HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1981-11-04Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Council;
Ronald G. Acosta
Mark N, Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
November 4, 1981
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government
Code of the State of California, that the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 4th day of
November, 1981, at 6:30 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community
Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Closed Session for labor relations.
Dated:
October 29, 1981
JG~s q~icolopulos, May~r
City of South San Francisco
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER: (Side 1 TF-319)
CLOSED SESSION:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ACTION TAKEN
SPECIAL MEETING
Reci ted.
6:40 p.m. Mayor Nicolopulos presiding.
Council present: Damonte, Acosta,
Teglia and Nicolopulos.
Council absent: Addiego
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 6:41 p.m.
Councilman Addiego arrived at 6:41 p.m.
The meeting was recalled to order at
7:28 p.m., all Council present, no
action taken.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - That the meeting
be adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
11/4/81
Page 1
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNMENI!:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
Time of adjournment 7:29 p.m.
APPROVED:
~Gus-Nicolopu/os, may~r
City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council
to dispose of the item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are
recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in
the office of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying.
11/4/81
Page 2
Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Mark N, Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER: (Side 1 TF-328)
AGENDA
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Closed Session on litigation at
the end of the meeting.
- Add as Item 7A a request to set
a Public Hearing date of 12/2/81
for an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision by Trux, Inc.
- Discussion of funding for the
Christmas decorations under Oral
Communications.
- Remove Item 4 from the Agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
November 4, 1981
ACTION TAKEN
Recited.
7:40 p.m. Mayor Nicolopulos presiding.
Council present: Damonte, Acosta,
Teglia, Addiego and
Nicolopulos.
Council absent: None.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked that a moment
of silence be observed in memory of
former Mayor Terry Mirri's mother.
AGENDA
So ordered.
So ordered.
So ordered.
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Don Edwards, President of the
South San Francisco Downtown Merchants
Association, 10 Escanyo Drive, related
that during prior discussion with
Council concerning the funding for the
Christmas decorations, he had concluded
that the costs would be split for
materials purchased and that the City
would provide the installation, stor-
age,and the electricity for the decor-
ations and requested clarification of
this understanding.
11/4/81
Page 1
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
City Manager Birkelo responded that
the Minutes indicated that there had
been a Motion by Councilmember Teglia,
seconded by Councilmember Acosta "That
the City would participate 50/50 per-
cen~ in garlands, lights, refurbishing
of existing decorations and their
installation." He indicated that there
had been a second motion to include
22 brackets and strings of lights.
Mr. Edwards reiterated his prior
concerns stating that during the
prior discussions at Merchants
meetings and in other communications
regarding this matter it was with
the understanding that the City would
match funds for~the costs of the
materials, and that the installation,
the storing and the electricity would
be handled by the City.
Discussion followed regarding the
action taken by the City and the
total costs for installation of the
decorations.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - That the City
will install, store and provide
electricity for the strings of
lights and the garlands.
An in-depth discussion followed
regarding the costs involved in
the decorating of the downtown
area; the concerns relative to
theiacquisition of materials with
Mr. Edwards clarifying the items
which had been previously agreed
that the costs would be split: 1)
18 lanterns and 24 bows; 2) 11
lighted garlands; 3) 22 brackets;
4) cable and brackets for lights.
He stated that the total cost
would be $8,972.39 which would be
split with the City. The City's
share would be $4,486.19.
Further discussion followed relative
to the history of the Christmas
decorations on Grand Avenue and the
benefits derived from this action.
11/4/81
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending by
Motion deny and refer the following
claim to the City's Insurance Adjuster
and to the Office of the City Attorney:
Claim as filed by Bautista and iStrain,
Attys. at Law, on behalf of Castula
Herrera, alleging false arrest by
members of the South San Francisco
Police Department. ~f
2. Staff Reoprt 11/4/81 recommending by
Motion deny and refer the following
claim to the City's Insurance Adjuster
and to the Office of the City Attorney:
Claim as filed by Albert Miller alleg-
ing property damages when a motorist
pursued by the South San Francisco
Police Department lost control of his
vehicle. ~~'
3. Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending by
Motion to approve the specifications
and authorize the Purchasing Officer
to advertise for bids for carpeting
for the West Orange Library.
4. Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending by
Motion to authorize the Purchasing
Officer to advertise for bids for
playground equipment for the Orange
Memorial Park.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to award
the contract for the 1981-82 Colma
Creek Tributaries Dredging Program,
Project No. SD-81-1 to Arthur "Buzz"
Haskins in the amount of $16,275.00.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
1981-82 COLMA CREEK TRIBUTARIES
DREDGING PROGRAM - PROJECT SD-81-1
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carried by majority voice vote.
Councilmembers Addiego and Damonte
voted no.
CONSENT CALENDAR
So ordered.
So ordered.
Approved.
Removed from Agenda under Agenda
Review.
Removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion by Councilman Acosta.
11/4/81
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 99
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to authorize
execution of a cost service contract
agreement with the California State
Personnel Board (Cooperative Personnel
Services).
7A.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
COST SERVICE CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
(COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES)
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
by Motion final acceptance of
Winston Manor Park renovations.
Request that a Public Hearing date
be set for 12/2/81 for an appeal
by Trux, Inc., on the Planning
Commission's decision.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommmending
adoption of a Resolution to award
the contract for the 1981-82 Colma
Creek Tributaries Dredging Program,
Project No. SD-81-1 to Arthur "Buzz"
Haskins in the amount of $16,276.00.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
1981-82 COLMA CREEK TRIBUTARIES
DREDGING PROGRAM - PROJECT SD-81-1
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 131-81
So ordered.
So ordered.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - Consent Calendar
be approved with the exception of
Item No. 5.
Councilman Acosta questioned the
comment within the Staff Report,
"The final cost of the dredging
program will vary depending upon
the severity of this winter's
rains." He asked if there could
be more dredging than the project had
allocated and if there was a
possibility of staff returning
with another dredging program de-
pending upon the amount of rain.
Director of Public Services Yee
explained that the project was for
the dredging of various creeks and
upon the need for these services.
He indicated that the contractor
would be paid by the hour and the
actual cost could not be anticipated
at this time.
Discussion followed regarding the
method used to base the cost for the
dredging, with a request by Councilman
Acosta that the Resolution be changed
to reflect a unit price.
11/4/81
Page 4
A_.GEN_D._A A C T I 0 N T A K E N
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Staff Report 11/4/81 - Continued.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
8. Approval of the Regular Bills of
11/4/81.
CITY MANAGER
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution accepting
a Memorandum of Understanding for
Unit 8 for fiscal year 7/1/81 -
6/30/82.
10.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING UNIT 8
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEES JULY 1, 1981 - JUNE 30, 1982
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution adjusting
the salary for the Executive Secretary.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
A CERTAIN SALARY ADJUSTMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR
Acting City Attorney Rogers explained
that the Resolution could be changed
to indicate unit price, indicating
the lowest responsible bidder based
upon the sample of 100 hours and
a limitation could be Placed on
additional hours.
Discussion followed on the costs
of dredging in prior years.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the
Resolution with the wording changed
to refer to an hourly rate, also to
refer to the 100 hour sample and give
the Director of Public Services the
ability to go up to his budget limit
of $30,000.
RESOLUTION NO. 132-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
M/S Teglia/Damonte - To approve the
Regular Bills.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Councilman Addiego did not participate
in the matter of the claim of Brentwood
Market.
CITY MANAGER
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 133-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 134-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
11/4/81
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN !01
CITY MANAGER
11.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution which
adopts an Affirmative Action Plan
for the City of South San Francisco.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
12.
Public Hearing - Century Office Park/
UP-81-598, an appeal by the City of
San Bruno of the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recmmending:
l) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to continue the
matter to the 11/18/81 meeting.
(TF-515)
13.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving a
cooperative agreement with San Mateo
County for HCDA Funds for 1982-1985.
CITY MANAGER
City Manager Birkelo stated that
the Affirmative Action Plan had been
developed over a period of two years,
with the assistance of consultants
is intended to give guidelines to
achieve a balanced mix of employees.
He said that the Plan contained a
Statement of Policy by the Council,
and indicated that the Policy would
be administered to the best of the
City's ability.
M/S Damonte/Teglia - To adopt the
ResolUtion.
RESOLUTION NO. 135-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City Manager Birkelo indicated that
from discussions with the City's
Staff and Staff from the City of
SanlBruno that it would be best
to continue the hearing for decision
to the meeting of 11/18/81.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared the
Public Hearing open and invited
those who wished to speak in favor
of the matter to step to the dias --
no one chose to speak.
Mayor Nicolopulos then invited those
who wished to speak in opposition to
the matter to step to the dias --
no one chose to speak.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To continue the
hearing to 11/18/81.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
11/4/81
Page 6
it
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
!02
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Staff Report 11/4/81 - Continued.
PARKS AND RECREATION
14. Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending
introduction of an Ordinance which
amends Ordinance No. 675, regulating
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that since the
City's population was under 50,000
it was necessary to apply through
the County of San Mateo in order to
qualify for housing and community
block grant funds. He explained
the application procedure and in-
dicated that the City had adopted
a similar Resolution previously
when the City had joined the pro-
gram.
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
Councilman Acosta inquired if there
was a guarantee of funds.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela responsded that there
was no guarantee. He stated that
there were indications that there
would be funds.
Councilman Acosta asked if there
was a specific direction in which
the funds must be allocated.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said there was certain
criteria in the federal laws which
were geared toward providing housing
for low to moderate income persons
and provide certain improvements in
the community.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that the
money could be used for other types
of support systems other than housing
for those persons within the target
area of the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 136-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
PARKS AND RECREATION
City Clerk Battaya read the Ordinance
title in its entirety.
11/4/81
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 102
PARKS AND RECREATION
14. Staff Report 11/4/81 - Continued.
conduct in parks, providing for
enforcement, and prescribing penalties
and violations: 1) Motion to waive
further reading of the Ordinance;
2) Motion that the Ordinance be
introduced.
15.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE
NO. 675, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE REGULATING CONDUCT IN PARKS,
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND PRE-
SCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending by
Motion to authorize the Purchasing
Officer to advertise for bids for
the resurfac~;ng of tennis courts.
PUBLIC SERVICES
15.
Hearing - Demolition and disposal of
a former structure at 2304 Olympic
Drive and the related costs for the
subject abatement.
Staff Report 11/4/81 recommending:
l) Open the Hearing and permit the
property owner and/or other affected
persons to speak on the costs of the
abatement of the structure; 2) Close
the Hearing; 3) Adopt a Resolution.
PARKS AND RECREATION
City Manager Birkelo explained
that this Ordinance had
been introduced at the previous
meeting, however, as the City
Attorney had indicated there were
blanks to be filled in and an
appendix to be added.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Damonte/Teglia - To introduce
the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Director of Parks and Recreation
Norton stated there was currently
$15,000 in the budget for the pro-
posed resurfacing. He stated that
Brentwood Park would be a priority
matter since it had been inoperable
since February of 1981. He in-
dicated that Staff's recommendation
was for full funding for both
Brentwood Park and Orange Memorial
Park which costs were estimated to
be $31,000 for both projects. He
stated that the courts at the Orange
Memorial Park had not been resurfaced
since 1973.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To approve.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC SERVICES
11/4/81
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
16. Hearing - Continued.
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE STATEMENT
OF EXPENSES IN THE MATTER OF THE
ABATEMENT OF THE BUILDING AT 2304
OLYMPIC DRIVE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC NUISANCE
(TF-569)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
that this was a hearing on the costs
of the abatement of the structure
located at 2304 Olympic Drive which
had previously been declared a nuisance.
He indicated that the sole issue of the
hearing would be the cost of the abate-
ment. He said that "due to some of the
legal history of this case and due to
the fact that it is a public nuisance
abatement, and we are going to a~ess
costs as the results of this hearing,
I am requesting that you receive into
evidence sworn testimony first from
your Director -- I am sorry your Chief
Building Inspector who made the veri-
fication, then by anyone representing
the homeowners or other affected parties
who wishes to be heard on the matter."
Mayor NicOlopulos declared the Public
Hearing open and invited those who
wished to speak in favor of the matter
to step to the dais.
City Clerk Battaya then swore in
Chief Building Inspector Wittwer
saying "Do you swear that the testi-
mony you are about to give in the
matter now pending shall be the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth - so help you God?" Chief
Building Inspector Wittwer responded
yes.
Acting City Attorney Rogers then asked
Chief Building Inspector Wittwer if
the document contained in the Agenda,
entitled "A Verification" and listed
as Exhibit "A" to a Resolution and asked
if this document was in his possession.
Chief Building Inspector Wittwer re-
sponded yes. Acting City Attorney
Rogers proceeded to ask Chief Building
.Inspector Wittwer if the signature on
the bottom of the document was his, Chief
Building Inspector Wittwer responded
yes. Acting City Attorney Rogers then
asked if the document correctly reflected
the costs which he had expended in the
abatement of the building at 2304
Olympic Drive. Chief Building Inspector
11/4/81
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
16. Public Hearing - Continued.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Wittwer responded yes it does.
Councilman Damonte requested
clar~ficatio~ of the purpose
of the pump.
Chief Building Inspector Wittwer
stated that "after the delapidated
building was demolished the pump well
was placed under the rear corner of
Where the building was formerly lo-
cated. That pump-well serves to de-
water that area and keep the sub-
terranean waters from coming to the
surface."
Councilman Damonte requested, to
whose benefit was the pump-well
placed at the residence.
Chief Building Inspector Wittwer
stated it was for the benefit of
that property.
Mayor Nicolopulos then asked if
there was any representative of
the Henderson family or a member
of the Henderson family who wished
to speak on this matter to step to
the dais.
Acting City Attorney Rogers made
reference to a letter from the attorney
representing Mr. and Mrs. Edward
Henderson, stating "that inasmuch
as this letter is not a sworn docu-
ment and there is no sworn testimony
to be presented, it is my opinion
that its use is limited to that of
argument and the credibility that
should be given to it is that of
argument rather than evidence. Furthe~
except for the statements in the fifth
paragraph most of which appears on page
2 beginning with 'this is particularly
true' except for that portion of that
paragraph, it is my opinion that this
letter mainly is an attempt to argue
that the nuisance is not to be placed
on the Hendersons at all. In other
words they are arguing against the
11/4/81
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
16. Hearing - Continued.
nuisance which was the first hearing,
and they are arguing against any
liability. The issue tonight is
solely whether the costs are correct,
where the costs are appropriate and
what the costs actually should be are
attached in this matter. That argu-
ment about the $561.60 is the only
relevant argument I see in there.
And I would ask if Council was
going to consider a document they
would keep that in mind."
Mayor Nicolopulos then asked for
response from Acting City Attorney
Rogers regarding the third para-
graph on Page 1 of the letter, which
stated "This letter, which is in lieu
of a personal appearance at the
hearing, is to protest any assessment
of the above charges against the
Hendersons. We ask that this letter
be made part of the record in this
proceeding."
Acting City Attorney Rogers replied
"I advise you to receive the letter
as argument and make it part of the
record, but indicate it is not
evidence, it is argument. And also,
my opinion is the only relevant portion
of the letter to this particular
hearing is the portion I pointed out
with regards to the pump."
Acting City Attorney Rogers then
stated "Finally, your Honor I would
ask that you make the verification
an official part of the record as
evidence, it has been authenticated
by Mr. Wittwer and he has been
questioned on it."
Mayor Nicolopulos then verified
the report as submitted.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - I move that we
confirm the statement and assess the
costs of the items of verification
against the property. (The letter
from the Henderson's attorney is
attached as a part of the Minutes)
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
11/4/81
Page ll
O]~ERT C. FIELD
,EORGE F. DUNKER. JR.
MERRILL J..~CH',S/ARTZ
Ro ~Ot~--DON ~A;KE;~ JR*
· STAIqI~:, STE,q~I~T, .~VELLS ~¢. _I~OBtN.qON 1 0 7
ATTORNEYS AT LA~,..''
FIDELITY PLAZA - 147~ FLOOR HERBERT
' 180 ~RAND AVENUE I I~ ~ bEtTOR ROBINSON' {RETIREO~
TELEPHONE (415) ~34-220 ~1-~ '~ '- '~ NATHAN G. GRAY
November a, l~y
C. Walter Birke!o, City Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Sir:
Damage to the HOme of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Henderson
2304 Olym_~_p~.Drive, South San Francisco, CA.
we represent Mr. and Mrs. Edward H~nderson, formerly residing at.
2304 Olympic Drive.
We previously 'received from the Department of Public Services a
verified statement of costs involved in demolition of the'Hendersons'
house and the notice setting a hearing on those costs before the City
Council on November 4, 1981. According'to the verified statement of
Mr. H. J. Wittwer, Chief Building inspector, the costs were $7,400 for
demolition and r~moval of the residence and $561.60 for placing a new
pump well and PVC discharge line. Based on this notice, we understand
that the Council will be asked to approve the costs and then assess them
against Mr. and Mrs. Henderson's property.
This letter, which is in lieu of a personal appearance at the
hearing, is to protest an~ assessment of the above charges against the
Hendersons. We ask that this letter be made part of the record in this
· proceeding.
As you are probably awarer there is now pending a lawsuit by'the
Hendersons against the City and other defendants seeking damages for,
among other things, the loss of their home and real property. As a
result of the defendants' acts snd omissions and through no fault of
their own, the Hendersons were forced to evacuate their home of
approximately 17 years.
We contend that the above costs of $7,961.60 are not properly
chargeable to the HendersonSo They are innocent parties whose property
has become dedicated to public use by virtue of the water coursing
through and under it. In these circumstances, the charges are properly
]]/4/8]
Page ]Ia
C.~ Walter Bi. rkelo, City Manager
Pag e~ Two
November 4, 1981
!08
borne by the community at large. This is particularly true regarding
the $561.60 which is for the placement of a new pump well and PVC
discharge line. That equipment supposedly is to control a continuing'
problem which the City has not been able to solve. The function of the
pump is, as we understand it, to protect nearby property and therefore~.
constitutes a public use. There is no justification whatsoever for
this charge to be assessed against the Hendersons.
Mr. and Mrs. Henderson have already been through a terrible
ordeal, both~emotionally and economically. Since they are the victims
in this situation, they should not be asked to sacrifice further on
behalf of a problem not of their making.
Moreover, on June 19, 1980, Robert C. Field of this office, ~n a
letter to John Noonan, then City Attorney, offered ~he City a license
to enter the property to accommodate either demolition or removal of
the house and the performance of drilling or excavation activities as
the City deemed necessary, so long as the Hendersons' rights were
preserved and they were absolved from any liability or expense. This
offer was in response to Mr. Noonan's earlier request for a license to
allow the City to enter the Henderson property. Although Mr. Noonan
expressed his opinion that the conditions were reasonable and ac-
ceptable to the City, the license was never formally prepared or
presented for execution by Mr. and Mrs. Henderson. It is our under-
standing, however, that the City thereafter entered the Hendersons'
property to investigate, to attempt repairs and to perform other
activities related t0 the earth subsidence and damaged drainage
system. Upon learning of this, .our office wrote Robert S~ 'Yeet
Director of Public Services, recounting these communications with Mr.
Noonan and stating that the Hendersons would not be responsible for any
costs the City incurred.
Under ail of the above circumstances, we strongly object to the
imposition of $7,960.16 in cost~ against the Hendersons: who bear no
responsibility for the situation giving rise to these costS.
Very truly yours,
STARK, STEWART, WELLS & ROBINSON
Fonda Karelitz
FK:bbc
cc: Honorable Gus Nicolcpu!os, Mayor: South Sas Francisco
Roberta Cerri Teglia, Vice Mayor
City Council Members Acosta, Addiego and Damonhe
Robert K. Rogers, Jr., City Attorney
Robert S. Yee, Director of Public Services
11/4/81
Page llb
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
16. Hearing - Continued.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ITEMS FROM STAFF
17. Appointment to the Colma Creek
' Flood Advisory Commission.
18.
Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230.
(TF-650)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Mayor Nicolopulos then invited those
who wiShed to speak against the
matter to step to the dais -- no
one chose to speak.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared the Public
Hearing closed.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 137-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared a recess
at 8:34 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the
meeting to order at 8:47 p.m., all
Council present.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Councilman Damonte stated that due
to the passing of Harry Pariani a
vacancy now exists on the Commission.
M/S Damonte/Acosta - To nominate
Hugo Stoppoloni for appointment to
the Colma Creek Flood Advisory
Commission.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Clerk Battaya apprised Council
that there was material from County
Clerk Church's Office consisting of
two letters for their information on
election costs and that Acting City
Attorney Rogers had further information.
Acting City Attorney Rogers commented
that he had been asked "about the time-
frame for passing the ordinance and
there was a sub-question to that,
how would this affect a referendum
attempt and would it give enough time
to put a referendum up and still have
lead time to do the election. The
answer to the sub-question is no, but I
don't think that the item would be
11/4/81
Page 12
AG E N DA A CT I O N TAKEN !IO.~.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18. Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
?0
ITEMS FROM STAFF
re~erendable. Looking at the
referendum sections in the Elections
Code and the regulatory scheme of the
referendum provisions it appears to me
and I have talked to the State (a
lawyer at the Department of State who
deals with elections a lot) and he
agreed with me. It appears to me that
the scheme of the referendum provisions
is to prevent an ordinance from taking
effect by bringing a petition before
the legislative body before its effective
date and then what happens is the
effective date is suspended until
certain other actions are taken. One
of the sections of Article 2 which
deals with referendums is that it
almost restates Government Section
36937, which talks about ordinances --
that don't have to wait 30 days before
they are effective. One is an
Ordinance calling or otherwise relating
to an election, and I think that if
you were to pass an ordinance generally
calling or relating to an election -
it would take effect immediately upon
its adoption and not be referend6ble.
The Senate Bill which was codified in
as portions of the Election Code and
as portions of the Government Code
provides that an ordinance that you
pass pursuant to these sections -- the
ordinance we are talking about which
is to change the election, would be-
come operative, to me that means it
would take effect, upon approval of
the Board of Supervisors. So there is
no language in there which says that
you have to wait a 30 day period,
which is really the kind of ordinance
we are talking about that are referend-
umable; and you don't have a period of
time to get a petition before the
body. For example, if the communication
lines worked out to such an extent that
you passed an ordinance on Wednesday
night and it went before the Board of
Supervisors on the following day or the
following Tuesday, that would clearly
be very very little time to pass a
referendum and get a petition for your
l 1/4/8]
Page 13
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18.
Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
consideration; and I think that the
regulatory scheme of the referendum
sections of the Election Code and the
Senate Bill as it was codified does
not contemplate that this ordinance
be referendumable. There are other
actions, initiatives to amend it later
and other things they can do, but as
far as referendum goes - I don't
think that the Bill is referendable.
There is some discussion on this among
City Attorneys, it is an unchartered area,
but this is what IWink."
Councilman Acosta made reference to
a Resolution which was passed by the
Board of Supervisors stating that the
cities may do this with the exception
of the Primaries. He asked if that
meant that the cities had been given
carte blanche authority to proceed and
"we almost have their authority to do
it right now."
Acting 'City Attorney Rogers responded
that "almost, but I think it muddies
the water more." He suggested, if
Council were to pass any ordinance
changing the election date pursuant to
these sections, that they send the
ordinance to the Board of Supervisors
requesting official approval. He
said "I will prepare the form so that
instead of just the Mayor's approval
signature there will be a second set
of language down there and we will get
some kind of a stamp of approval from
the Board of Supervisors to make it
official. I think that is the way it
should be approached."
Councilman Acosta stated that he con-
curred with Acting City Attorney Rogers.
He then commented on the possibility
of an advisory vote in June and asked
if the matter had been researched. He
continued to question the time element
involved if Council were to hold their
election in November of 82; November
of 83; the number of issues on the
ballots; the need for approval by the
Board of Supervisors.
11/4/81
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ][!2
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18.
Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Discussion followed relative to the
Board of Supervisors approval of the
ordinance if adopted by the City
Council.
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
that it was his opinion "that any
ordinance adopted pursuant to the
subdivision is only operative upon
the approval of the Board of Supervisors."
He further stated" ..... if your going
to pass an ordinance before the April
election, when should you do it ..... ?
I got together with Mrs. Battaya,
we sat down and talked about the
legalities and practicalities of this
thing. Our suggestion is if you
are going to pass this ordinance to
move the coming April election back
to any other date, that you introduce
it at the November 18th Council meeting
and then adopt it at the December 2nd
Council meeting in order to give her
enough time to get her election material
going and also have sufficient time
to get it before the Board of Supervisors
to get it approved and effected."
City Manager Birkelo stated that both
he and City Clerk Battaya had spoken
with County Clerk Church and that
he had specifically asked County Clerk
Church "would it be possible for the
City to get an advisory proposition
on the June Primary Ballot of 1982."
He stated that County Clerk Church
had "indicated that it was possible, but
that he could not guarantee at this time
that it wouldn't require an additional
voting mechanism, the card in addition
to the machine processing for the rest
of the ballot. He thought it might be
but he couldn't guarantee it, or if the
other happened we could stand some added
cost from having to process our propo-
sition through the punch card system.
I assume when he said that he was speaking
for the Board, since the Board indicated
either one of the November dates was all
right by their standpoint." He further
stated that he had checked on the costs
11/4/81
Page 15
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18.
Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
and explained that a !etter~'had been
received fromi:the County Clerk in-
dicating the revised figures and with
the removal of the prior estimate cost
of a proposition. "What he has in-
dicated is that the General Election
of 1982 just for Council positions -
no propositions, he estimated $9,500 to
$11,500 and the General Election of
1984 $10,000 to $12,000. Then he
makes a point ~at those figures have
been adjusted for inflation but the
comparative figure of our City election
of 1980 of $15,887 should also be
adjusted upward to be truly comparative."
Councilman Addiego asked if there
would be a problem with placing the
advisory vote on the April Municipal
Election.
City Manager Birkelo responded that
there would be no problem if Council
was to go ahead with the April
election, the advisory vote cou]:d
be placed on the ballot at that time.
He Commented that he had asked the
question related to the placing of
the advisory vote on the June ballot,
due to a Councilmember asking if
it would be possible to adopt an
ordinance setting November of 1982
as the election date then have an
advisory vote in June to see if the
voters wanted to move the election
to November of 1983.
Councilman Addiego stated that
he would propose that "we hold
the regular schedUled municipal election
in April asking for an advisory vote
of the people, putting a proposition
or two on there - giving alli ~he options
~o the ~ublic."
Councilman Damonte requested input
be heard regarding the pros and cons
of both the November of 1982 and
November of 1983 elections. He ex-
pressed his concern with the past
presidential election wherein the
results were announced early in the
11/4/81
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 114
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18. Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
afternoon and subsequently many
persons did not vote thinking that
their vote would not count. He
related that if the Municipal Election
was consolidated with the presidential
election this could be disastrous for
the City's Municipal Election. He
further commented on the low turn out
for the School Board Election.
Discussion followed on the alternatives
available and the need to consider the
actions taken by other cities with
reference to the adoption of an ordinance
consolidating their elections.
Pat Martinson, 1288 Morningside Avenue,
asked what the Council meant by an
advisory vote.
Councilman Acosta responded that an
advisory vote "would be advising the
Council that they may do something."
Pat Martinson said if the City was
going to have an advisory vote, why
not proceed with the election.
Councilman Addiego responded that
the City would be forever changing
the date to be saving a substantial
amount of money over the long run.
Councilman Addiego asked if there
were other arguments to having an
advisory vote as opposed to an
ordinance.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said,
if the election is set by a vote of
the people then it can't be modified,
it would have to go back to another
vote to modify it. If you want
the flexibility of Council action
then your vote before the people
should be an advisory vote.
Councilman Acosta asked how the
proposed change would be affected
by an Ordinance the City presently
has in effect, stating that a Council
person may only serve for two con-
11/4/81
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN !!5
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18. Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
secutive terms of office.
Acting City Attorney Rogers replied
"This law states that you can't
shorten a Council term ..... this
law would supercede, would preempt our
Ordinance in that respect and you are
only running for two terms even though
you are extending the term."
Discussion followed pertinent to the
extension of terms. Also discussed was
the action which woul. d have to be taken
by the City Council if they were to
chose to consolidate with either the
General Election in November of 1982
or the School Board Election in
November of 1983. Acting City Attorney
Rogers indicated if Council would give
their direction he would have thec~two
ordinances prepared by the meeting of
November 18, 1981 for their consideration.
Councilman Acosta commented that he
preferred consolidating with the
School Board Election in November of
1983 in order to keep itqocalized.
Councilman Addiego stated that he
would like to keep the election
localized and ~ndicated_his desire
to become aware'of the actionsitaken
by Other cities in the area in order
to have the election~date standardized
throughout this part of the County.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that she
would be in agreement to consolidating
with the November of 1982 in relation
to the cost savings. She stated that
she would have a problem with voting
to extend to November of 1983 without
the public expressing their approval.
Mayor Nicolopulos stated that he
preferred consolidating with the
November 1983 election and commented
on the voter apathy.
Discussion followed on the voting
trends of the area.
11/4/81
Page 18
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF
18. Discussion of Election date change
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 230 -
Continued.
GOOD AND ~ELFARE
(TF-925)
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Councilman Acosta stated that the would
prefer to have a one time only change
in the election date.
Discussion followed on City's re-
sponsibility to make their decision
with respect to SB 230. Also discussed
was the purpose of the passage of the
Bill and its intent.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
"Section 2.16.010 of the Municipal
Code states 'a person elected to
the Council in the General Municipal
Election of 1974 and succeeding General
Municipal Elections shall be eligible
to serve only two successive four
year elected terms after being so
elected.' My opinion is that you
can still pass your ordinance and
you can still extend the terms, if
your uncomfortable with that I can
make reference in there - in the
new ordinance that refers back to
this and says not withstanding that
the terms would be extended."
Concurrence of Council that the
Acting City Attorney be directed to
prepare two ordinances: 1) consolidating
with the General Election of November of
1982; 2) consolidating with the School
Board Election of 1983.
GOOD AND WELFARE
Mr. Larry Casey, 363 Forestview Drive,
asked what the procedure would be if
Council were to change the length of
their terms without the benefit of the
proposed ordinance, and asked if it
would take a vote of the public.
Acting City Attorney Rogers responded
that he would have to research the
matter.
Mr. Casey commented that ~be..April
election could be held and the change
in the terms of office would be effective
then.
11/4/81
Page 19
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION:
RECALL TO ORDER:
19.
Request to adjourn the meeting to
11/9/81 at 4:45 p.m., at the City
Hall Conference Room, for the pur-
pose of discussing the Brentwood
Parking Lot and the Grand Avenue
Overpass Design.
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
B~ara A. Battaya, City Cl~'r~l~
City of South San Francisco
GOOD AND WELFARE
Pat Martinson, 1288 Morningside Avenue,
asked for clarification of the conver-
sation between City Manager Birkelo
and County Clerk Church regarding the
holding of the General Municipal Election
with me June Primary.
City Manager Birkelo replied that
the County Clerk had stated that
there was a possibility of placing
a proposition on the ballot so it
could be voted on at that time. He
further said that the Board of
Supervisors had said no to the
consolidation of General Municipal
Elections with the June Primary.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 9:40 p.m.
The meeting was recalled to order at
10:30 p.m., all Council present,
no action taken.
M/S Addiego/Damonte - To adjourn
to Monday, November 9, 1981, at
4:45 p.m., in the City Hall Conference
Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
10:30 p.m.
APPROVED:
-l~u-s Nicolop-ulos, Maj~6r
City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council
to dispose of an item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are
recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file
in the office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and
copying.
11/4/81
Page 20