncini invited Mr. Zappetini to come to the City Clerk's office to review the forms, if desired, for further clarification. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 8. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Councilmember Zappetini asked about the Wachovia Bank, which is listed on Schedule 1 of the Investment Report. Mr. Coleman explained that the Wachovia Bank is the leading bank in the Southeastern part of the United States and is a very strong financial institution with a AA rating, which exceeds the State's standard for investments. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to accept the Investment Report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 9. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1 x 13-4 Councilmember Thayer stated that San Rafael passed a very stringent anti-smoking law, and noted there is an initiative called the California Uniform Tobacco Control Act, which is backed by the tobacco industry. Ms. Thayer explained that the tobacco industry is trying to preempt all existing local smoking ordinances under the guise of a State ordinance. She suggested that if any of the other Councilmembers receive phone calls to lobby for passage of this ordinance, that they be told our City has a smoking ordinance which is much more stringent. She feels this initiative is a ruse and cautioned people to be wary. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt a Resolution in opposition to the Smoking and Tobacco Products Statewide Regulation Initiative Statute. RESOLUTION NO. 9135 - RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE SMOKING AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS STATEWIDE REGULATION INITIATIVE STATUTE (also known as the California Uniform Tobacco Control Act) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 2 Page 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: SPECIAL PRESENTATION SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None Cohen 10.PRESENTATION OF THE NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY AWARDS - File 102 Mayor Boro explained there were students present from Davidson Middle School, San Rafael High School and Terra Linda High School as a result of a letter from the National Conference of Mayors urging cities to recognize youth in the community who have done significant activities. Through the help of Sharon Andrus, Assistant to the City Manager and Police Officer John Childress, who works with youth and is a member of the School Board, students were identified. Mayor Boro presented Community Service Awards to the following students: Terra Linda High School CARLY JONES - member for 4 years and an officer for 3 years of St. Isabella's Parish Youth Council where her activities included working at the St. Vincent's Christmas Tree Lot, Pumpkin Patch and the St. Vincent de Paul Kitchen. KARUNA JAIN - member for 3 years and an officer for 1 year of St. Isabella's Parish Youth Council where she worked at the Pumpkin Patch and the St. Vincent de Paul kitchen; also worked at the Red Cross Teen Team for 3 years; participated in a Christmas Caroling program for the last 4 years; last year she was a "Reading Buddy" in the Marin Children's Project, helping to keep Marin City children interested in succeeding by tutoring them, taking them on outings and generally providing them with a supportive person to whom they can turn. JENNIFER NAEGELE - (not present), member for 3 years and an officer for 2 years of St. Isabella's Parish Youth Council, where her activities included working at the St. Vincent de Paul kitchen; 2 years experience with the Red Cross Teen Team; 3 years as a Confirmation Sponsor. Davidson Middle School MOLLY GREENBLATT - an eighth grade student who volunteers to babysit for school -parent activities; an active member of Marin County's Friday Night Live Chapter; Student Council Co -President; works hard to help the elderly. KAI LINDEMULDER - member of the Crib Club that provides child care whenever there are parent activities at the school; member of her eighth grade student council; active member of Friday Night Live. San Rafael High School KARINA MEYER - involved in many community service activities, including organizing canned food drives for the Food Bank, two blood donation drives on her campus, and beach cleanup days; has consistently volunteered at the St. Vincent de Paul dining hall; has been to Mexico as part of the Habitat for Humanity Mission; currently organizing a trip to Yosemite to help restore a Native American reservation that was damaged in last year's fire. BRIAN CORNWELL - volunteer for the past 4 years at Marin General Hospital and is recognized there as a valuable asset to their program of patient services; also a peer tutor at San Rafael High School. ERICA GARCIA - volunteer at Kaiser Hospital and St. Raphael's Church; spent many hours tutoring Spanish speaking students at Coleman Elementary School; student repre- sentative for the "Next Generation of Teachers Task Force"; volunteered to pick up trash on our beaches; participated in graffiti eradication at her school; organized many events in San Rafael High School including dances, decorations, music lists and fundraising. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ll.PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FROM AIRPORT SHUTTLE DBA MARIN DOOR-TO- DOOR TAXI SERVICE FOR A NEW CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE TAXI SERVICE IN SAN RAFAEL (FIN) - File 9-9 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 4 Finance Director Ransom Coleman stated there is an application for taxi service from Marin Door -to -Door. In February, a certificate was granted to Marin Cab Company. He stated the two issues to consider are to determine if there is a need for additional service in San Rafael and the problem of traffic congestion around the Transportation Center. Mr. Coleman explained that when the Center was first built, there were only provisions made for two spaces for cabs. Cabs not only park in the designated spaces, but also in both the metered parking across the street and the unmetered parking on the same side of the street toward Second Street. Mr. Coleman stated that according to the Traffic Engineer and the Police Department, this is not a safety problem. Mr. Coleman stated the more important issue is the need for service, and the Council needs to be convinced that there is a need, or if they choose to deregulate, then they may want to consider the free market as the determining factor as to how many cabs and types of service that should be provided. Mr. Coleman noted there are four taxi companies in San Rafael, and as far as is known, they provide good service. They have provided letters indicating their opposition to the application. There is also a letter from the applicant stating why he feels he should be granted a certificate to operate taxi service in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Coleman brought up a significant point about Transportation Center parking, but he does not feel that issue impacts tonight's decision. He asked the Public Works Director to come back at a future meeting to discuss whether there is a problem with cab parking, and how to address it. Councilmember Thayer asked if other cities in Marin regulate cabs. Mr. Coleman answered that Mill Valley, Sausalito and Novato do, at least to the extent that they determine who can operate in town. He stated that in talking with other medium sized cities, there is no standard. Paul Bobrow, Marin Door -to -Door owner, stated they have been in business for 3-1/2 years. They have a certificate from the California P.U.C. (Public Utilities Commis-sion) to pick up passengers from their homes and transport them to the airports, and noted they are the first successful door-to-door airport service in Marin County. He explained that a result of this success necessitates they expand their service to taxi service. He stated they are generating new demands for service and have found it necessary, on occasion, to hire taxis to help them fulfill this demand. The existing taxi services cannot fulfill their needs in this area. Marin Door -to -Door proposes starting service with just one vehicle, and Mr. Bobrow stated he felt one vehicle would not disturb the current transportation situation. Councilmember Zappetini asked that, since there are four other companies, why can't they supply Marin Door -to -Door with the services needed. Mr. Bobrow answered that customers like their service and ask Marin Door -to -Door to transport them. He stated that one of the problems in using the other taxi services is the big demand for early morning taxi service. He stated the cabs do not start as early as Marin Door -to -Door, which begins service at 4:00 a.m. Mr. Zappetini asked if Mr. Bobrow has contacted the other companies to see if they could coordinate times with them. Mr. Bobrow answered that they have used cabs on many occasions and have charge accounts with them. Mr. Bobrow stated that when a customer asks them to provide a service, they should be able to provide it. Mr. Zappetini stated he did not understand why, with four other cab companies, we would need a fifth, if they only plan to operate one cab. Mr. Bobrow answered that in order for them to continue to be successful, they must grow, and they want to provide total transportation service. Only one cab is necessary at this time, and the market can determine if they will grow. Mr. Zappetini asked if Marin Door -to -Door has a complete maintenance program for all their vehicles, to which Mr. Bobrow answered, "Yes." Ian Lambton, Marin Cab Company, stated Mr. Tope of Radio Cab and Mr. Harvey of Belaire Cab, both wrote letters to the Council which brought up very valid and perti-nent arguments. Mr. Lambton commented that by transporting customers to the airport, Marin Door -to -Door has actually diminished business for the taxi companies. He indicated there are three cab companies operating in San Rafael 24 -hours a day, even though there is often very little business in the early morning hours. Mr. Lambton stated that even though they have six cabs in service, there is only enough business to operate four. The other two are parked and not operating. He said he understands Marin Door -to -Door's desire to grow, but so do they, and he would prefer the competi- tion would be kept in their separate areas. He felt there was sufficient opportunity for growth within the airport shuttle service without having to encroach the taxi market. Mr. Lambton distributed a copy of State legislation regarding taxi cab transportation services which stated there should be some concern about the reliabil- ity and stability of privately operated taxicabs. Gary Peak, employee of Radio Cab, was concerned about the inadequate parking at the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 5 Transportation Center and stated he just received a parking citation for waiting in the red zone. Barry Toronto, night shift driver for Marin Cab Company, stated that from about 2:15 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., there are often no calls. He stated that he and other drivers would like to work with Marin Door -to -Door to help fulfill their customers' needs. He asked that the application not be granted because the business is not there yet and also to allow current drivers a chance to make money. Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer asked if it is legal for Marin Door -to -Door to operate in and out of San Rafael? Finance Director Coleman said it is since they are regulated by the P.U.C., but pointed out that while taxis can also go to the airport, it is not their prime purpose. Mayor Boro stated he does not feel it was shown there is a need for additional taxi service. Councilmember Thayer agreed. Councilmember Zappetini stated he believes in free enterprise. However, since Marin Door - to -Door plans to begin with just one cab, he feels that the other cab companies could work together to provide the additional support that Marin Door -to -Door might need. Councilmember Heller stated she did not agree with the other Councilmembers, but rather felt the marketplace should decide the appropriate number of cabs. She stated the City's role should only be to determine whether the cab companies have adequate insurance. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, that we deny the application from Marin Door -to -Door for a certificate to operate a taxi service in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated for the record that he, too, supports free enterprise but does not feel the demand is there for additional service. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 12.PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.04.100, "LIMITATION OF WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY APPROACHES" OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (PW) - File 11-1 x 11-7 x 9-3-40 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Assistant Public Works Director Lloyd Strom stated the purpose of this Ordinance revision is to remove existing conflicts and to provide for greater design flexibil-ity. The threefold purpose is: 1) to correct an inconsistency between Chapter 11.04 of the Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance. The municipal code only allows 18 feet between driveways and the Zoning Ordinance requires 25. 2) The regulation of residential - the Municipal Code currently only regulates commercial driveways and this revision will place those restrictions on residential as well. The Zoning Ordinance regulates residential driveways, but only in terms of minimum and not maximum. 3) Allowing exceptions - we currently allow commercial driveways no more than 40 feet, and this revision would allow us to go beyond 40 feet where it is deemed practical and concurred in by the Design Review Board. Mr. Strom stated this issue came to light as a result of a controversy over a project that will also be considered tonight. However, notwithstanding that controversy, these revisions are worthwhile on their own merits. He stated that action on this item in no way prejudices the next item being considered. John Dupen, Registered Civil Engineer and owner of a business at 700 E Street, across the street from the car wash that will be discussed tonight, stated the Municipal Code is valid and perfectly functional as is. He felt this is being done to accommodate an exchange of influence between Public Works Director Bernardi and private citizen Michael J. Smith. Mayor Boro stated we will not get into personalities regarding this issue, but only why this Ordinance should or should not be amended. Mr. Dupen said that staff feels there is an inconsistency in the Zoning Ordinance on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 6 driveway separation, but there is no inconsistency. He pointed out the Zoning Ordinance is a part of the Municipal Code and referred to paragraph 3 of the report that says Chapter 11 and Chapter 14 are in conflict, but stated they are not, because Chapter 14 is zoning which addresses all driveways. It states the Zoning Administra- tor, Planning Commission or City Council may, on the basis of a recommendation of the City Traffic Engineer or Fire Department, require driveways in excess of the above widths where needed by traffic, grade or site conditions. Section 11 says, "It is hereby found and determined that public interest, convenience and necessity and the normal and ordinary use of streets and sidewalks, particularly in the commercial and industrial districts require the width of driveway entrances be regulated and limited." Mr. Dupen felt this was over and above Section 14, and not in conflict. Referring to the first paragraph of the staff report, line 6, which states, "residential driveways are not mentioned or limited" refers only to commercial and industrial. He stated commercial driveways are limited to 40 feet, perhaps because they want traffic channeled in a limited way, so cars driving by and pedestrians will see this is access/egress from a parking lot or a commercial business, and it should not spread out the whole block. Paragraph 3 again refers to the inconsistencies in Chapter 11 and 14, but still states there is no inconsistency whatsoever. The last paragraph states there are a number of driveways that exceed the current and proposed 40 foot limit, but just because there are wider driveways throughout the City, is no reason to change the Code to accommodate those driveways. Those driveways should just be "grandfathered" in. He referred to the item entitled "Plans" and noted the date of April 9, 1993, which is the thirteenth month that the City has been trying to figure out whether they can approve or not approve the addition of three parking spaces to an apartment building on Valencia Avenue. This is in an area where there is no sidewalk and cannot be any sidewalk. He cannot figure out how this can compare with a driveway widening. In the case of the upcoming car wash issue, they would be taking away two parking spaces to provide for an extra 100 feet of driveway for wiping down cars. Mr. Dupen again pointed out that he is a Registered Civil Engineer and said he tried to figure out why the original Code put in a limitation on commercial and industrial driveway limits, when staff has no clue why it was done. He advised staff that the reason is to constrict access and egress to commercial and industrial places of business so that people will know where the traffic is going. He stated staff feels it is important for the Council to provide for exceptions to accommodate for the needs of property owners, and said he was disappointed that he is not being allowed to discuss the controversy, because Council is then being asked to make a ruling without seeing why it came to pass. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated that the provisions of Chapter 11 do not have any exceptions that would permit staff to grant an exception to any property owner under any circumstance. He stated that when this matter was first brought to our attention, we examined the possibility of granting a variance or some sort of exception to what appeared to be a very strict, hard and fast rule. Deputy City Attorney Gus Guinan examined this issue, and they concluded it was impossible to grant a variance to a provision contained in Chapter 11, since variances are only granted to provisions of the Zoning Code. Therefore, nothing in Chapter 11 permits an exception such as the proposed Ordinance would allow if Council agrees the Ordinance should be accepted. Zoning provisions contained in Chapter 14 are entirely different because there is the possibility of granting a variance. Mr. Ragghianti stated there is an inconsistency, and the best way to handle it is to at least pro- vide a vehicle for staff in an appropriate set of circumstances to grant an exception to this hard and fast rule. He does not think the language Mr. Dupen cites is applicable to the provisions of Chapter 11. Mr. Strom stated that it was pointed out by Mr. Dupen that the section in Chapter 14 which states, "the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council may, on the basis of recommendation from the City Traffic Engineer, City Engineer or Fire Department, require driveways in excess of the above width were needed by traffic, grade or site conditions." That statement only applies to driveway minimums. Chapter 11 applies to driveway maximums. The flexibility is in Chapter 14 in regard to minimums, not in Chapter 11. This is where some of the confusion comes from. In Chapter 14, it states that driveways need to be 25 feet apart, whereas in Chapter 11, it states they need to be 18 feet apart, therefore there is a clear conflict between those two. What this revision to the Ordinance does is make those two sections consistent with each other and also would give in Chapter 11 a certain permissiveness which is allowed in Chapter 14. The recommendation in this Ordinance is this will be done on the recommendation of the City Engineer, and that it be consistent with the recommendation from the Design Review Board, so that it is not just at the whim of one individual. Mr. Dupen once again stated the 25 foot width is set up for all driveways, and the more restrictive 18 feet was given only to commercial driveways to treat it somewhat SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 7 differently than residential or other property, and therefore, no inconsistency occurs. Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Thayer asked if there is any way the driveway can be constructed to prevent access/egress problems? Mr. Strom answered this is why it is the customary procedure to have a 40 foot driveway maximum and perhaps even smaller so as to concentrate the traffic. However, whenever you are developing standards, there will be occasions when you run into situations that require us to make an assessment on a case-by-case basis to determine what is the reasonable thing to do. As an overall rule, we do not want driveways to be more than 40 feet. Councilmember Thayer asked if it would be better to change Chapter 11 with regard to variances, even though it might make it more restrictive, but it would give Council more leeway. Principal Planner Sheila Delimont stated a variance is specific to the land and not the use and does not allow you to grant a change in regulation because of use. She noted what we are discussing here is that there are various uses that might have a need for a bigger driveway. That is why it has been written as an exception rather than a variance. Mr. Ragghianti stated he has conceptual legal problems in granting a variance in Chapter 11 when the courts have always determined that variances should only be granted to zoning provisions. You get a different term, "exceptions" and get away from the legal standards contained in the government codes that permit variances to be granted. Councilmember Heller stated she is comfortable with as much flexibility as we can give staff any time they have to look at something on a case-by-case basis, and therefore, supports the staff report. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER 11.04 - SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, CURBS AND GUTTERS" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1662 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 13.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 29, 1994, RE: APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A CAR WASH/GAS STATION (ED92- 81B); 1515 SECOND STREET; AP NO. 12-064-11,-12,-17; MICHAEL SMITH, APPLICANT; JOHN DUPEN, APPELLANT (P1) - File 10-7 x 10-2 x 11-1 x 11-7 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Principal Planner Sheila Delimont stated there has been a car wash in operation on this site since 1972. In 1992, the operator was granted a Design Review Permit for substantial remodel of that site. He approached the Public Works Department because he was having problems maneuvering cars in the area where they were dried off. The encroachment permit was granted in error, and work was stopped. At that point, he had removed approximately 80 feet of sidewalk and landscaping. Public Works and Planning Departments met with the applicant to come up with solutions. From a Planning standpoint, we were very concerned because this is the entryway to Gerstle Park residential neighborhood and we wanted to retain substantial landscaping. The Public Works Department looked at it from a traffic safety standpoint. The driveway was moved further south than it had been under the original operation, and the applicant put together a landscape plan that provided more landscaping than had been removed. Two landscaping strips were added along the street, the existing landscape strips were widened, and the proposal went to the Design Review Board, who recommended approval. It went to the Planning Commission, and they, at a Public Hearing, approved the project. The approval has been appealed to the City Council. The three major points are: 1) Was an encroachment permit issued for 80 feet? Ms. Delimont stated this is irrelevant because the issue is not whether the encroachment permit should have been issued, it is whether or not the Design Review Permit meets the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. There were verbal instructions given which the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 8 applicant followed as far as the 80 foot width. The Planning Commission found that it fully complied with the criteria. 2) Regarding the proper measurements of the driveway. The appellant feels that we have incorrectly interpreted the Ordinance as far as the measurement and said the 4 foot transition zones should have been included in the driveway width. Ms. Delimont stated this is a moot point because the Ordinance which has just been passed would allow the project to go forward no matter what the width is, however it is interpreted. The Planning Commission had the drawing in front of them, discussed the issue, and were aware that the driveway included these transition zones, and were aware of what they were approving. 3) The issue of whether or not we should have required a parking study on this site. Ms. Delimont stated there has been a car wash in operation since 1972, and as such had grand- fathered parking rights. When the permit was issued in 1992 for the remodel, they brought in a revised site plan with 12 parking spaces, which is more than the previous use. At that time, the staff report analyzed the parking needs, and the Planning Commission, in granting that permit, determined they had adequate parking. Ms. Delimont stated that under the current proposal, six of the on-site parking spaces and one street parking space will be removed. To compensate, the applicant has leased a space across the street with 8 parking spaces available. He is willing to enter into a long-term agreement with a deed restriction that the use of the building will be restricted. It currently provides an office and lunchroom for the employees. In approving this, the Planning Commission did modify the conditions slightly by adding a condition stating that all the car wash operation must take place on the project site and not infringe upon the public sidewalk. From a Planning standpoint, this project, when remodeled, substantially upgraded the entrance way to Gerstle Park, and they found parking to be adequate, discussed all the issues raised and determined that the Design Review Permit was appropriate. Staff recommends that the approval be upheld. Councilmember Zappetini asked about the removed street parking. Ms. Delimont stated that we will have lost one on -street parking space. The Zoning Ordinance Regulations do not look at street parking, and that is not counted toward required parking requirements. John Dupen, appellant, stated that Item 3 of the staff report was incorrect, and it contained unfair, half-truth statements. He stated that while it is true there was a car wash at this site, it was a car wash that did not require attendants. They now have 40-45 employees, and the need for on-site parking has not been met. He feels all the streets, including E Street, are in great jeopardy for employee parking. He quoted the staff report, "When a parking standard is not listed for a car wash with many, many wipers, the Planning Director can evaluate a similar use to establish an appropriate parking standard." Mr. Dupen called this a misrepresentation because the Code states that when a parking standard is not listed, which it is not, the Planning Director can evaluate a similar use and establish a parking standard. The Code says off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the following chart. Where the specific use in question is not listed, the Planning Director shall determine if another similar use exists which may be used to select an appropriate parking standard. He said the Planning staff was obligated to meet on-site parking demands which have been ignored because of grandfathered parking rights. The staff report also says the parking does not need to be re-evaluated unless the Council determines, etc. etc..... Parking does have to be re-evaluated in accordance with Section 14.18.040 of the Code. Ms. Delimont stated the Planning staff has a difference of opinion with Mr. Dupen. When the permit was given in 1992, the Planning Department and Planning Commission looked at the parking situation. It seemed appropriate and it has been operating since that time with no complaints regarding parking. Therefore, no traffic study is deemed necessary. Mayor Boro asked if, regarding the words "can" and "shall" was it based on the premise that this was grandfathered use with rights. Ms. Delimont stated there is a section in the Ordinance that grandfathers in use, plus the previous permit issued in 1992 approved the car wash operation remodel. Parking was approved, and there has been no change since. Ms. Delimont also pointed out there is a City parking lot which is under-utilized that is one-half block away. Michael Smith, applicant, stated he is adding 18 feet to what used to be a 30 foot driveway. He wanted an 80 foot driveway, but instead was approved for one driveway of 21 feet and one of 28 feet. He noted that they opened on August 15th, and from that time until January 1st, they operated with no complaints regarding parking. On January 1st, he leased the building across the street for storage and for an employee lunchroom. It was not leased for the parking. From January 1st until construction was begun, no one has objected to the parking, including the appellant. Mr. Smith stated he does not understand why parking is a problem all of a sudden. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 9 Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Zappetini stated he has had his car washed at Mr. Smith's business and looked around. He stated there were many employees, but very few cars parked in the area. The only problem Mr. Zappetini had was that they were drying cars on the sidewalk. He supports the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Thayer asked the applicant if this will cure the problem of stacking the cars on the sidewalk. Mr. Smith admitted there have been problems with employees parking cars on the sidewalk because at present there is a hole in the ground and half the driveway, therefore the cars funnel out a small area. Once the two drive- ways are put in place, the cars will be spread out on the site, and they will make sure not to park on the sidewalk. Councilmember Heller stated she voted for this project as a Planning Commissioner. She has visited the car wash on three occasions and never saw a parking problem. She is very much in favor of approving this Resolution. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt a Resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission decision of March 29, 1994 Re: approval of revisions to an approved landscape plan for a car wash/gas station. RESOLUTION NO. 9136 - DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 29, 1994 RE: APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A CAR WASH/GAS STATION (ED92-81B); 1515 SECOND STREET; AP NO 12-064-11,-12,-17; MICHAEL SMITH, APPLICANT; JOHN DUPEN, APPELLANT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OLD BUSINESS 14. REPORT ON APPOINTMENT OF BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (CM) - File 9-2-48 x 8-5 Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to confirm the appointments of the Budget Oversight Committee as follows: Gerald DeKerchove Jack Devlin Dennie Dyer John Grasham Richard Heine John Shellenberger Charles Stuckey AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen NEW BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/94 Page 9