Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-12-18Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego Counci 1: John "Jack" Drago Ri chard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo requested: - Add a Resolution that authorizes the City Manager to act as Interim City Treasurer to pay the Deputy City Treasurer, who is not currently on the payroll for services rendered, on a part time basis. He stated that the rate was $20.00 an hour and he did not believe the total amount would exceed $500.00. A joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center. MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room December 18, 1985 ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 6:08 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Addiego, Drago, Haffey and Teglia. None. School Board present: Braschi, Fernekes, Latham, Rodondi and Massetti. School Board absent: None. The pledge of allegiance was recited. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. City Manager Birkelo stated that he had given the Council a brief run-down on behalf of the Councilmembers on the City/School Liaison Committee which basi- 12/18/85 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW 1. Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW cally indicated that this matter had been discussed at some length over the past year. He continued, later some bids were received which indicated that the cost was rather substantial if the two Boards were to consider moving the building to the Southwood site and rehabilitation. He stated that at the most recent meeting of the Liaison Committee in November it was felt that the problem was significant enough to warrant a meeting of the two Boards to discuss the matter. Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated that Staff had given a recommendation to the Board that the cost was excessive to move and rehabilitate the building. He stated that the figure was $120,209 to move the building and put it in place, however the figure would be higher when the building was brought up to code standards. He felt the estimate was substantial for the District to bear. Mayor Teglia questioned if the Board had had the opportunity to discuss this matter prior to this evening because it was the District's property and nego- tiations were under way to sell the pro- perty. Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated that the negotiated sale was under way with BRIDGE Corporation and the question was the Baden Bungalow itself and the cost of moving it. He stated that Staff's position was that the purchaser accept the bungalow as a part of the sales transaction and that that would be one of the conditions he would recom- mend to the Board. Vice President Rodondi stated that when the Committee met, relative to the moving of the bungalow, it was concluded at one of the Board meetings that the cost to move the building was excessive. 12/18/85 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW 1. Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW He stated that the Board had recovered insurance funds and he believed that the City/School Committee had concluded that it would be a compromise of a cost factor not to exceed $72,000 and this cost was far in excess of that figure. He stated that it was concluded at that time it was not feasible. He stated that the Board was toying with the idea of leaving the bungalow where it stood, or relocating it on one of the areas of the Baden property. He stated that the Board at that time had concluded that if the Developer wanted to include the Baden bungalow with the purchase agreement and work out with the City and the School something that could be done on that level, that would be the only alternative. He stated that he did not know if that was feasible for the Developer at this time. Councilman Naffey spoke of the alter- natives discussed by the Liaison Committee and their dilemma because it became very costly to preserve the bunga- low. He stated that both Boards wanted to see the bungalow preserved, however the Board wanted to see a valued return on their property. He stated that there had been agreement between the Bodies to each pay 50% to move the bungalow, which at this point because of the cost appears to be unreasonable. He continued, the property has to be sold and the Developer cannot deal with the bungalow. He stated that the unfortunate thing was that the arson or fire that occurred destroyed the building to such an extent that it cannot be transferred for a reasonable amount for either Body to handle. President Masetti stated that it was her understanding that the Magnolia site, the cement building, would be developed as a community center or a senior community center. She questioned if part of that 12/18/85 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. 0 AGENDA REVIEW could be used for an historical society, in that that was the purpose of keeping the bungalow was for historical purposes. Councilman Haffey stated that the primary purpose of the Magnolia Center was to provide a senior center as the City currently leases space on Grand Avenue which was not as large as Magnolia Center. He stated that the idea of including an historical portion to Magnolia had not been considered. Boardmember Latham stated that he would like input from the Developer on his plans for the property. Mr. Arthur Sullivan, BRIDGE Corporation, stated that he worked for a regionally based non-profit housing company called BRIDGE Housing. He stated that his Company's interest in the project began a year ago at the request of City Staff who had informed them of a fairly extensive study on the use of the Magnolia site to try to coordinate the efforts of con- verting the school building into a senior center and having senior housing provided as a strongly identified need in this community; especially low and affordable rental senior housing. He spoke of similar projects that his firm was working on in the Bay area. He stated that his firm was not adverse to the idea of preserving the bungalow, however the cost of moving the building was a very costly factor which the estima- tes had proven. He stated that leaving the bungalow where it stood would be a significant cost because of trying to plan a fairly high density development of senior housing. He stated that he had urged this meeting to take place so that both Boards would understand the assumptions made when his firm had made an offer for a purchase 12/18/85 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW price on the property for a per unit type value. He stated that if something could be worked out that would not have an impact on the affordability, which was the number objective for senior housing. He stated that the bungalow could have a physical impact because of its location or it could have an economic impact by trying to absorb that cost into the housing. Discussion followed: that the BRIDGE Corporation was not aware of the problem of the bungalow when their offer had been made; that it was realized that the bungalow in its present condition was a cumberance on the development of the pro- perty; a question of what the dollar figure, as to the value of the bungalow, detracted from the property as a whole in its present condition; what would happen if the bungalow was culled out from the project; that it was decided that it would be foolish for the School District to own a part of the senior citizens development; that if the City was interested in developing that site it should take the whole piece of property and not cut out a little square and leave it for the District; that the difficulty was that the bungalow was in the middle of the site and therefore a square footage ratio to establish value was not valid; that to the School District the bungalow had no value; alternative loca- tions for the bungalow; what purpose the bungalow would serve after the expen- diture of money for relocation, restora- tion and maintenance; culling the building out or destroying the bungalow; that if the building continued to exist it would be a 50-50 proposition between the City and the School Board. Mrs. Edna Harks stated that two and one- half years ago the Historical Society was approached to accept the bungalow, which they had, and then there was the fire. She stated that the Society wished 12/18/85 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW 1. Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW to reaffirm that the bungalow should be saved and presented a petition with 150 signatures in favor of the preservation. She stated that it would not be that hard to restore as the cupolas off and the north wall had been knocked down, which could be put back together without much of a problem. She spoke of the Developer using transfer of density rights to take care of trans- ferring the City's rights of density on the Magnolia building to the School District. She stated that the Developer would receive an income tax credit on any money he spends on developing the site. Councilman Haffey stated that he also would like to see the bungalow preserved, but he did not want to see the School District lose money. He stated that if the District can have those kinds of den- sity rights transferred to their other property, then it could be the best of both worlds. He continued, the matter was in being able to facilitate that, and that that building was not in great shape; and had been in mediocre shape before the fire. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that because the BRIDGE Corporation was a non-profit organization and would assume that what Mrs. Harks referred to as an income tax credit would not have any bearing. Mrs. Harks stated that if it was income property then she thought it would as it had to be income producing. Mayor Teglia questioned if during the dealings and the studies to develop the Master Plan site, which took in not only the School District property but City property as well, was there not some transfer of density from the City to the District. 12/18/85 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW 1. Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW Director of Recreation & Community Services Norton stated that Staff did allow for some housing on the feasilibity plan on City property behind Magnolia and he thought at the time that the density had been counted on the entire site to get up to the possibility of 50 units per acre. He stated that he thought that the City and School District property was 3.025 acres and that the numbers worked up had included the entire property. Councilman Haffey suggested giving den- sity rights to that property to make up for the land where the bungalow sits and still split the improvements between the District and the City for that building and also split the operation and liabi- lity. He stated that there would be no loss to the District for the value of their land because the building would be culled out. Vice President Rodondi stated that the question he would raise was the limita- tion of funds to restore the building. He stated that he was not concerned with the maintenance. He stated that the restoration that had been agreed to had a limit of $72,000, but he didn't know what that figure was now that the two bodies had agreed to split the costs. Councilman Haffey stated that tonight the Board and the Council should come to a firm agreement on what they were willing to do: give a density bonus - yes; are we willing to make it a 50-50 split of $36,000 each with that cap. He stated that if it went over the $36,000 each then it was up to the community to do something. Boardmember Latham stated that he had no problem with Councilman Haffey's proposal but requested the Developer to respond to those conditions and whether there was a place on the site that the Developer could move the bungalow where it would not cause a problem. 12/18/85 Page 7 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~'~,~.. AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW Mr. Sullivan stated that his firm was working hard with its architects trying to get the full number of units on that site in order to keep to a certain construction, type which is a wood frame, and still provide an adequate but tight site plan. He spoke of attempts to try to get the number of units and the park- ing required by the City and allow affordability of the site as there was very little hope of little hope of Federal or State dollars available to assist in senior housing to make this project economically feasible. He stated that in order to keep the bungalow where it stood the number of units would have to be cut down. Councilman Haffey stated that the point was that the City wished to give a den- sity bonus to make up some of the han- dicaps, as three goals could be seen: 1) The school District needs a maximum amount of return on their property; 2) there was a very valuable historical resource the City wanted to preserve; 3) the City wanted a valuable project in that area that would not jeopardize the neighborhood. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was sym- pathetic with Councilman Haffey's three points. He stated that in order to accomplish this, it was not so much the number of units in terms of density, but with the land left over which would require that the plan be a steel construction or a four story in order to get the units on the site and the cir- culation for the parking. He stated that if the City wanted to keep the affordable housing in, without subsidy dollars, the City would probably have to cut down the number of units and therefore the land would be worth less. Discussion followed: that additional stories had sprinkler systems required, different kinds of construction methods which would make the cost prohibitive, 12/18/85 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN - - AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW whether the City was looking towards using Redevelopment funds for this pro- ject; not using Redevelopment funds for the housing, just for the utilities work. Mr. Sullivan stated that if the Council kept the bungalow and wanted to have a construction type that was more affor- dable to build, essentially three story wood construction with surface parking, then to do the plan the City would either have to cut down the number of units which affects the price of land; or the City would have to put some of its redevelopment monies into the project. City Manager Birk~lo stated that the City was going to use some of the Redevelop- ment housing funds to make sure utili- ties were brought to the site, but nothing to his knowledge as a subsidy towards the housing project itself. Councilman Haffey questioned how valuable the building was to the City and how willing the City was to pursue this. He stated that the City was trying to show at this point that it was willing to use Redevelopment dollars that were available; was willing to use General Fund dollars that were available to preserve it and give a density bonus on the site. Vice President Rodondi stated that he agreed whole heartedly, if it was a workable plan and the building could be preserved. He stated that there had been cost factors that had destroyed the bungalow and it had to be renovated and put back in place. He questioned if it was feasible to have the Developer resubmit plans, to see if it could be worked out; or the other alternative was the culling out of that section of land and what price difference that would make on the land itself. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that if some 12/18/85 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW units had to be culled out, how would that affect the value of the property; compare that dollar amount to moving the bungalow or restoration - only then could a choice be made. Discussion followed: to set goals and learn the desires of the two Boards; the cost to the City for a subsidy so that BRIDGE could accomplish the desired pro- ject; that the City had pledged $125,000 of the housing funds for the utilities work, which left a balance of $60,000 available now; that money was available in the future; that it was not known what type of a subsidy was required; the Developer's time restraints; that the two Bodies would meet for further discussion 3 - 4 weeks from now; Staff is to come back to the two Boards with solid infor- mation and alternatives for a joint meeting in January to effect the three goals. Mr. Sullivan reiterated his understanding of what the two Boards wanted from the architect: alternatives, i.e., staying within the construction type; assuming that the bungalow stays, what does that mean; assume the same number of units and the cost factors. Discussion followed: moving the bungalow to another location on the same site or to another site; the legality of the pro- cess; that the City could give density bonuses, density transfers from one piece of property to another; could use tax increment monies to help subsidize the cost of the construction of the housing, but the City could not use the money to move the bungalow. Boardmember Braschi suggested seeking State funds to assist the City in the restoration of the bungalow by making application through the School District. He stated that there might be State funds available for a restored school and/or historical building. 12/18/85 Page 10 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~.~ AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW Councilman Drago stated that if a building was designated as an historical landmark, then the State waives the Code standards which would reduce the pre- construction costs. Mr. Sullivan stated that this evening's discussion did not preclude the School District from signing an option agreement with BRIDGE, to motivate BRIDGE to move forward and effect a resolution within the gO day working agreement. Councilman Haffey stated that he wanted to see negotiations for the best advan- tage of the School District and meet the City's goals of senior housing with pre- servation of the bungalow. He questioned if the District's Staff had any problems with the direction taken in the discus- sion of the two Bodies. Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated that if the Board agreed with the Council he had no problems and would work with City Staff on the project. Boardmember Latham questioned if the Superintendent of Schools had any legal problems with spending the District's money for a project such as this. Superintendent of Schools Gaffney stated that the Board had set up a cap of $72,000 of which $36,000 was the District's which was mainly from insurance, and he did not have any legal problems. He stated that a number of projects had been done with the City through a joint powers agreement. Mayor Teglia stated that by the third week in January there would be infor- mation for the two Boards to act upon. Mrs. Edna Harks stated that the Historical Society was very interested in saving the exterior of the bungalow even if the interior could not be used by the Society. 12/18/85 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Joint meeting with the School Board for discussion of Magnolia Center - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: RECESS: AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Evelyn Martin, 534 Commercial Avenue, expressed appreciation to the Council for its on-going support of the Historical Society. She stated that the BRIDGE Corporation would be making money on this project and it would be a nice gesture if they donated the bungalow to the City. Councilman Haffey pointed out the fact that BRIDGE was a non-profit company that specialized in building low and moderate income senior housing for and was not in business to make a profit. Ms. Martin stated that the Magnolia Center had been closed in 1968, and with the many surveys made by the City on the property the bungalow could have been purchased four times. She stated that she hoped this project would be completed in 1986 and not delayed to future years She stated that in other cities there had been handsome donations from companies for historical societies, yet this City's Society did not even have a building to house its historical documents and arti- facts. She stated that if the Society had the bungalow it could put the City on the map by having students come in and research historical documents and artifacts. Vice President Rodondi stated that the School District's budget was severely controlled for educational purposes and it could not make a donation of a building or of property. The School Board as a Body adjourned the joint meeting at 7:18 p.m. Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m., with all Council present. Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 7:29 p.m. 12/18/85 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW RECALL TO ORDER: 0 Staff Report 12/18/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution authorizing a reimbursement agreement between the City and Agency for funds ad- vanced by the City for the U.S. Steel Site Redevelopment Project ~ (Shearwater). ~q~ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN AND REPAYMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Recommendation that the Council adopt a Resolution authorizing deposits and withdrawals from the _~l~ Local Agency Investment Fund. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEPOSIT IN AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (G.C. SECTION 16429.1) ® Recommendation that the Council adopt a Resolution which calls for a Special Election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the City Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution requesting County Clerk of San Mateo County to render specified election services. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY TREASURER (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36512) A RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY CLERK OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED ELECTION SERVICES AGENDA REVIEW Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m., with all Council present. City Manager Birkelo stated that this Resolution, unlike that adopted by the Redevelopment Agency, provided that the Mayor rather than the City Manager will enter into the Agreement. M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 261-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Birkelo stated that this Resolution would substitute the name of the Interim City Treasurer for the name of the late City Treasurer Bonalanza. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 262-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Birkelo stated that at the last meeting Staff had been directed to explore the possibility of having the election date in June rather than April 1986. He stated that after substantial conversations with the County Clerk, the decision was still the same, that April 1986 was the general election date and furthermore Mr. Church stated that the County has never allowed a candidacy on the primary ballot - only issues. Vice Mayor Addiego questioned what the April date would be and the nomination period. City Clerk Battaya stated that the elec- tion date was 4/8/86 and that the nomina- tion period would open on 1/12/86 and 12/18/85 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Recommendation that the Council adopt a Resolution which calls for a Special Election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the City Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution requesting County Clerk of San Mateo County to render specified election services - Continued. AGENDA REVIEW close on February 2nd (the Clerk later notified the Council in writing that the proper nomination period was 1/9/86 through 1/30/86). Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he was very much in favor of having this remain an elective office and having the election. He stated that there were some who saw the appointive process paving the way for someone -- for some control of the office; that there were others who believed that having the April election would pave the way for someone else to assume the office. He stated that he fell in neither category, and was interested in the office being maintained primarily to enjoin the status within City government that was already established. He questioned the City Attorney: if the City Council were to appoint an indivi- dual, a City employee, with the under- standing that before the next regular Council election in 1987, that person would be cajoled into resigning the offi- ce - could the City then hold an election for the office. City Attorney Rogers stated that his memory of the Government Code Section~ that related to appointment of elected officials, was that the term will be to the end of the term of the elected offi- cial. He continued, so when the person was appointed he was not going to be serving at the Council's pleasure type of situation. He stated that if the Council filled the appointment without any pre- conditions in the term, and for whatever reason, this person decides that he can no longer serve and resigns - then the Council is back where they are today. He stated that if the Council appointed a Staff member as a City Treasurer, where there would be control, he may be in a position to leave City employment and 12/18/85 Page 14 ACTION TAKEN AGENDA AGENDA REVIEW Recommendation that the Council adopt a Resolution which calls for a Special Election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the City Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution requesting County Clerk of San Mateo County to render specified election services - Continued. CASSETTE NO. 2 AGENDA REVIEW would still be City Treasurer. Councilman Haffey stated that he would be agreeable to having a ballot issue at the next regular election to make the City Treasurer appointive and give the people that option. Vice Mayor Addiego expressed concern: over the cost of the special election; how many candidates would take out papers; that in the November election there had only been one challenger. He stated that he would like to hear some discussion on the possibility of having an appointment. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he believed that candidates would come for- ward and was in favor of having an elec- tion in April of 1986 to fill the office. Councilman Drago questioned what would happen if only one candidate filed his papers at the close of the nomination period, could the election be cancelled or must the City conduct the full election. City Attorney Rogers stated that there were options in the Elections Code to provide for that situation and avoid the cost of an election. Councilman Haffey stated that if this was a vacancy on the Council, early after an election, he would probably lean towards a special election; or if it was that the remainder of the term was six months to a year he would lean toward an appointment. He continued, because in this case it was a City Treasurer and the statewide trend was such that they were appointed posi- tions; that he would make an appointment now and then put it on the ballot for the people to decide whether it should be appointive or elected. City Attorney Rogers stated that if the people voted in 1987 to make the City 12/18/85 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW 0 Recommendation that the Council adopt a Resolution which calls for a Special Election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the City Treasurer; and adopt a Resolution requesting County Clerk of San Mateo County to render specified election services - Continued. Be Adoption of a Resolution authorizing compensation for the Deputy City Treasurer. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMPENSATION FOR THE DEPUTY CITY AGENDA REVIEW Treasurer's office appointive it would then begin to be effective at the end of the present term in 1989. City Clerk Battaya explained: on the 63rd day, which would he 2/4/86, if there are no more candidates than seats to be filled, the City Clerk will submit a cer- tificate of these facts to the Council that it may appoint the person nominated; appoint any eligible elector, if there is no nominee, or hold the election. M/S Nicolopulos/Drago - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 263-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Haffey and Teglia voted no. City Clerk Battaya stated that the second Resolution called for the County Clerk to assign precinct workers and consolidate precincts. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 264-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Birkelo stated that at the 1/8/86 meeting he would like to present recommendations concerning the job duties and compensation prior to the opening of the nomination period. City Manager Birkelo stated that adoption of the Resolution would provide compen- sation to Deputy City Treasurer Ford for interim services at an hourly rate of $20.00 an hour, which would not exceed $500 in total. M/S Naffey/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 265-85 12/18/85 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN AGENDA REVIEW Be Adoption of a Resolution authorizing compensation for the Deputy City Treasurer- Continued. ~ql Adoption of a Resolution commending "Bill" Koeppen upon his ret irement~ from the City. A RESOLUTION COMMENDING WILMER D. "BILL" KOEPPEN iTEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations and litigation. RECALL TO ORDER: ADJOURNMENT AGENDA REVIEW Councilman Drago questioned if this would set a precedent in the future for Deputy City Treasurers to be compensated. City Manager Birkelo stated that it could, however that would be planned for in the budget process. Carried by unanimous roll call vote. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 266-85 Mayor Teglia read the Resolution aloud. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM STAFF No one chose to speak. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL No one chose to speak. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 7:59 p.m., to discuss litigation: O.C. Jones vs. City of South San Francisco. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m., all Council present, no action was taken. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 8:12 p.m. 12/18/85 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, taya, City Cler~' City of South San Francisco APPROVED. ['~]~berta Cerri Tegl i a,' M~6r City of South San Franc~'sco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an 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 are available for inspection, review and copying. 12/I8/85 Page 18