|
Planning Officer Trudi Ryan and Senior Neighborhood Preservation Specialist Dale Huber presented the staff report. Planning Officer Ryan stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this issue and is recommending approval.
Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that alternative one in the staff report would allow a citizen, who needs to replace a car battery, 72 consecutive hours to complete that replacement (from start to finish). If the citizen needed to replace something else at a later date, the 72 hours would apply again to the additional item.
Public hearing opened 7:38 p.m.
Arthur Schwartz stated the new ordinance would not allow for someone such as himself who restored a Cadillac over a 14-year time frame. Schwartz stated during that time he worked outside and in the garage, but there was little work that he did on his car that took less than 72 hours. This ordinance does not answer the needs of the car hobbyist and further work needs to be done to address these needs.
Councilmember Swegles confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that there is not a time limit for work done within an enclosed building. Schwartz stated that he did work in a special area that, although was not enclosed, was not visible either. He stated the ordinance should allow for work in outside areas that are not visible rather than only allowing work to be done indoors.
Councilmember Swegles asked for staff’s opinion on Schwartz’ suggestion and Planning Officer Ryan stated staff did consider allowing outside areas that are concealed, but their concern was the visual impact to the neighbors. Director of Community Development Robert Paternoster added that staff has received numerous complaints from neighborhoods about auto repair.
Tony Lombardo stated support for auto repair at home. He has worked on his cars to save the cost of auto repair at a local shop in addition to working with his children on their cars. Lombardo is against the proposed ordinance which would allow only resident’s cars to be worked on, and 72 hours is not long enough to work on a car.
Councilmember Moylan asked Lombardo why the condition in the ordinance (which does not allow for the repair of a non-resident’s car) would be a hardship. He inquired as to why repairs could not be done at the non-resident’s home. Lombardo stated in his circumstance, he has the necessary auto repair tools and therefore his children come to his home.
Lombardo stated that the newspaper mentioned that citizens are concerned over drinking and auto repair at homes, but that does not apply in his situation. Councilmember Moylan added that visual blight is also of concern. Lombardo stated the ordinance should cover the noise and nuisance issues, not auto repair.
Councilmember Moylan stated without an ordinance in place, residents from other cities who have prohibitive auto repair ordinances, come to Sunnyvale for their auto repairs. Councilmember Moylan asked Lombardo if he had a suggestion on how the City could prevent this issue. Lombardo stated he understands that auto repair may occur in driveways in the City of Sunnyvale. Working on a car in a driveway does not allow for more than two cars to be worked on at a time (due to the size of the driveway). Lombardo continued that the definition of the proposed ordinance should identify appearance concerns and not limit work done in the driveway. Councilmember Moylan stated he understood Lombardo’s point to be that the current restriction in Sunnyvale (which allows for cars to be worked on in driveways) automatically limits the amount of cars to two. Therefore, the proposed ordinance which requires vehicles must be registered to the owner is unnecessary. Councilmember Moylan stated he would follow up with staff on the enforceability issue of identifying homeowner cars.
Lombardo stated the 72 hour limit is also an issue and suggested a fair time limit should be researched.
Barrett Bowers stated he agreed with the previous speaker that a restriction should be in place that does not allow auto repair on the street, but would allow car repair to be performed on the resident’s property. He stated he does all his car work in front of his garage. Bowers stated as a car enthusiast, he does not want everyone to see what he is doing and attempts to obscure the view. Bowers suggested removing the condition that requires auto work to be done in an “enclosed structure” and leave the section “shielded from public view.”
Harriet Rowe inquired if the condition that requires “shielded from view” would prevent the garage door from being open. Her concern is over working with chemicals in a non-vented enclosure.
Public hearing closed 7:54 p.m.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri inquired about the role Neighborhood Preservation plays in enforcing areas of concern from the neighbors. Neighborhood Preservation Specialist Huber stated that staff does both proactive and reactive code enforcement for auto repair. During the last 18 months, staff has received 15 complaints for major auto repairs and has identified an equal amount of proactive cases during the same time period. Most complaints are major auto repairs taking place on driveways or inoperable cars sitting on jack stands. Neighborhood Preservation Specialist Huber explained the way these violations are enforced is through observation of the activity, then staff allows 72 hours to pass and, if the activity continues, staff notifies the property owner or vehicle owner with a courtesy notice to finish repairs or relocate the vehicle to a repair shop or out of public view.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated there is a difference between repairing and restoring a vehicle and inquired if the complaints received are actual auto repairs or vehicle restorations. Neighborhood Specialist Huber stated the complaints are typically for cars that are in a state of decline and are being worked on in order to return them to operable condition.
Councilmember Moylan inquired about the registration enforceability issue. He inquired if there are two vehicles on the property, which is allowed, how is staff able to enforce an ordinance if one of the vehicles is from another city or registered to someone in the house. Neighborhood Specialist Huber stated when staff notices something is going on they investigate, but staff does not have the authority to look up vehicle registrations. After 72 hours, if the activity is still occurring, staff works closely with the Department of Public Safety to determine registration and ownership of the vehicle.
Councilmember Moylan stated he is attempting to understand what the registration clause does for enforcement. Director Paternoster stated the laws are written to facilitate enforcement, and the registration law is in place to prevent commercial activity from occurring in the neighborhood. Staff is trying to avoid having a residential property used as an auto repair shop. The only way to avoid this is to have the resident-registration regulation available.
Planning Officer Ryan clarified that currently there is not a maximum in place for the number of vehicles allowable at a residence. The two car limit is part of the proposed ordinance. Planning Officer Ryan stated staff has attempted to address some of the concerns from the broader neighborhood about ongoing repairs and the number of vehicles on a property. Staff does acknowledge that certain types of vehicles and servicing is legal, but within boundaries.
Councilmember Moylan stated as he understands the proposed ordinance, more things are being permitted than previously allowed. He views this as a loosening-up of the Municipal Code.
Councilmember Hamilton asked staff to explain the rationale in requiring work to be done in an enclosed structure rather than having it shielded from public view. Planning Officer Ryan cited Chapter 9 (9.24.020) of the Municipal Code, which states that any vehicle in disrepair may only be in an enclosed structure. The Code lists an exception of 72 hours and staff is attempting to parallel the Code within the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Lee noted that alternative 4 states repairs and major service shall be only conduced within an enclosed structure and shielded from public view, which appears to be redundant. Planning Officer Ryan stated the ‘and shielded from public view” could be dropped if Council decides to keep the repair in an enclosed structure. If the repair is only shielded from public view, there would be an inconsistency with the Municipal Code.
Councilmember Hamilton inquired if a longer period of time for major repairs or restorations was discussed between staff and those who contacted them (given that the vehicle was moved out of public view). Planning Officer Ryan stated the car restoration hobbyists would be working on their cars on a continual basis. The major complaints are directed more toward the major auto repairs; it is hard to distinguish between an old car and a classic vehicle, making enforcement difficult.
Councilmember Chu inquired how a minor repair, but one that required some time to get a part, would be impacted by this ordinance. Planning Officer Ryan stated if the hood is down, staff would not be able to tell if the vehicle is in disrepair, but if it is up on blocks or the hood is propped open, that is when staff would get involved. With Councilmember Chu’s example, it does not appear that there would be any visual blight.
Councilmember Swegles stated that having worked on vehicles in the past, when a part is on order during the repair, the hood can be shut and it does not incur any visual problems for the neighborhood. He stated this would not affect the 72-hour law, but the law should remain in order to keep major repairs from becoming an ongoing issue and objectionable to the neighbors.
MOTION: Councilmember Hamilton moved and Councilmember Chu seconded to approve Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 (with a minor modification to Alternative 4).
Alternative 1: Council amends the Zoning Code to add a new section that specifically addresses vehicle service and repair in residential zones and on property used exclusively for residential purposes.
- Allow minor vehicle service and repair limited to battery replacement, small part changes, tire repair, brake servicing, touch-up painting, oil change, lubrication, engine tune-ups, radio replacement, detailing, cleaning and similar activities on private property
- Within public view between the building and the public street, during daytime hours (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
- For no more than 72 hours
- Limit all repair or service of vehicles to no more than two vehicles at one time
- Such vehicles must be registered to bona fide resident of the property;
Alternative 2: Council continues to prohibit commercial vehicle repair in residential areas, including home occupations;
Alternative 3: Council continues to enforce performance standards related to residential vehicle repair to prevent nuisances related to noise, odor, smoke, etc. Activities shall also comply with all standards for the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, such as oil, gas, etc.; and
Alternative 4: Council introduces an ordinance that allows for major vehicle repair (e.g. engine overhauling, body work, installing axles and similar activities) on private property for vehicles that are registered to a bona fide resident of the property within an enclosed structure
with the addition: indefinitely or outside and shielded from public view
during daytime hours (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
with the addition: for a maximum of three months.
Councilmember Swegles stated he will not be able to support the motion. He stated he would not want to live next to someone who was working on their vehicle, which may not be in public view from the street, but could be viewed from the neighboring homes.
Councilmember Chu offered a friendly amendment to modify Alternative 1 (fourth bullet) to read: Such vehicles must be registered to a bona fide resident of the property
remove: or
add: and immediate family members (parents, children or sibling of someone living in the home).
Friendly amendment accepted.
Councilmember Howe stated he agrees with Councilmember Swegles about the unenclosed working area. This ordinance would also include townhouses or condominiums and Councilmember Howe stated he does not agree with allowing auto repairs for up to three months within such a high-density environment.
Councilmember Moylan stated he prefers the staff alternative without the changes made by Councilmember Hamilton. He does not agree with having staff enforce two time limits and it is not appropriate to allow nonresident additional family members the ability to perform their car repairs as well.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she did think about the higher density concerns and believes the only place to do auto work would be inside the garage, as the driveways are small and there is no backyard access. Additionally, the three-month rule would not apply as there is not a way to shield the repair from view in a condo complex.
Councilmember Howe asked staff if the street in a condominium project is public or private, and Planning Officer Ryan stated they are generally private streets. Councilmember Howe asked if the ordinance states auto repairs cannot be done on a private street, and Planning Officer Ryan stated the ordinance addresses public streets.
Councilmember Howe explained to Councilmember Hamilton that he lives in a condominium and he does have a backyard that would accommodate auto repairs. He restated that what staff has recommended is the correct way to go, without any amendments.
VOTE: 4-3 (Councilmembers Moylan, Howe and Swegles dissented)
MOTION: Councilmember Hamilton moved and Vice Mayor Spitaleri seconded to have staff (at their discretion) bring Alternative 4 back (as amended) to Council in two years, or less, if there are a significant number of complaints related to “shielded from public view during daytime hours (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) for a maximum of three months.”
City Clerk Katherine Chappelear read the title of the ordinance into the record. Councilmember Chu questioned if Council needs to revote since the ordinance title was not read prior to voting. Senior Assistant City Attorney Kathryn Berry confirmed that Council will not need to revote.
Councilmember Moylan offered a friendly amendment to also have staff (at their discretion) bring Alternative 4 back to Council in two years or less if there are a significant number of complaints related to the addition of an immediate family members (parents, children or sibling of someone living in the home). Councilmember Hamilton stated she will accept this amendment, but it should be brought back together with the prior amendment just made which will bring back to Council complaints received for auto repairs that last for three months or less.
Friendly amendment accepted.
VOTE: 5-2 (Councilmembers Howe and Swegles dissented)
|