Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/04/2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE October 4, 2001 CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7 :30 D.m. ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner D'Angelo, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Romero and MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Meloni City Attorney: Engineering: Police Dept.: Bldg./Fire Prevo Marty Van Duyn, E & C D Director Thomas C. Sparks, Chief Planner Kimberly Johnson John Gibbs, Public Works Director Sgt. Mike Newell Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official STAFF PRESENT: Planning Division: AGENDA REVIEW None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING - AGENDA ITEMS 1. City of South San Francisco-owner PCA-00-006 (Continued from September 20, 2001) Abandonment of Portion of Public Right-of-Way (Second Lane). General Plan Conformity Finding for a potential sale by the City of South San Francisco of property located within the Second Lane public right-of- way behind 211 Baden Avenue in the Downtown COlnmercial (D-C) District, in accordance with Section 65402 of State Planning Law. Assistant City Attorney Johnson This item was before you two weeks ago and Commission raised several concerns which staff are prepared to address regarding the project itself, however the action before you tonight is for consistency determination under Government Code Section 65402. That section requires a planning agency to consider a sale or abandonment of City property and inquiring to the location of the property the intent of the sale and the purpose. The outcome of that consideration is whether or not the sale is consistent with the General Plan. Our office has reviewed the sale, the transaction and the location of the property and reviewed the General Plan and has determined that the sale would be consistent with the General Plan. In terms of the legal requirements, they have been met. However the projects specific requirements will now be addressed by Mr. John Gibbs, our Director of Pubic Works. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works Before you is the staff report concerning the property that the City Attorney was just alluding to. However, in the discussion of the staff report there are some errors I need to bring to your attention and need to correctly state for the record here. Regarding the description of the item that we are S :\Minutes\linalized\1 0040 1 RI)C.doc Page 1 of 12 talking about this evening that just came from the City Attorney I need to explain to you what it was and how it CaIn about. It's not what is described in the discussion in this staff report. The piece of property we are talking about is a 1 foot strip that goes up along side of the Giorgi store and the Central Fire Station. There used to be a old house, which is gone now, between the store and the Central Fire Station. What happened during construction the contractor preparing these footings ultimately constructed them excavated the backhoe. He poured the footing against the excavated trench, placed the rebar in the trench and constructed the foundation. On inspection, it was found that the actual footing varied from 3 inches to 6 inches outside of Giorgi's property line into the property that is now owned by the City Of South San Francisco. We looked at this and tried to figure out what was the best thing to do. We talked to the building officials and asked if it could be chipped out. If we chip it out, do we expose rebar? The answer came back possibly yes. We then considered another kind of option bearing in mind that by this time the footings around the building had been poured and we decided that probably the easiest and the most convenient and less troublesome thing to do would be to sell Giorgi a 1 foot strip of our property. We went ahead and did an analysis to come up with a square foot cost. The analysis was somewhere between 60-80 dollars a square foot. It was somewhere in the middle there. We think it was a fair price. So what is before you tonight is to approve the sale of this 1 foot strip of City property that runs along side of Giorgi's warehouse. Commissioner Sim When that was identified at that time I guess there were other mitigation measures. Obviously that alternative was the one that you articulated, but in other jurisdictions when certain things happen at beginning stages we require demolition of that work John Gibbs, Director of Public Works This is true. If indeed a major problem would evolve whereby the property that was damaged so to speak, encroached upon, couldn't be bought or in some cases when developers are excavating and come across things that were not supposed to be there so that they have to buy additional land to get around it. In this case, we felt that it would be quite a bit of work to dig it out. I'm not sure that when we actually looked at it to see whether it was worth doing this or not, we took it to management and tried to come up with a reasonable method of solving this problem. Bearing in mind that we already sold Giorgi a considerable amount of property to build this facility it didn't seem to be a any problem to the City to recommend to sell this extra 1 foot. The reason, of course, we are selling it because if indeed that property that belongs to the City comes up for sale there would be a problem with this 1 foot strip if we just had given an encroachment permit. So yes and no. The answer is, in City Of South San Francisco we don't really build a lot of buildings on zero lot lines. It's very rare. The top of this footing is some 2 feet below grade so although the fence will stay the same you will have that 1 foot strip through there. So that there will not be any problems with lot lines if indeed the City chooses to sell that property or build a new fire station on it which is what we are looking at right now. Commissioner Teglia The reason it is back before us that this is obviously the best way to handle the situation right now. The frustration behind this project and from the earliest walls going up and the foundations is at least I don't believe is what this Planning Commission originally intended to approve sizewise, especially the setback on Baden Avenue. If you look every other building/business along that street they all line straight up. There is a setback This building is right on the street and we brought it up in the beginning. It is such a glaring oversight on our part. I would have thought that someone would have put the brakes on early on. Not just with the footings on the side but where they were putting the foundation on Baden. The plans show landscaping on Baden and I don't believe that there is going to be enough room for that landscaping now. The big question, obviously right now we need to solve this particular problem and this is the best vehicle to do it, I brought up last time is how did we allow this to happen? Anyone going up Baden Avenue looking at that building lmows it is built way too close to the street. This not the first time that something has been approve by the Planning Commission and later on we found, in fact right above Parkway is another development, that standards were changed after approval during inspection process and I guess what we probably need to do is take a look at that see if we can find a way to not let it happen in the future. Put some controls in. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works I understand the frustration that you must go through I would think that. Tom, can you address some of the comments that Mark has made? Chief Planner Sparks Yes, we actually have addressed them before. To go back about the right-of-way acquisition and the fact that we collectively didn't notice that right-of-way for the sidewalk there is narrower because of the widening of Baden SOlne years ago. Richard Harmon, who has a great institutional memory for us, told us how that occurred. You are quite right, it doesn't match the rest of the setbacks. It is what we have. In S :\Minutes\linalized\1 004,0 1 RPC.doc Page 2 of 12 terms of some of the other specifics we have Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official, here to address some of the other questions you asked at the last meeting. He has provided a brief report for you. Commissioner Honan In regards to the landscaping, what was agreed upon verses what can be put in there now? Do you have an idea of what the percentage is of how much smaller it is? Chief Planner Sparks I don't have the plans in front of me and I haven't looked at them recently. The frontage along Linden will be largely landscaped. There is a considerable setback That is the front entry to the store and that is where the landscaping is for the most part. There isn't much elsewhere. Commissioner Honan Personally, I need to know what was originally approved for the landscaping. What they put in there now. If it is considerably smaller or will be, is there an in-lieu fee that we are charging? Chief Planner Sparks I don't believe they have changed the landscaping requirements. We can report back to you on that at a subsequent meeting. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works Obviously the Planning Division will address your issue regarding the landscaping. If I may suggest that we can bring back to you the landscape plan, so that you can see it and review it. Chief Planner Sparks I have the landscape plan. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works He has your answer for you. But you may still want to see that and see how it is going to look Commissioner Honan Mr. Gibbs, if my understanding is that this building is correct, the front of the building is incorrect from what the plans are and now the side of the building is incorrect as well as the back John Gibbs, Director of Public Works Let Ine explain where I'm coming from. I'm dealing with the footing here. I'm not dealing with the walls that support the building. My understanding is that all the walls are in the right place. The footing just got a little wider because of poor construction on behalf of the contractor. We felt it was prudent just to sell him that piece of land. The actual buildings apart from Tom's copy regarding the right-of way the actual building size is according to the plans and specifications. Commissioner Honan Thank you. If you could answer the landscape question now. Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official The landscaping does provide 8 recessed planter boxes along the front as the original drawings were approved. You don't see those in place yet because obviously there is no plants or dirt in them. Along the front of the structure on Baden Avenue, there are 8 recessed planter boxes approximately 20 feet wide and approximately 21/2 to 3 feet deep along the entire frontage on Baden. So the landscaping that was originally designed for this structure, will be there and will is being put in it's place. Nothing has changed from the original design. You just don't see it yet. It looks like the wall is a straight face but there are planter boxes on the entire line of that structure. So nothing has changed from the original drawing. There is landscaping in there. It's just going to be an elevated landscape. It is not a softscape as you see on the Linden Avenue side. Commissioner Teglia Didn't we originally have some trees along Baden? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official I don't know that. Commissioner Teglia My understanding and I've discussed this and what I've been told is there was some landscaping some trees on Baden and that no longer fits. The questions is what is going to be planted in those boxes. I believe what was originally envisioned is not going to fit today. Commissioner D' Angelo Jim, would you address the ADA? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official There was question as to whether the sidewalk in front of the structure was in ADA compliance. The ADA compliance on a 2-way traffic sidewalk, where wheelchairs can go both ways, it is only 48 inches requirement and our City standards are 48 inches and the actual sidewalk is 49 inches. The existing sidewalk really doesn't have anything to do with the building itself other than the City put the sidewalk in and it does Ineet the current standards and it does meet the City standards. Vice Chairperson Romero Mr. Gibbs, with regard to the decision that was made to sell property. We hire professionals to monitor projects. The owner of the property hired professionals to survey the project to prepare the foundation to form it. If they made the mistake, wouldn't it be the subcontractors responsibility to fix their mistake rather than for the City bail them out. The problem I have with that is this is right next to the Fire Department and there are plans to rebuild it. Once this was redtagged, it was determined there was a problem with the foundation. That would have been an opportunity to have this come back to the Commission at that time S :\Minutes\lil1alized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 3 of 12 so that we could have a closer review of it. When we reviewed this initially we assumed that there were going to be appropriate setbacks and all of this had been predetermined, only to find out that later that no we didn't look at it as closely as we should have. This is what staff indicated to us. It was discovered there was a problem. When it was discovered that there was a problem, rather than fixing the probleln we decided to overlook it. Can't understand why we would not address the issue and try to fix it rather than just to overlook it. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works, In answer to your first question, the responsibility for encroaching onto someone else's property when you are constructing something is the responsibility of the person who is constructing it and that ultimately goes to the person who hires him, etc etc. In this case, the contractor is responsible for encroaching on City property and I believe Giorgi is actually making him pay the 10 thousand dollars that is involved in buying this. I was unaware of any other problems. I was just looking for a simple solution, a quick solution to get this problem over with. We didn't think it ranges from 3-6 inches encroachment and we didn't think it was worth it to make him go to the horrendous job of tearing out this footing. This footing is a considerable size and would have taken a lot of work and a lot of time and it would have ultimately been put back in the same place that it was in because we did investigate whether he could just chip back this 3 inches or 6 inches where it wandered through that strip of land and get back to where it was supposed to be. The scare was that he would expose rebar and we would have an unsound building in our jurisdiction. The choice was take the whole thing out or buy this 1 foot strip. As you can imagine and I'm not wishing to sound like I'm on the side of the developer but taking that strip of footing out would of cost a lot more than the purchase price of that 1 foot strip. As far as the actual building architecture and the size and the fact that it could have been brought back to the Planning Commission I'm not qualified to deal with that. Maybe Tom can address that with you. We did think about it. We did look into it. At one time we were going to ask the contractor to X-ray the footing to find out exactly where the rebar was so that I could ask him to chip it out. But in talking to the people who put the rebar in the foundation, they told me where it was and it was a collective decision to just sell them this 1 foot strip. Commissioner Sim On that point of the foundations, professionals carry errors and omissions insurance. Contractors have insurance also for any potential errors. Those documents that are provided for building permits are legal that need to significantly conform to health, life safety and welfare issues. I take it very serious that if there is any deviation on these documents and that the construction doesn't conform to that what was permitted at the building permit level. Those are in fact not correct documents. Contractors do hold insurance policies and that could have covered that part. Vice Chairperson Romero The point I would like to make is that at the time that this was redtagged, it was determined there was a problem. That's the time when it should have been brought to the Commission or Council. This is now many months later; the proj ect has already been built and we are being asked to make a decision that basically has already been made for us. I find that difficult because there was an opportunity to see it before the project went forward and it was not given to us. This is a procedural issue that this should have been done. Procedure should have been followed. If this is when you require a decision to determine whether or not the land should be sold. That should have been done before the project went forward not after the project is built. Regarding the inspections, it indicates in section 4 who inspected the forms, Senior Building Inspector Mammini, inspected the placement of the reinforcement and setbacks prior to pouring, December 11 tho There were no exterior forms due to the depth of the footings. Can you explain that? I don't understand who there could be no interior and exterior forms. Once the cement raise it is going to pour out. Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official The dirt is actually the form for the footing to hold the concrete. The footing is the below grade structure element of the building. The foundation of the structure is below grade. All they did was come in with a backhoe and excavate the depth of the footing and installed the rebar. They were using the dirt to be the form to hold in place the concrete. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works What they would do if this is your finished grade is take a backhoe and dig a trench the size of the footing. They will measure it at the top and say it is supposed to be 24 inches wide and as you lmow the guy going down with the backhoe is not going to have, if he is using the dirt as his form, an exact 24 in width of his footing. The grade checker sets the elevation to the top of the footing and then they place the rebar which has to have a minimum of 3 inches of cover because it is against dirt and they pour the concrete in and the finisher finishes the top of the footing that the elevation required to construct the building. If indeed this S :\Minutes\linalized\1 004.0 1 RPC.doc Page 4. of 12 had been constructed with forms, the 3-6 inch overage would not have happened. It happened because it was being constructed with the backhoe and they were using the actual trench for the forms to pour the foundation. Vice Chairperson Romero Were these inspected prior to being poured? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official Yes. In the process of construction we ask that the developer set string lines done by an engineer. Surveyor sets these string lines for building setbacks. That's when our inspectors go out usually done at underfloor plumbing stage to make sure that we have the building in the right spot. Then the excavators come in after they fill the trenches with the plumbing so they can get on site and stringlines usually get picked out because they have backhoes in there. Then we come back and we make an assumption that the building is in the proper place. It looks close but if it is off by a couple of inches we will find out and the rebar is checked at that point. Our concern is that the clearance to the rebar because that is the reinforcement of the building. There are actually 3 checks prior to pouring concrete. The first one was to string out and make sure as to where it was supposed to go so they know where to put the plumbing and the inspectors lmow where to inspect. The second time is for the reproportioning and then we go out there to inspect when we ask them to restring the building when they start their walls to make sure they are actually supposed to be there. At that point that's when we discovered the overage when the actual wall strings were in place. Vice Chairperson Romero What I'm concerned about is if this was not done properly is this wall going to fall? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official If a form board would have stopped the overage of the concrete the only way to do that would be to overexcavate on City property. They would have to dig a trench equal size on our property to get down in there to form these forms. These things are almost 4 feet deep. Vice Chairperson Romero They could have also gone inside. Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official The foundation of the building is a flat slab and drops down. You don't want to go beyond the building because that is not their property. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works This form of construction is not unusual. This is a normal way of putting a footing in for supporting a building. The problem we have here is that it was so close to the lot line that the controls weren't in place to stop the encroachment. Very little of what we do gets in the right place even when we are building columns and driving piles we are constantly adjusting buildings as they get constructed not by feet but certainly by inches. Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official The amount of reinforcement was the concern of exposing that reinforcement of the foundation. Where the footing ends on the building wall is actually where the slough over of their dig occurred. At the time they started constructing that wall and restringing the building that is when it was identified and that is when we told them to stop work until we figure out what we were going to do. Vice Chairperson Romero So it is 4 feet 6 inches. Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official Right and the excavator actually went deeper than this. This should actually be 30 inches at the top of the grade and it is 42-48 inches in depth. In order to chip off 6 inches of concrete you would have to chip off 4 feet straight down. Without over excavating over on the City's side, we found that almost impossible. Vice Chairperson Romero The same thing occurred at the back of the building as well as the side. Is that why we are mitigating? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official Not for the same reason. The foundation in the rear of the structure is a little more than 2 feet below grade on the lane side. Vice Chairperson Romero So the problem exists both on the side of the building toward the fire station and the back of the building toward the lane. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works If you look at the plan again, besides the 1 foot section there was another little section that encroached on the lane and that is how the mix up got in the staff report. Vice Chairperson Romero Is that section also going to be sold? John Gibbs, Director of Public Works No. Vice Chairperson Romero Is that ever going to cause any problems for the City if they ever have to replace the lane and dig it up? John Gibbs, Director of Public Works No, actually because they have encroached we are making them do some considerable repair to the lane. In the future, once the lane changes or the City decides to do something else with s: \Minutes\finalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 5 of 12 it, it would be the responsibility of the owner of this building to bring this piece of foundation back into conformance. Now it was felt it was not doing any harm doing it this way. Assistant City Attorney Johnson For clarification for the Commission, that small portion of property on Second Lane will be subject to an encroachment permit with the City so that the liability if apportioned appropriately so the City maintains full rights without any expense in the event that we do have to widen the lane and take part of that foundation. It will all addressed in the encroachment permit that is being prepared for that particular portion. Vice Chairperson Romero The only section we are worried about is the left hand side of the building not the rear? Assistant City Attorney Johnson That is correct. Commissioner D'Angelo Just for clarification, what is the impact of a negative vote? Assistant City Attorney Johnson The impact of the negative vote would be that the Commission has found that the sale of this property is inconsistent. At that point staff could recommend that the City Council hear that on appeal. If the Commission were inclined to find that it is inconsistent, I would ask that the record be established so that we could clearly communicate to the City Council what the Commission's concerns were with the General Plan and evaluate them. Commissioner Honan When a property is red tagged, what is the proper procedure that the City should follow? When they discovered this was red tagged on January 5th can you walk us through the steps? Chief Planner Sparks I was not involved in this, but red tagging is usually (Mr. Kirkman could explain this in n10re detail) finding a violation in the forms or in something they are constructing that is beyond code. If you are putting up a stick built house you'd have to fix it but in this case the judgement was that there was a better fix than requiring the removal of the concrete. Commissioner Honan Could you please walk us through Mr. Kirkman? Jim Kirkman, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official There are multiples reasons for red tagging, but this particular reason is it deviated from the plans of allowing to build on someone else property which is not allowed. At that time we issue what is called in terms of red tag which means stop work on that portion of the building which has been identified as conforming with the plans or conforming with the codes which was done. After that obviously that sparks the curiosity of both the owner and the contractor they went to Building and dialogue was started as to how to rectify this. We identified 3 or 4 options for them to fix this overage of concrete on someone else's property. The decision was kicked up to the City Manager's office because the decision was out of our realm. It is a project and the City wants the project. That decision to stop work was our decision. The decision to maintain that stop work was our decision and the management. To continue the process was after one of those options that was chosen that was most palatable option to go ahead and continue with work knowing that this was going to be rectified in the long term. Commissioner Honan Who decides what the correct decision should be? Assistant City Attorney Johnson I believe I can address this. The decision to sell the property was considered by the City Council in Executive session in consultation with the Director of Public Works, John Gibbs and the City Attorney. At that time without going too far into the contents of the Executive Session, they directed staff to prepare purchase and sale agreement for this discreet strip of property. The other items discussed in the closed session I am not able to convey at this time. Commissioner Honan I'm confused. If it's decided, where is our role in this? Assistant City Attorney Johnson I'm very glad you asked that. Your role is actually mandated by statute because under the laws of California when you have an adopted General Plan and you have a Planning Agency the sale of property is within your jurisdiction to make a General Plan consistency finding. Once the decision to sell the property has been made. It is a procedural requirement. It is triggered by various things. Whether it is a sale of our property or sale of easement or other things that may require the Commission to make a consistency finding. The bottomline is because the law says you have to find that it confonns or that it doesn't conform. That is why staff brought it to you. In terms of the consistency finding, I reviewed the General Plan and it is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and I have not found anything that is inconsistent. The decision is really the Commission as to whether it is consistent or not consistent. Commissioner Teglia What was the date of that Executive Session? S :\Minutes\linalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 6 of 12 Assistant City Attorney Johnson I have an email pending to the City Attorney on that, but I believe that the Executive Session was about 3 or 4 months ago. I would be happy to give you that date once I receive it. Commissioner Teglia That's okay. That pretty much answers the question. Going back to Commissioner Honan's question and I don't want to belabor this too much obviously we are stuck now. But 3 or 4 months ago the City Council would have been obligated at that point too. The decision was already made. Somebody made the decision further back and what City Council has now said let's go ahead and do it. Weare probably here to do the same thing. Somebody made a decision early on for construction to continue. That did not happen in Executive Session. My question is who made that decision. I think that would be the City Manager is that correct? Assistant City Attorney Johnson I would just like to clarify something Commissioner Teglia. The actual purchase and sale contract has not been executed. The matter is still pending in Executive Session awaiting the decision of this Commission on the General Plan consistency finding. Our office would not approve the agreement as to form as we are required to do unless we had this finding. That is one of the reasons that once we got along in the process we started identifying procedure. Procedure mandated that we come before you and request that you consider this for General Plan consistency. Commissioner Teglia I understand that but the question is going back on the procedure for the redtag was at that time maybe we should have been involved at that point or maybe City Council should have been involved at this point. My understanding is that it was simply a management decision construction was allowed to continue and now we are going through an obligatory procedurals. That has nothing to do with the fact that the building is built and that took place a long tilne ago. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works For the record I think what you'll find when the City Attorney does come up with that date, that the Closed Council session was maybe 6 or 7 months ago. Vice Chairperson Romero I have one last question for the City Attorney. You have indicated to us that you find that the this would be in conformity with the General Plan. Is there any specific section in the General Plan that could be recited? Assistant City Attorney Johnson For inconsistency? Vice Chairperson Romero For consistency. Assistant City Attorney Johnson While in the Downtown Commercial it does allow the minimal setback for existing businesses and the policies and objectives of the General Plan that encourage the expansion of existing businesses and the development in the Downtown Commercial area would support essentially if I could just bottom line the Commission here. What this amounted to was whether or not the City wanted to require the project applicant, project sponsor to tear out what was then existing construction. The follow-up to that was whether or not we could actually require it if the project applicant chose to fight us. One of the things under consider when I reviewed this was whether or not it would be equitable and whether or not we could get a court to agree that it was equitable to require a remedy such as removing the construction rather than a remedy of selling the 6-12 inch strip of property. That was one of the considerations. In terms of specific policies, Section 3.1-1-5 Planning Sub Element Downtown Commercial, allows reduced setbacks and open space requirements for Downtown Residential not necessarily Downtown Commercial. It says to be consistent with downtown's traditional development pattern. The other ones I have not written down on this General Plan before. Perhaps Mr. Sparks who was more involved in the General Plan would be able to identify further policies and objectives in the General Plan for you. Chief Planner Sparks I've given this some thought and at the risk of putting you in the position of trying to prove a negative, I was unable to come up with anything that suggests that the General Plan actually address a sale like this. It seems to have no effect visible on the ground on the City's interest on Giorgi's interest aside from avoiding the expense of undoing this overflow of the concrete. Basically it is not a General Plan issue. There are no large scale policy issues involved with it, therefore, given the way we take pride in being business friendly since it doesn't do any damage and there is nothing in the General Plan that says this is a problem it is consistent. That's not the legal term of analysis, but that is how I see it. Vice Chairperson Romero Are we establishing a precedent for this in the future by allowing this at this time? Chief Planner Sparks I think each of these cases is unique. I suspect there have been things somewhat similar in the past. My tenure here isn't long enough that I have a lot of institutional memory about it. I would speculate S :\Minutes\linalized\1 004.0 1 RPC.doc Page 7 of 12 that if a very similar thing occurred again and we were far down the road with the building given that it doesn't create any notable problem with the City that we can identify we might choose to go the same way again. Commissioner Sim This building stuff is not a perfect site sometimes. There are certain tolerances that are required to have these buildings built. Tonight can make this problem worse or resolve it today and try to work on a future remedy to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Maintain a more disciplined procedure in our City so that we can a check and balance between various departments and make sure that there has been a communication across the board. Maybe there could be a study session amongst the Commission maybe a subcommittee to go through some procedural issues including even Design Review Board. We need to have some kind of a study to go over these procedures. Tonight on this particular n1atter we ought to go forward and remedy this situation. Vice Chairperson Romero Before we go forward I would like to find out if there are any members of the community that would like to speak or if there are any cards on this item. Rosa Perez, 521 Hillside Blvd., I actually came to speak on Item 3, but I have been driving by this building everyday ever since it has started being built and I did happen to notice the sidewalk on Baden Avenue. I asked myself how is a wheelchair person going to drive. When my car is not working I take the bus that goes down Airport Blvd. to the airport, there is a gentleman that is in an electric wheelchair that takes that bus and he catches it at the corner of Baden and Airport. I don't know what the measurements of an electric wheelchair are, but would he be able to use that sidewalk? I lmow it is past history now, but the planters, I thought it was a solid wall, maybe they could be work with that to make sure it is accessible on that side of the street. I noticed the sidewalk has driveway indentions all the way down the road are they going to put new sidewalk there because the wheelchair will be crooked as he is going down. Charles Peters, 226 Alta Lorna, since 1961. I've been a licensed contractor since 1955. I was construction manager for a Wodd Savings for 3 1i years and construction manager for San Francisco Redevelopment Corp, a major co-op unit at Hunter's Point. I've been project manager on a number of large unit housing both single and Inulti-family projects from roughly 1970-1979. I went back into my straight contract. I have had a few redtags and I never got off that easy. There is a way I have torn out foundation and pulled down walls where we have had to get the engineer to find a way to rectify my crew's errors which ultimately are my errors as the construction manager. I had to back up the engineer on the job and the building inspector because they only go so far. I had to insist that things get torn out. It maybe a little too late I don't know whether or not you could recommend an architect lmows exactly what I am talking about that a building architectural engineering team has a responsibility beyond that of the City is the owner's rep. Why that team allowed it to go along I'll never know. I've been on both sides of the fence in management positions. I don't know if you can recommend that somebody look into the building here as to just how they sanctioned that and what fool said they could pull the redtag and go ahead. In some cases they would make them tear it out and the engineer would do something about it and let the owners and contractors worry about what they do. Not the cities. If you decide that City Council would might override you again as they have done before which I am unhappy about many times, I still think a strong recommendation that they ought to be looked into administratively. I believe if you do the best way is that the City Council gets it that you give a very strong recommendation that they give a permanent 100 thousand year easement right up to there building line. We ought to regain what we can. See what can be done and what we can recover back Commissioner Teglia Instead of making this a sale what if we sold them an easement? Marty VanDuyn, Director of Economic and Community Development As far as the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission goes, you are well within your jurisdiction. Your finding is to make a consistency with the General Plan. Along with that if you want to recommend that this sale be an easement that is totally within your powers to recommend and if you want to comment of how these issues should be approached in the future that is also something that would be welcomed for considerations. Either one of those are consistent with the General Plan finding so you would be well within your rights to make that recommendation. Commissioner Sim This 3-6 inch deviation was the only value assessment to get a equitable compensation of that was in error. That 3-6 inch aspect of this project as small as it may have been portioned to the whole project if that was not permitted this whole building would not have been achieved. What I'm asking is that enough for this kind of major issue on that site. Are we making a precedent by this? In the future if another applicant has something and human errors do happen and so there should be some tolerances and that is why there is Error and S :\Minutes\linalized\1 004.0 1 RPC.doc Page 8 of 12 Omissions Insurance and other things like that. What I'm asking for is if this 3-6 inch permitted this whole building to occur we ought to evaluate the value of the entire project based on this little mistake. I don't think it should be unfair but it should be more of a significant value to that applicant. John Gibbs, Director of Public Works We obviously look at the severity of the problem here. As the last speaker alluded to if the building was 3 inches out of line the whole thing was 3 inches moved over obviously we would not be here discussing making a financial settlement with the owner. There is a big difference. We looked at the severity of the problem and it was that we didn't feel like the recommendation was that he chip down 4 feet in an impossible situation to make this footing work or to take the whole thing out at a considerable cost when selling him the 1 foot property really didn't harm the City's position in any way. In listening to public comments, we redtag buildings all the time. We fix them for various reasons. We have in the last 5 years recovered over a million dollars in Errors and Omissions Insurance from similar situations from consultants and contractors. We do not let these things happen. In this case we felt this was the most reasonable solution to this problem. Commissioner Honan Is the applicant before us? Chief Planner Sparks The City is the applicant in this case. What is before you is not what has been discussed in the 65402 finding which the City has to do to sell an easement on the property. Vice Chairperson Romero Mr. Giorgi will deal with City Council later. Vice Chairperson Romero Well the issue before us is to determine that the proposed sale of the subject property is in conformity with the General Plan. Commissioner Honan I don't fully understand the issue at hand. I understand what is being told here to us. I listened attentively to everyone, all our professional staff, but I have to get it on record. I feel as if what has been done has done nothing but forced my vote. If I vote no I am voting against the General Plan then we have to decide how is it against the General Plan. The City Attorney is telling us it is not against the General Plan. Am I correct? Assistant City Attorney Johnson That is correct. Commissioner Honan For the situation that we are placed in I feel our vote is a forced vote and I don't like it. Hopefully this never forces a Commissioner to be in this position again. Commissioner D'Angelo If we didn't have a quorum for or against but abstaining tonight, what would be the result? Assistant City Attorney Johnson Under the statute the Commission has 40 days in which to consider a General Plan consistency finding that has been submitted to them by a legislative body. In this case a the City Council could authorize a longer period of time. Commissioner D' Angelo You mean it would come back to us. Assistant City Attorney Johnson Not necessarily. The statute is not real clear to that it just say the Planning agency has 40 days in which to submit it's report to the City Council. Commissioner D'Angelo What day are we in now? Assistant City Attorney Johnson It has been 14 days since the first public hearing. Commissioner Teglia Should we decide later on to build Central Fire Station would we be able to build with zero lot line right up against the Giorgi Building as many buildings in San Francisco are done if we sell them the 1 foot are we going to be able to do that? John Gibbs, Director of Public Works Probably it would butt right up against that foundation, but some deal could be worked out about that 1 foot separation. Commissioner Teglia Obviously we are being forced into this. We could decide not to participate not to endorse what obviously would not be allowed for any other developer, anybody else in town, any resident who has had to remove encroachments. We could simply deny it and say we don't think crossing lines is acceptable and just not participate. It will go to City Council and they will still allow the sale. At least we are giving a voice. The only recommendation I have is that we recommend that the City be properly compensated whatever amount they have determined but that be an easement so that we still own it. If we want to butt up to his building later we still have that right and we are allowing him to keep his foundations as is but not precluding any future City building. Assistant City Attorney Johnson It is true that the Commission is placed in a position that they are required to make determination whether or not the sale is consistent with the General Plan and Commissioner Teglia is correct. You could find that it is inconsistent and hopefully it is not mandatory that you tell us why we would S :\Minutes\tinalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 9 of 12 have to communicate how it would be inconsistent to the City Council if they were to review it. Your comments would be very helpful. On the other hand you could find it consistent and then recommend in the future that you be consulted earlier in the process so that other alternatives or that you are more fully informed as to the decisions that are being made. The Commission may chose to discuss either 1 or 2 of you or send a letter to the City Manager to get further information as to how this deal was actually made and the conclusion was reached as to why the sale of the property was appropriate under these circumstances. This is certainly within your jurisdiction and your ability to request and direct staff to proceed in that regard. Vice Chairperson Romero Can I get a motion? Commissioner Teglia was that discussion a motion? Commissioner Teglia That was a recommendation. Vice Chairperson Romero A recommendation but is there anyone willing to make a motion to find that the subject property is in conformity with the General Plan? Commissioner Sim I would be able to do that with conditions. I'm in the same boat as Commissioner Honan. I am forced here. I'm trying to resolve this. Commissioner Teglia I move that the Planning Commission deny the finding of conformity on the basis that conforming with our General Plan zoning regulation and building is all part of proper development. In the past the City has required adherence and conformity to those regulations and our finding of denial is based on a lack of conformity with procedures of applying the General Plan zoning etc. I think it is a strong message that we are not going to condone this in the future. It is not going to preclude the City Council from continuing and making the sale. Commissioner Sim I'm with you Commissioner Teglia with the procedure part. I second. Assistant City Attorney Johnson Just to clarify that you are finding that the sale of the property is not consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Teglia Correct. Commissioner Sim It is very clear to put all those conditions that Commissioner Teglia articulated. Chief Planner Sparks For the record we need to note this is a finding. You cannot condition the finding so will note the recommendation as a commentary. Roll call vote Commissioner D' Angelo yes, Commissioner Honan yes, Commissioner Ochsenhirt no, Commissioner Sim yes, Commissioner Teglia yes, Vice Chairperson Romero yes. 2. Marbella Duc Housing Partners, Inc., applicant Thomas Callan, owner Gellert Blvd., westside between Westborough Blvd. & Rowntree Way GP-00-053, RZ-00-053, SA-00-053, PUD-OO-053 and EIR-00-053 (Recommend continuance off-calendar) General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development, Development Agreement and EIR to allow development of 280 residential units on the west side of Gellert Boulevard, between Westborough and Rowntree Way. Motion Sim / Second Te2lia to continue the item off-calendar. Unanimously approved. Recess called at 8:37 p.m. Recalled to order at 8:50 p.m. 3. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Amendment Citywide ZA-OI-078 Draft South San Francisco Child Care Facilities Impact Fee Nexus Study and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to establish a citywide childcare impact fee. S :\Minutes\1inalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 10 of 12 Public Hearing opened. Heather Quinn, Director of Community Outreach, and Joanne Brion presented the staff report. Commissioner D'Angelo asked what percentage of the budget would be the annual cost for the project. Ms. Brion noted that it would be 2%, $1.6 million a year, of the CIP budget. Vice Chairperson Romero noticed that the cost is significantly higher than other areas and asked why there is no elnphasis on the lower cost alternatives. Ms. Brion noted that they looked at current supply of spaces and type of facility that gave them this final result. Vice Chairperson Romero was concerned that there was no allocation for special needs children. Ms. Quinn noted that Parks & Rec. does not think they can service special needs children. As the implementation plan is further developed special needs will be researched at that moment. Vice Chairperson Romero would like to see funding allocated for special needs children. Rosa Perez, 521 Hillside Boulevard, representing P ARCA North Peninsula Parents Support Group; . There is no childcare for special needs children in her community and it is difficult to find childcare for severely disabled children. . The Park & Recreation childcare programs do not include special needs children because Park & Recreation goes by the school districts roster of children. This means that if one of the children is not attending school within the School District they will not be on the list to qualify for childcare with the Recreation program. . The P ARCA support group supports the zoning ordinance amendment for special needs and infant spaces. She added that special needs childcare is needed all the through high school and this should be reflected in the ordinance. . She requested to be on the mailing list for future childcare hearings. Ms. Brion noted that she would contact special needs children's parents and work with them on the implementation plan. Dion Dubois, 2217 Dolvin, is a co-owner of 7 childcare centers in San Mateo County, one being in SSF. . He mentioned that childcare within the City is a key component to keep a balance between creating jobs and building homes. . He pointed out that his SSF facility is full in comparison to the other six in the county. . The demand of having to balance childcare and work is complex and there needs to be empathy for this problem. . Supports the ordinance, regardless of how difficult the numbers get, because it betters the quality of life in the City. Joy Reichard, 230 East Grand Avenue, representing Sugen Pharmaceuticals; . Has worked actively with Ms. Quinn on childcare. . There is a great need to have the community take part in long range planning for childcare. . Requested that the Planning Commission endorse the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Mary Casche, 820 North Delaware #315, San Mateo, Consultant in child and family issues; speaking for the item. . South San Francisco has distinguished itself in its leadership and others are noticing SSF's efforts. Amy Liew, 1265 Mission Road, owner of a Childcare Center in Baden School; . Her program was offering free childcare services for low income family with the Head start program. Because of relocation she no longer has a childcare facility. . Congratulated SSF for being a great City and working with her in relocating 160 children. S :\Minutes\linalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 11 of 12 Sylvia Chavez, 218 Camaritas Avenue, parent ofa special needs child; . Supports the allocation of funds for special needs children. . Having to stay home with one of the children puts a financial burden on the parents. Mary Ann Cruz, mother of a 10 year old with special needs; . Is difficult to find childcare and P ARCA is the only facility that will take children with special needs. Public Hearing closed. Motion Teglia / Second Ochsenhirt recommending that Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment ZA-Ol- 078, and also taking into consideration the needs of special needs children through high school age. Unanimously approved. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Items from Staff a. Request from City Council to appoint Commissioners to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Work Group . Commissioner Ochsenhirt and Commissioner Teglia appointed to Inclusionary Housing work group. . Chief Planner Sparks summarized the last City Council meeting: . Senior Planner Lappen was honored for work on the Council Chambers audio system upgrade. . Consultant Services agreement with Mintier & Associates for the Housing Element was approved. . Council approved a General Plan amendment, TDM Ordinance and the East of 101 transportation improvement plan were approved. 5. Items from Commission . Commissioner Honan requested a report on the Inclusionary Housing group meetings. . Commissioner Ochsenhirt thanked the City Council for the recognition luncheon. . Commissioner Sim asked that there be landscaping at the new development on Westborough Boulevard. . Commissioner Teglia asked when the no parking signs on Grand Avenue will be removed. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Engineering Division would have a response for him soon. . Vice Chairperson Romero was concerned for the neighborhood along Junipero Serra Boulevard because the retaining walls have not been completely installed and the rainy season will start soon. Chief Planner Sparks will report back to the Commission at their next meeting. 6. Items from the Public None ADJOURNMENT Motion Sim/Second Honan to adjourn. 9:58 D.m. ~M?~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Michael Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting October 18, 2001, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. S :\Minutes\fmalized\1 0040 1 RPC.doc Page 12 of 12