CC Min 1996-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. , . . - Mr. Paynter said that all gas stations nse the same lighting as good business practices and a safety measure for their patrons, and the lighting at 895 Woodside Road was actually more conservative than some other stations on Woodside. Mr. ~ Paynter said "the station was closed for two years, and.... people forgot the lights were there." In response to questions by City Attorney Schricker regarding lighting standards, Mr. Tom Saberi, 1045 Airport Blvd., Suite 12, South San Francisco, said "the standard in the industry is the 2 foot by 2 foot.... those are standard canopy lights in the industry, and we installed the same lights" that are in all the other Woodside Road gas stations. Mr. Saberi said lighting as a safety feature is extremely important to gas stations to minimize liability issues. He also responded that the standard of illumination, the intensity, is the same for all gas stations. City Manager Everett advised that when the gas station operated 24-hours a day several years ago, it did not have a mini-mart; there was no building pennit issued for the 3'" island; and residential zoning questions should be directed to the City Attorney. City Attorney Schricker recommended that the owners have the opportunity to respond to some statements on new matters if they come up, at the end of the presentation. In response to Council questions, Building Official LaTorra addressed the issue -- of the Pennit application and displayed overheads of the documents involved: Pennit issued over the counter to Contractor, Tank Protect Engineering, Ahmad Shah, based on the infonnation submitted, to install one underground tank, replace piping and monitor two existing underground tanks. Official La Torra also displayed Permits by the San Mateo Department of Health Services and the Redwood City Fire Department. A new 3'" island was not listed on any of the three Pennits. The original plans showed a 3'" island without any detail, "however, the Pennit Application and what the City's Plan Checker reviewed the plans for, was a remediation, not to install a new island, but to remediate the existing situation, install one tank along with new piping and monitoring. We believe they do not have a Building Pennit to install the new island." In response to City Attorney Schricker's questions regarding plans for a 3'" island, Building Official LaTorra said "The legend (on the subject drawings of the pennit) talks about two existing tanks, and a new tank, and also shows...proposed location of new dispenser island (3rd island).... The application is supposed to identify the extent of the work that is occurring, and its our Plan Checker's belief that all that was being done was tank remediation and installing a new tank. The new island was not part of the Permit, even though a plot plan indicated a proposed location." He added that no plans, nor designs, were ever '-' submitted for a 3'" island. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 NOVEMBER4,1996 MINUTES PAGE 9 Page No. 011