HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2008-05-14u~N SAA,F
SO .~„ i , ~
O~ --=11,92
~ ~'
n
U O
_~~°
................
~`~~IFOR~~e'
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmen Addiego, Garbarino and Mullin,
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez.
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION:
PRESENTATION
Led by Mayor Gonzalez.
Given by Pastor John Cantley, Grace Covenant
Church.
Proclamation in honor of PTA Teacher and Staff Appreciation Week presented to El
Camino High School Teacher Thomas Coddington and South San Francisco Unified School
District Technology Office Coordinator, Jolene Malfatti.
Mayor Gonzalez presented the proclamation which stressed the importance of teachers and staff
in helping children to reach their full potential and proclaimed May 4-10, 2008 as PTA Teacher
and Staff Appreciation Week in South San Francisco.
El Camino High School Teacher Thomas Codington thanked Council for the Proclamation. In
response to a question from Councilman Addiego, he reported that earlier in the day, Teachers
from the South San Francisco Unified School District held a rally on the El Camino Real for the
purpose of protesting the Governor's budget cuts affecting education and to bring awareness to
the need for better state funding for schools.
Jolene Malfatti, President of Chapter 197 of the Classified School Employees serving the South
San Francisco Unified School District expressed appreciation for the recognition.
Proclamation in honor of National Public Works Week, May 18-24, 2008, presented to
Superintendent of Public Works Gary Batis and Public Works Maintenance employees.
Mayor Gonzalez presented the proclamation to Superintendent of Public Works Batis and
Public Works Supervisor, James Hardy; Senior Water Quality Plant Operator, Brian
Schumacker; Public Works Maintenance Worker Scott Brumbaugh; Senior Public Works
Maintenance Worker, Tom Donaldson; Public Works Maintenance Worker, Jeremiah Miller
and Water Quality Control Plant Operator, Imelda Mangubat. The proclamation established
May 18-24, 2008 as National Public Works Week in South San Francisco and noted that Public
Works employees are vital to the heailth, safety, and comfort of the community.
Superintendent of Public Works Batis thanked Council on behalf of the Public Works
Department. He also recognized Director Terry White for his leadership of the Department.
• PG&E's Cash Incentive Programs for energy efficient new homes presented by Armando
Navarro, Customer & Community Relations Manager of Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
PG&E Customer & Community Relations Manager Armando Navarro provided an overview of
cash incentive programs for energy efficient homes as follows:
NIr. Navarro began by noting that energy saving programs in California had been successful
and showed a graphic demonstrating that the state's per capita energy consumption had
become more efficient. He then explained that the Residential New Construction Program
was designed to transform the marketplace and link the building of new homes to ~,7een
building and sustainability. The program would benefit the immediate occupants of new
construction, the state and builders. Pursuant to the program, builders exceeding the energy
code by 15% would receive additional incentives from PG&E, which might yield crash
positive results for both large and small builders.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto thanked. PG&E for subsidizing energy efficient light bulbs. She
questioned whether PG&E had a dre-p off site for used or broken bulbs.
Mr. Navarro responded that many of the County's solid waste agencies and several retail stores
serve as drop-off locations.
Councilman Addiego commended PG&E for attempting to encourage energy efficient new
construction. He further expressed interest in PG&E's energy sources and specifically
questioned output at the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant and the impact of new solar tech~lology.
Mr. Navarro responded that the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant is responsible for 23% of PG&E's
power supply and that it came online in the 1980s. He further noted that such power plants
typically operate for 50-60 years. Regarding solar energy, he noted that advancements are
always forthcoming, including integrated photovoltaics, which convert light directly into
electricity. He further commented that solar panels have evolved to become more efficient and
aesthetically pleasing, such that the panels now become part of the buildings in which they are
installed and have multiple functions.
Councilman Mullin questioned whether wind power could be harnessed and utilized on a small
scale basis.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 2
Mr. Navarro responded that wind is t:he cheapest form of energy production. He stated,
however, that it is limited by location availability and requires ideal wind conditions. He
further confirmed small scale application of wind power is possible such that individual
homeowners or businesses could adapt it.
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
• Announcements.
• Committee Reports.
Councilmembers reported on attendance at community meetings and events and announced
upcoming programs. Council congratulated Mayor Gonzalez on throwing a strike from the
mound at AT&T Park during the previous evening's Centennial Night at the Giants' Game
Celebration in San Francisco. Council further spoke regarding public improvements and noted
fellow Councilmembers' and staff's efforts at various Rebuilding Together events in the
community. Council further recognized the Police Department for its hard work, which had
contributed to reducing crime in the City and thanked the Public Works Department and
Director Terry White for work on the scrub slurry seal project to improve the City's streets.
Residents were encouraged to consider the $35 SamTrans Summer Youth Pass for children 17
years of age and younger. Specific items for further action and/or consideration were set forth
as follows:
Councilman Mullin stated support for State Senate Bi11375 authored by Senator Daryl
Steinberg, which links transportation planning and funding to general land use planning and the
California Environmental Quality Act. He requested that the item be placed on a future agenda
and that Council consider passing a Resolution in support of the Bill.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated support for State Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which
would name the tunnel being constnzcted on Highway 1 at Devil's Slide "Tom Lantos Tunnel at
Devil's Slide" in honor of the late Congressman Lantos. She further suggested that
consideration of a letter supporting t:he Resolution be placed on a future agenda. She also
requested that the Police Department report back on an increase in auto burglary and larceny
and a reported 43% rise in calls for >ervice. She questioned whether specific types of cars
and/or neighborhoods within the City were being targeted by thieves and suggested that
pinpointing crimes online might be helpful; however, she wanted more information as to
whether pinpointing crimes online was good or bad. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto also requested
an update on when Caltrans would give the go-ahead on red light cameras. She further noted
the anticipated water crisis and questioned plans for shortages, particularly with respect to the
City's green spaces. She also requested that during the budget review process, Council consider
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 3
allocating funds to hire additional code enforcement staff to assist with bringing down aging
calls.
Mayor Gonzalez reported that he attended a Community Preservation Task Force meeting and
was requested to ask the Police Department whether it would be possible to have a patrol car in
the area of Old Town at Linden, Armor and Olive Avenues on Friday and Saturday evenings
around 10:00 p.m. to midnight due to parties that had recently gotten out of hand. Mayor
Gonzalez also confirmed Council's agreement to invite the Mayor of Kishiwada, Japan. to visit
the City during the Day in the Park Celebration in September. It was further established that
schedule depending, Mayor Pro Tem. Matsumoto would fill-in for Councilman Garbarino at the
Grand Boulevard Task Force meeting in June due to his attendance at the San Diego Biotech
Conference. Mayor Gonzalez also confirmed Council's agreement that applicants to the
Conference Center Authority who cauld not be present at the upcoming Special Meeting at
which interviews would be conducted be requested to participate in the meeting via
teleconference.
Councilmen Garbarino and Mullin a17reed to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee to review the
proposed Caltrain Station Design.
• Consideration of Resolution No. 47-2008 supporting reform of the bond rating system to
eliminate discrimination against :Municipal Bonds.
Mayor Gonzalez explained that in mid-April, the Board of Directors of the League of California
Cities joined a nationwide campaign to end longstanding practices discriminating against
municipal bonds. He advised that the League urged local governments and individuals to
support the effort and encouraged Council to pass a resolution in support of the initiative.
In response to questions from Council, Director of Finance Steele explained that the proposed
resolution would ask bond rating agencies to equalize the rating of municipal bonds.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned the fate of bonds when a City enters bankruptcy.
City Attorney Mattas explained that in the case of cities faced with bankruptcy, default depends
on the source of revenue securing the bond. If the particular source were part of the bankruptcy,
then a default on the affected bond may result.
Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Sec;ond- Councilman Addiego: to approve Resolution No. 47-
2008. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the minutes of March 19, 2008, April 16, 2008, April 19, 2008 and
Apri123, 2008.
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of May 14, 2008 in the amount of $5,244,686.45.
Motion to accept the BART Linear Park Phase I as complete in accordance with plans
and specifications.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 4
4. Motion to approve the final design of the Miller Avenue Parking Structure and authorize
the execution of a contract with Watry Design, Inc. for construction design of the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure.
Item pulled from Consent Calendar by Mayor Gonzalez to accommodate public
comment requested by resident Danny Swarzman.
Motion to waive reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1395-2008 amending Title 2 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding terms and term limits for members of
the City's Boards and Commissions.
6. Resolution No. 48-2008 approving the 111 Chestnut Avenue Subdivision Final Map and
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and authorizing the City Clerk to record said
map and all related documents, and accepting the dedication of the public utilities
easement for public use.
7. Resolution No. 49-2008 authorizing City Staff to apply for and receive up to $75,000
from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Recycled Water Facility Plan.
Item pulled from Consent Calendar by Councilman Addiego.
8. Resolution No. 50-2008 awarding an Inspection Services Contract for the 2007-2008
Scrub/Slurry Seal Project to CSG Consultants, Inc., of San Mateo, California, in an
amount not to exceed $40,000.
9. Resolution No. 51-2008 approving the Downtown Improvement Program and
authorizing funding for implementation of Phase 1 for $75,000 from the 2007-'2008
Redevelopment Agency Operating Budget.
10. Acknowledgement of Proclamation issued recognizing Municipal Clerks Week as May
4-May 10, 2008.
Motion- Councilman Addiego/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Consent Calendar
Item Nos. 1-3, 5, 6 and 8-10. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Item No. 7: Councilman Addiego questioned how the $75,000 grant from the State Water
Resources Control Board would affect the City's share of the cost of the Recycled Water
Facility Plan.
Director of Public Works White responded that the $173,000 project cost of the Facility
Plan would be reduced by the grant and then split equally among the City, SFPUC and Cal
Water.
Motion- Councilman Addiego/Second- Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto: to approve
Resolution No. 49-2008. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Item No. 4: Mayor Gonzalez called resident Danny Swarzman for public comment in response
to Mr. Swarzman's request to speak on Item No. 4. Mr. Swarzman had left the meeting
and did not respond to Mayor Gonzalez.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 5
Motion- Mayor Gonzalez/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve Consent Calendar
Item No. 4. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Recess: 8:48 p.m.
Meeting Resumed: 8:58 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
11. In accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.90, appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision regarding Planning Application P03-0004: PUD07-0001, which approved a
Planned Unit Development permit to allow a reduced front yard setback of 9 ft. and 6-
inches at 648 Commercial Avenue, in the R-3-L Multiple Family Residential Zone
District. Applicant/Property Owner: Javier and Elvira Valencia. Appellant: Mr. & Mrs.
Serafino Fontana. Interested parties: Mark Bucciarelli, George Corey, Rita Fontana and
David Silverman. Consideration of appeal and action upholding and/or overturning the
Planning Commission's determination.
Public Hearing Opened: 8:59 p.m.
Associate Planner Beaudin presented the staff report pertaining to the appeal of a planned unit
development ("PUD") located at 648 Commercial Avenue as follows:
Associate Planner Beaudin introduced the appeal by explaining that at its May 20, 2008
meeting, the Planning Commission approved the PUD application submitted for 648
Commercial Avenue; and further on April 1, 2008, the City Clerk received an appeal of
that decision from the owners of 654 Commercial Avenue. He noted that the owners of
648 Commercial Avenue, the; Valencia Family, had submitted a petition supporting the
project and signed by local residents.
Associate Planner Beaudin opined the history of circumstances leading to the appeal was
well documented in the March 2008 and October 2007 staff reports. The setback issue
and related square footage concerns were originally identified in August of 2007. The
project included a steel frame element built 9 feet and 4 inches from the front property
line, which failed to meet the; minimum setback requirements. An additional 5 linear
feet on the setback were incorporated into each of the floors of the house resulting in
200 additional square feet per floor and causing the project to exceed by 592 square feet
the allowable floor area established by the ratio set forth in the General Plan. The
setback issues arose because the property line was incorrectly located by the previous
designer on the project. As a result, the City approved plans showing the property line
in the wrong position. This issue was further exacerbated when the owner of the
property incorporated additional linear feet in the design. It was stressed that errors
were made by both the City and the owners of the 648 Commercial Avenue project.
Because the setback error was identified after the house was already under construction,
it would cost $35,000 to $50,000 to remedy the errors when the time value of money and
redesigning costs were added to the equation. Based on these circumstances, staff
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 6
developed and presented the Planning Commission with the following two solutions to
the difficult issue:
1) Demolish the offending portion of the house ("the City's Option"); or
2) PUD Option to allow formal Planning Commission consideration of the setback
deviation ("the Applicant's Option").
Although the project did not represent the traditional use of a PUD, the Commission
approved the PUD application at its March 20, 2008 meeting. It made the required
finding that the project fit within the neighborhood context, given that reduced front
yard setbacks in the 500, 600 and 700 block of Commercial Avenue were not unusual.
On April 1, 2008, the owners of 654 Commercial Avenue filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's determination with respect to 648 Commercial Avenue based upon the
following 3 points: 1) the circumstances represented an improper use of a PUD; 2) the
decision would have a detrimental precedent setting nature if permitted to stand; and 3)
the rear unit was illegal. Associate Planner Beaudin addressed each of these allegations
in turn.
He first responded that use of a PUD in this circumstance was within the City's legal
authority. He commented that the required findings of approval. for the PUD could be
supported and opined that thE: determination was not necessarily precedent setting due to
the unique circumstances of the case and the fact that preventative measures had been
implemented to make sure setback errors of this type would not occur in the future.
With respect to the legality of the rear garage and storage structure, Associate Planner
Beaudin explained that in March of 2007, the City's Chief Building Official determined
that both structures were legally non-conforming due to their presence in the 1960s.
Associate Planner Beaudin concluded that the Planning Commission's determination
was worthy of Council's support since the required findings for a PUD under the South
San Francisco Municipal Code had been met. Accordingly, staff recommended denial
of the appeal.
Attorney George Corey representing the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Serafino Fontana commented
that the 2 story garage in the back of the property was not a legal nonconforming use. Rather, it
was an illegal building built by Mr. Valencia sometime after 1972 with no side yard setback.
He then introduced Mr. Fontana who had owned the adjacent property since 1972.
Mr. Fontana explained that he had vratched the construction of the two story building at the
back of the property and noted that the resulting structure cuts off a window on his property.
Mr. Corey then presented the appellants argument as follows:
Mr. Corey displayed "Slide 4," a 1991 photo of the property, and stated that it provided
photographic evidence of the incorrect nature of the staff report's statement that the
structure existed in the 1960s. He commented that together with Mr. Fontana's
representations, Council had verbal and photographic evidence that the 2 story building
at the rear of the property was not present in 1991 and was, thus, illegal.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 7
Mr. Corey further stated that from the beginning his client argued the inappropriateness
of a PUD for this project, which he opined would set bad precedent. He argued that the
Planning Commission had never used a PUD used in this way and was really trying to
correct errors, problems and illegalities. Accordingly, he opined that upholding the
Planning Commission's determination would send the message that errors are curable
with a PUD application.
Mr. Corey then pointed to Section 20.84.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code pertaining to PUD applications and the issuance of other permits, which he opined
established issuance of a PUD as mandatory prior to commencement of construction.
He suggested that this language could not be avoided. He further commented that in the
absence of language establishing a PUD could be issued after the fact, the Plarviing
Commission's decision was in error and would establish that applicants are better off
violating the City's codes and then curing such violations with a PUD.
Mr. Corey further suggested that the Planning Commission's initial discussion on the
matter leaned towards denial of the application, but that the tide turned when Mr.
Valencia advised the Commission that his family had borrowed on the property and it
would sit for a very long time if it could not be completed as is. Mr. Corey stated that
Mr. Valencia did not tell the Commission that he had two other properties in South San
Francisco.
Mr. Corey concluded that Council should determine the circumstances to be improper
for a PUD application and overturn the Planning Commission's decision.
Attorney Mark Bucciarelli representing the appellees explained he was hired by the Valencia
Family to assist with resolution of the setback issue in August of 2007. He opined that progress
towards conformance of the property had been made beyond what was approved by the
Planning Commission and urged Council to approve the Planning Commission's verdict.
Resident Javier Valencia, the owner of 648 Commercial Avenue appeared and addressed
Council as follows:
Mr. Valencia stated that he and his family had been working very hard and had.
expended a lot of money to try to get the project to code. He commented that the City
had records on permits that were issued for the garage; and further, that the setback on
the garage unit was built close to the existing property line due to the nature of the
property lines which were characteristic of older construction in the City. He opined
that the Fontanas' appeal resulted because Mr. Valencia's family had performed some
work on the garage. During that construction, one of the legs on a scaffold was inside
the Fontana's property line. Mr. Valencia expressed regret that the friendship his family
had with Mr. Fontana was gone. He further explained that when he began construction
on the project, his architect had made some errors. Since those errors were discovered,
he had modified the project and removed some of its features in an effort to reach a
happy medium. Mr. Valencia further explained that the project had been stalled for
months since commencement of the approval process and the family had expended a
great amount of funds for a new architect, designer, fence rentals and scaffolding.
Regarding the additional properties referenced by Mr. Corey, Mr. Valencia commented
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 8
that they were bank owned. He concluded by stating that he and his family had been
trying to do everything on the project legally.
Public Hearing Closed: 9:29 p.m.
Councilman Mullin asked Mr. Valencia whether he and his family planned to live at 648
Commercial Avenue.
Mr. Valencia responded that he and his family were planning to live at the property.
Councilman Mullin questioned the discrepancy between the 1960s era aerial photo and the 1991
aerial photo and requested information about the discrepancy.
City Building Official Kirkman opined that the photos were not inconsistent. He advised that
the 1969 aerial photo showed the garage and a structure behind it and that the 1991 photo also
appeared to show two structures at the rear of the property. He noted, however that it was not
possible to discern how many stories the structures were comprised of and commented that
there appeared to be different rooflines on the structures between the two photos.
Councilman Addiego asked staff to explain the typical application of a PUD.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the Westborough Neighborhood provided a good
example of an area where a PUD would typically be used, because it is characterized by a lot of
units that are close together. He advised, however, that the PUD had also been applied. at the
other end of the spectrum to smaller lots and offered the Habitat for Humanity PUD applicable
to a parcel on the 400 block of Commercial Avenue as an example of such use.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto commented that a PUD typically is utilized in circumstances
involving multiple units and is usually decided prior to commencement of a project as opposed
to being applied as a correction after the fact.
City Attorney Mattas advised that the zoning ordinance Mr. Corey referenced did not prevent
the use of a PUD for the type of parcel at issue. He noted that the ordinance specifically
referenced single unit, two unit or multiple unit developments. He acknowledged that the
common used of a PUD is for multiple family developments. He stated, however, that. pursuant
to the ordinance, Council had the authority to use a PUD in the circumstances at issue. He
further respectfully disagreed with Mr. Corey's reading of the ordinance as overly narrow.
While City Attorney Mattas acknowledged that the ordinance included the phrase "prior to
commencing construction," he stated that this applied to construction consistent with a PUD.
He reminded Council that development on the site had been stopped prior to the PUD
application and it could not continue until a PUD was approved.
Councilman Garbarino stated he was uncomfortable using a PUD in these circumstances. He
questioned Mr. Valencia as to whether he asked for permission for the scaffolding to encroach
on Mr. Fontana's property during the period the garage was being worked on.
Mr. Valencia responded that he did not request Mr. Fontana's permission because he believed
they had a good relationship. He further commented that he did not believe it was necessary to
request Mr. Fontana's permission since the scaffolding did not block any passageway and he
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 9
did not think the scaffolding was encroaching on the property. He noted that he removed the
scaffolding upon request.
Mr. Fontana commented that dust was flying all over the place during this construction and that
the fence on his property was knocked down.
Councilman Mullin questioned the basis of staff's assurances that upholding the Planning
Commission's decision would not have a precedent setting effect on future PUD applications.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the precedent setting nature of the decision would be
minimized by three required findings for a PUD, including physical suitability with
neighborhood character, general plan conformity and a finding that the project is not detrimental
to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons residing in the vicinity. He
opined that the present circumstances were unique because no major deviation from what exists
in the surrounding area was presented, given that front yard setbacks in the area varied from 0-
25 feet. He further noted that the complications in this instance arose due to the initial setback
error and that the Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions had taken many steps to make
sure this circumstance would not reoccur.
Councilman Mullin noted that the conditions of approval dated March 20, 2008 referenced a
window modification. He questioned whether the applicant was being required to come
forward with a modified widow design to alter the front portion of the house.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the originally approved plans included a bowed bay
window. He advised that the bowed portion had been moved back to 9 feet and 4 inches so that
the front elevation was consistent with the ground floor of the house. He further advised that
this modification and others would be required to go through the design review process prior to
the issuance of building permits and noted that staff had worked with the applicant offline on
some of these modifications with the understanding that the appeal was pending.
Councilman Addiego expressed displeasure with Associate Planner Beaudin's comment that
staff had worked with the applicant offline on design modifications.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the applicant understood there was no guarantee of
approval.
City Attorney Mattas advised that the issue before Council was the PUD and not the fact that
staff may have been looking at preliminary drawings. He noted, however, that it was within
Council's pervue to make expressions of disappointment to the City Manager and staff.
Councilman Addiego questioned whether the properties immediately neighboring the 648
Commercial parcel on the right and left hand side had respective 15 foot side yard setbacks. He
further questioned whether the bay window that carried forward into the setback on the 648
Commercial property would be less encroaching if it were a balcony.
Associate Planner Beaudin confirmed the Fontana Building had a 15 foot side yard setback with
a deck that encroached 5 feet into the front yard setback. He further confirmed that the
property's other neighboring building had a 15 foot side yard setback with encroaching
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 10
balconies. Regarding whether balconies would be less encroaching than the bay window,
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that in his opinion, balconies would no less encroaching.
Councilman Addiego commented the circumstances presented an unfortunate situation
involving two fine families. He opined that the seven unit apartment built on the Fontana
property was somewhat of an overbuild. But acknowledged that the project at 648 Commercial
was taking away some of the livability of the adjacent parcel, which was complicated by the fact
that the City had signed off on the project at some point. He commented that he was saddened
by the dispute between two good families.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned whether the PUD application was for the entire site.
Associate Planner Beaudin confirmed the application was for the entire site.
With respect to the petition submitted by the Valencia Family, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto
commented that the issue was not one that could be resolved with a popularity contest. She
stated that she would vote to affirm or overturn the Planning Commission's decision based upon
procedures, policies and the City's ordinances, and not friendships. She further observed that
Mr. Valencia firmly believed the City was responsible for the error, but she opined that as a
contactor he should have been aware; that the foundation would be larger as a result of the
additional 5 feet of overall length.
City Building Official Kirkman responded that based on the original plans submitted with the
incorrect property line, the setback appeared to be correct.
Councilman Mullin commented that the circumstances represented a less than ideal situation
that the Planning Commission struggled with after errors were made. He opined that despite
this fact, a solution had been forged with the use of a PUD in this very unique circumstance.
Accordingly, he planned to support 1:he Planning Commission's decision.
Councilman Garbarino commented 1:hat he hoped Council would never have to see another
situation similar to this one. He requested staff's assurances that all precautions would be taken
and suggested that when appropriate;, projects be surveyed by an independent licensed surveyor
and then checked by City staff. He further commented on the potential helpfulness of other
precautionary measures, including posting a sign at the project site identifying the project scope.
Mayor Gonzalez commented on the difficulty of the decision before Council and noted he was
saddened by the dispute between the two families. He questioned when the setback
requirements affecting the property at issue changed.
City Building Official Kirkman responded that the code still permits property owners to build to
the property line if the zoning code allows it, but the construction materials must be more fire
resistant. He further observed that the building codes only recognize structures as they get close
to the property line.
City Attorney Mattas responded that if Mayor Gonzalez's question pertained to the side yard
setback requirement, the issue was one of zoning. He noted. that the zoning code established a 5
foot side yard setback. Accordingly, absent a PUD or other variance a new addition would have
to comply with this requirement.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 11
Mayor Gonzalez questioned whether there was a solution with respect to the building at the
back of the property that concerned Mr. Fontana.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the planning and development approval requirements
mandated that the second story of the structure be removed.
City Attorney Mattas responded by observing that when the aerial photographs Mr. Corey
submitted and the 1960s photo were considered, it did not appear that the structure towards
Commercial Avenue was as large as the structure on the property at present. He opined that
clarification of this uncertainty might be helpful to Council's determination.
Upon Council's request, Mr. Valencia stated that the structure had been there since his family
purchased the house in 1986.
Mr. Fontana stated that the building was built without any permit and Mr. Valencia told him it
was going to be used as a tool shed.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto observed that staff presented the Planning Commission with two
options. She requested clarification as to the basic differences between the two options and the
rationale behind the Planning Commission's choice of what was termed "the Applicant;'s
Option."
Associate Planner Beaudin explained that the other option, termed "the City's Option" did not
involve a PUD and required removal. of the bowed construction, the steel frame projecting into
the front yard setback and much of the design integrity at the front of the home. However,
because the Planning Commission found the design compatible with the neighborhood, it
granted the PUD application, which was presented as "the Applicant's Option." Mr. Beaudin
further clarified that the titles of "the City's Option" and the "Applicant's Option" did not have
any particular significance, but rather were simply selected as naming conventions to facilitate
discussion at the Commission level.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto noted the staff report represented that the City's Design Review
Board generally supported the project. She requested identification of any caveats suggested by
the Board.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that the Design Review Board suggested modifications
typically integrated in a plan check and suggested small tweaks to the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated that she intended to support the appeal and opined that the
issue never should have gotten to this point. She further stated that she believed the use of a
PUD to be inappropriate in this instance.
Ms. Rita Fontana opined that the original 1 car garage structure that stood where the current
garage was located would have beers existing nonconforming. She noted, however, that the new
2 story structure was right on the property line following the wall of the 1951 structure; and was
larger than the former 1 car garage. She stated that the entire structure should be removed or
moved over 5 feet to respect the setback.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 12
City Attorney Mattas advised that Cc-uncil could continue deliberations, vote to overturn the
Planning Commission decision or uphold it. He further stated that Council should be aware that
it had 60 days from the close of the public hearing to make a determination. He suggested that
the issues had not been fully vetted in the sense of identifying exactly when the 2 story structure
near the rear of the unit was constructed. He further commented that in the context of a PUD,
Council would have the discretion to ask the applicant to move part of the 2 story rear structure
to get it off of the side yard setback.
Councilman Addiego noted he wanted to offer some relief for the existing apartment structure
owned by the Fontanas. He further commented that he didn't want to spoil the Valencias'
glorious home, which might be a plus for the neighborhood. Accordingly, if the applicant was
willing to sacrifice the entire 2 story rear structure at the Lane he would otherwise be supportive
of the Planning Commission's determination.
Associate Planner Beaudin commented that although the 2 story structure could be removed, the
garage would have to remain.
Mr. Valencia responded that he would be willing to remove the 2 story rear structure iri order to
move forward and build his family's home.
Councilman Mullin questioned whether Council would be jeopardizing a 1 car garage
requirement if it pursued this option.
Associate Planner Beaudin responded that with a PUD there would be a possibility to waive the
covered parking requirement. He opined, however, that there was plenty of room fora 200
square foot garage to meet current setback requirements.
Mr. Valencia clarified that the structure Mr. Fontana wanted removed was not actually the
garage, but the 2 story unit behind it. Accordingly, he would not have to remove the garage, but
would remove the 2 story unit behind it in its entirety.
Mr. Fontana stated that he wanted the structure in back of the garage to be entirely removed.
He further stated that the garage didn't bother him.
Mr. Valencia agreed to this condition.
Motion- Mayor Gonzalez/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision with respect. to Planning Application P03-0004: PUD07-0001 subject to
the additional condition that the applicant would remove the 2 story structure behind the garage.
Unanimously approved by voice vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested that staff go through its records and determine when
PUDs had been used in similar situations.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MA.Y 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 13
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
12. Resolution No. 52-2008 accepting a 2.34% increase in refuse collection rates effective
July 1, 2008.
Director of Finance Steele explained that the City's Franchise Agreement with the South San
Francisco Scavenger Company for garbage pick-up is split into three year cycles. The .formula
and timing of rate increases proscribed in the agreement yielded a 2.34% rate increase i;or fiscal
year 2008-2009.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto noted that the City's contract with the Scavenger Company was set
up so that customers' rates would be 5% less than the mean garbage collection rate. She
questioned whether the proposed increase was within this standard.
South San Francisco Scavenger Company's Chief Financial Officer Paul Formosa so confirmed.
Mayor Gonzalez questioned when the City's Agreement with the Scavenger Company
terminates and Councilman Addiego questioned when the Agreement began.
Mr. Formosa responded that the Agreement was established in 1997, ends in 2017 and is
followed by a 10 year option.
Councilman Addiego and Mayor Gonzalez raised questions pertaining to the clean-up and pick-
up programs offered to residents twice a year and inquired as to the feasibility of voucher
programs for such clean-up.
Mr. Formosa responded that the Scavenger Company is willing to consider new programs. He
advised the Company stopped the annual scheduled clean-up programs because it caused
substantial intake during a single period. By giving customers two yearly pick-ups on an as
needed basis, the Company is able to sort through the materials and process the debris more
efficiently. He further commented that out of a customer base of 13,000, the Company receives
roughly 7000-8000 yearly requests for pick-ups.
Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second- Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto: to approve Resolution
No. 52-2008. Unanimously approved by voice vote.
13. Transmittal of Annual Financial and External Audit Reports and motion to accept and
file the proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Financial and External Audit Reports.
Director of Finance Steele advised that Council had previously seen the year end results for
2006-2007. He explained that the report under consideration included two new items completed
by the auditors during the last month. The first item was a memorandum regarding internal
controls and the second item was a Single Audit Report.
Regarding internal controls, Director of Finance Steele explained the auditors recommended
that the reconciliation performed by a staff member should be reviewed, approved and. signed
by a senior person in the Department. With regard to the Single Audit Report, the auditors
noted that CDBG reports required to be filed with HUD should be reconciled back to the
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 14, 2008
MINUTES PAGE 14
general ledger. The Finance Department had implemented procedures consistent with these
recommendations.
Motion- Councilman Garbarino/Second- Councilman Addiego: to accept and file the
proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Financial and External Audit Reports. Unanimously approved
by voice vote.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto encouraged a concerted effort to get the Finance Department fully
staffed. She further commented that she would like charts and graphs included in staff reports
to Council to be in color where color gradations and/or variations are necessary to understand
the information being conveyed.
COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM:
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. in memory of
South San Francisco Conference Center Employee, Carolyn Tam.
Submitted by:
st Martinelli- r on, City Clerk
City South Sa Francisco
Approved:
_......~
Pedro Gonzalez, or
City of South San Francisco
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MAY 14, 2008
PAGE 15