HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986-08-13Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Counci 1:
John "Jack" Drago
Ri chard A. Haffey
Gus Nicolopulos
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
City Hall
August 13, 1986
0205
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session for the purpose of
the discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations, litiga-
ti on and the personnel evaluations
of the Police Chief and Deputy
City Manager/City Engineer.
Mayor Teglia Arrived:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Barbara A. Battaya, City CleriC/
City of South San Francisco
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
8:35 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Addiego pre-
siding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Haffey,
Drago and Addiego.
Teglia.
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Pro Tem Addiego stated that the
Closed Session would be held to discuss
the items noticed and Council adjourned
to a Closed Session at 8:38 a.m.
Mayor Teglia arrived at 11:45 a.m.
Councilman Addie9o recalled the
meeting to order at 12:22 p.m., all
Council present, no action taken.
M/S Drago/Te§lia - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Time was 12:23 p.m.
APPROVED.
.B~erta Cerri Teglia, Ma.~
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 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.
8/13/86
Page i
Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Council:
John "Jack" Drago
Richard A. Halley
Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION:
PRESENTATIONS
San Francisco Giants:
Report on Cultural Exchange Program
with Dolores Hidalgo.
MINUTES
City Council
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
August 13, 1986
0306
ACTION TAKEN
7:38 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Haffey,
Addiego, Drago and
Te§lia.
None.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
The invocation was given by Reverend
Johnson, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church.
PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Alan Zellmer, Downtown Merchants
Assoc., presented Council and Staff with
a commemorative glass of the 1986 Arts
and Wine Festival to be held on Grand
Avenue on 8/16/86 - 8/17/86.
Mr. Dave Craig, Director of Community
Relations S.F. Giants, presented Willy
McCovey medallions to the Council, and
presented the Mayor with a framed base-
ball that she had thrown as the first
pitch of the game.
Recreation Supervisor Alex Tsitovich pre-
sented Mayor Teglia with a framed picture
of her throwing the first pitch at the
game that had been autographed by Vida
Blue.
Mayor Teglia presented a slide show of
the trip to Dolores Hidalgo with the Jazz
Band in attendance at the podium, and
spoke of the appreciation of the Mexican
people who had viewed the many perfor-
mances held.
She stated that on 9/14/86 folkloric
dance troup from Dolores Hidalgo would be
in South San Francisco to perform and
encouraged people to invite the visitors
into their homes to stay during their
stay in the City.
8/13/86
Page I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0307
PRESENTATIONS
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo Requested:
- Add Item 2h. Claim against the
City: Harvey D. Mittler, Esq.
on behalf of Margaret Lillian
Colletti, Parent of Minor
Daughter Shannon Lee.
- That Items 2a., c. and d. were
really claims against the
Contractor rather than the City.
- Remove Item No. 1~.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Teglia presented brass and copper
Aztec calendar plates in appreciation for
the assistance given by individuals to
make the trip such a success: John Wong,
Lydia Barbetti, Nella Howard, Bel
Zertucchi, John Aguillar, Mario Gonzales.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Douglas Butler, 133 Adrian Ave.,
stated that at the Daly City Council
meeting, held Monday, a hearing had been
held on the Serramonte Plaza Project,
which is a project scheduled to be built
on Hickey Blvd. just off the 280 off-ramp
across from Crown Colony. He stated that
the Developer had wanted immediate appro-
val or he would lose the tenant he had
lined up, Blue Shield, and the
Council wanted a firm commitment first
from the tenant. He stated that the
discussion had continued somewhat
heatedly as to what should be first.
He stated that during the meeting he had
heard some amazing comments from the Daly
City Council, i.e., "You bring the Blue
Shield here, and you got my vote." He
stated that that statement had been made
before the Public Hearing had been closed
and he felt the comment was the height of
official disdain for the public.
He stated that the Daly City Council
voted to introduce an Ordinance to rezone
the site for the project, and that a
second reading would be held on 8/25/86.
8/13/86
Page 2
AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ACTION TAKEN
0308
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
He expressed appreciation to City Planner
Gorny who had spoken a number of times
against this project as a representative
of South San Francisco. He stated that
Councilman Drago had attended Monday's
meeting in further support of this City.
He thanked the Council for having written
a letter of protest to Daly City on a
sewer hookup, however he would like the
City to do more in this effort by taking
a firm stand against the project.
Councilman Drago stated that Mr. Butler
was absolutely correct about the actions
and comments at the meeting. He thanked
City Planner Gorney for his answer to the
comments at the meeting, "You have told
the Developer what he needs to get your
vote - what does the public need to get
your vote."
He stated that he believed there was a
moratorium in Daly City on sewer hook-
ups, and questioned how that City could
put a project of that magnitude in right
now without guarantee of Blue Shield or
anybody without some sort of sewage tie-
up. He stated that this City should go
on record that it would not acknowledge
any requests from Daly City to allow them
to tie-in to this City's sewage system.
He stated that even though the Council
had written the letter to Daly City the
Developer should have a letter stating
the City's stand on any sewer hookups.
Mayor Teglia stated that the letter of
protest had been signed by each member of
the South San Francisco City Council.
She questioned if Daly City could accom-
modate the sewage requirements of that
building entirely on its own.
She stated that when the moratorium had
been effected, Daly City had established
three different priority lists, and
questioned which list this project fell
under.
8/13/86
Page 3
AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ACTION TAKEN
0309
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that Staff had indicated in the
very beginning that it would not consider
any connection without going before the
Council. He continued, this parcel was
not within the boundary of the sewer ser-
vice district, and therefore in order to
make a connection had to come before this
Council to either approve or disapprove
the hook-up.
Discussion followed: that the South San
Francisco Council position was that there
would be no hook-up; that there had been
comments on the City's position in the
EIR; that a stronger comment should be
made to Daly City; Daly City Council's
water conservation methods; that this
City's Council could not impose their
will on that entity; that if the project
was refused sewer service by South San
Francisco, then Daly City would have to
put it into their system; that this
Council should send a letter to Blue
Shield to inform them of the Council
stance that a hook-up would not be
allowed; that this City should do
everything possible to protect its citi-
zens sewer services; Daly City's
aggressiveness to its neighbors: Colma,
Brisbane and Broadmore, etc.
Mr. Butler stated that the site being
proposed was a land-filled site, a slope
coming down Clay Avenue Park, with very
great soil instability. He stated that a
building of such magnitude of seven
stories towering about that park would
present a hazard to the citizens of South
San Francisco.
He stated that the project would affect
this City and the community of West
Winston Manor where he lived through
increased traffic on Hickey Boulevard.
He stated that it was a question of
whether the EIR had truly been satisfac-
8/13/86
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0310
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of the Adjourned Regular
Meeting of 6/12/86, Regular Meeting
of 6/25/86, Adjourned Regular
Meeting of 6/30/86, Regular Meeting
of 7/9/86, Adjourned Regular
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
torily done and mitigated, and if that
was not the case then legal action could
be taken through CEQA.
Mayor Teglia suggested that the City
Attorney take a good look at the pro-
ceedings in terms of how they comply with
CEQA, and then advise the Council.
Mr. Butler questioned if the services of
the City Attorney would be available to
the West Winston Manor Community
Association.
City Attorney Armento stated that she
would have to get the documentation
first, and then she should have something
for the next Council meeting.
Mayor Teglia requested the Planning Staff
to analyze the soils report presented to
Daly City and provide that information to
the City Attorney.
Mr. Pat Ahearn stated that he had
addressed the Council on 7/23/86 with a
number of questions on Cable TV. He
stated that in response he had received a
report from the City that did not address
his questions: why the City had reduced
the franchise rate to 21~%; and why the
audit reports were not on file with the
City Clerk.
Mayor Teglia stated that the item was on
the Agenda and would be addressed later
in the meeting.
COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved.
8/13/86
Page 5
AGENDA ACT]~ON TAKEN 0311,
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Minutes - Continued.
Meeting of 7/16/86, Regular Meeting
of 7/23/86; Adjourned Regular
Meeting of 7/30/86, and the
Adjourned Regular Meeting of
7/31/86.
2. Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
by Motion that the City Council
deny and refer the following
claims against the City to the
Insurance Adjuster and the City
Attorney:
a)
Claim as filed by Cherie Haller
alleging damage to her vehicle
due to faulty condition of the
street at Produce Avenue and
Terminal Court.
b)
Claim as filed by Farley S.
Tolpen, Esq. on behalf of
Denise Neis alleging injuries
due to improper warning of
faulty condition of the
street at Westborough and
Gellert Boulevards.
c)
Claim as filed by Greg Sack
alleging damage to his vehicle
due to a faulty condition of
the street at Produce Avenue
and Terminal Court.
d)
Claim as filed by Anthony C.
Sirovatka alleging a broken
windshield at Orange Avenue
Park.
e)
Claim as filed by Colleen
Butler, Esq. on behalf of
Reverend Earl Smith alleging
injuries due to the unsafe
field condition at Westborough
Park.
f)
Claim as filed by William
Stridbeck alleging damage to
his vehicle by a City employee
at 2632 Leix Way.
CONSENT CALENDAR
So ordered.
8/13/86
Page 6
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
0312
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Staff Report - Continued.
g)
Claim as filed by Roy Wing
alleging damage to his vehicle
due to faulty condition of the
street at Produce Avenue and
Terminal Court.
h)
Claim as filed by Harvey D.
Mittler, Esq. on behalf of
Margaret Lillian Colletti,
Parent of Minor Daughter
Shannon Lee alleging unproved
altercation between the latter
and the Police which caused
emotional distress.
®
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution of award
of contract for the Parking
District Municipal Parking Lot
Improvements Project No. PB-85-1;
Bid No. 1723 to the lowest respon-
sible bidder.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR THE PARKING DISTRICT MUNICIPAL
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
NO. PB-85-1, BID NO. 1723
®
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
by Motion to accept as complete the
Cypress and Pine Playlot Lighting
Project in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
plans and specifications, author-
izing the work and calling bids
for the Colma Creek Dredging
Project No. SD-86-1.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE
COLMA CREEK DREDGING PROJECT NO.
SD-86-1
CONSENT CALENDAR
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Councilman Haffey.
So ordered.
oYo
RESOLUTION NO. 140-86
8/13/86
Page 7
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
0313
CONSENT CALENDAR
CONSENT CALENDAR
e
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
plans and specifications, author-
izing the work and calling bids
for the 1986-87 Street Resurfacing
Project No. ST-86-1.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE
1986-87 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
NO. ST-86-1
RESOLUTION NO. 141-86
0
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution of award
of contract for the replacement of
steel frame and windows at Central
Fire Station, Project No. PB-83-
10.3, Bid No. 1722 to South City
Glass as the lowest responsible
bidder in the amount of $25,450.00.
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Councilman Halley.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF STEEL
FRAME AND WINDOWS AT CENTRAL FIRE
STATION, PROJECT NO. PB-83-10.3,
BID NO. 1720-1
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To approve the
Consent Calendar with the exception of
Items No. 3 and 7.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
®
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution of award
of contract for the Parking ~'~/~/
District Municipal Parking Lot
Improvements Project No. PB-85-1;
Bid No. 1723 to G. Bortolotto and
Company in the amount of $57,411.70
as the lowest responsible bidder.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR THE PARKING DISTRICT MUNICIPAL
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
NO. PB-85-1, BID NO. 1723
Councilman Haffey questioned
why the engineering estimate of $77,000
was $20,000 greater than the lowest bid.
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that this particular bidder had
been used before and was sometimes below
and sometimes above the estimate in his
bidding.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that in
8/13/86
Page 8
AGENDA ACTZON TAKEN 0314
3. Staff Report - Continued.
keeping with earlier votes on this item
he was voting no because he would rather
see the money used for a high rise
parking lot.
RESOLUTION NO. 142-86
Carried by majority voice vote,
Nicolopulos voted no.
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution of award
of contract for the replacement of
steel frame and windows at Central
Fire Station, Project No. PB-83-
10.3, Bid No. 1722 to South City
Glass as the lowest responsible
bidder in the amount of $25,450.00.
Councilman Haffey stated that the bid was
over the engineer's estimate and
suggested rejecting the bid and going out
-zF~)/w/~f°r a new bidding process.
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that twelve bid had been mailed
out and that only one bid was submitted.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF STEEL
FRAME AND WINDOWS AT CENTRAL FIRE
STATION, PROJECT NO. PB-83-10.3,
BID NO. 1720-1
A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF STEEL FRAME
AND WINDOWS AT CENTRAL FIRE STATION,
PROJECT NO. PB-83-10.4, BID 1722
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF STEEL FRAME AND
WINDOWS AT CENTRAL FIRE STATION,
PROJECT NO. PB-83-10.5, BID NO.
1722-1
Councilman Haffey questioned if the bid
was approved, did it mean that the expen-
diture was also approved. He continued,
if so would that mean that an amendment
would come before the Council later to
amend the budget in that this was not in
the budget.
Councilman Nicolopulos questioned what
was wrong with the bidding process when
so few responded to City bids. He
directed Staff to research the matter.
M/S Haffey/Drago - To reject all bids for
the replacement of steel frame and win-
dows at the Fire Station.
RESOLUTION NO. 143-86
(Cassette No. 2)
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Haffey/Drago - To approve plans and
specifications and authorize the work and
call bids for the steel frame and windows
at the Fire Station.
RESOLUTION NO. 144-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
8/13/86
Page 9
AGENDA ACT]'ON TAKEN 0315
APPROVAL OF BILLS
8. Approval of the Regular Bills of
8/13/86.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
CITY CLERK
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution estab-
lishing compensation and benefits
for the City Clerk. ~/~'
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR THE
CITY CLERK
APPROVAL OF BILLS
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the
Regular Bills of 8/13/86 in the amount of
$1,825,032.71.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Te§lia declared a recess at 9:13
p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 9:27 p.m., all Council present.
CITY CLERK
City Clerk Battaya stated that the
essence of this Resolution was a request
to adjust the City Clerk's salary to that
of her counterparts in neighboring
cities. She stated that a survey had
been taken, at her request, by the City
Manager's Office to determine if the
salary was equitable with corresponding
positions in other cities. She stated
that the cities chosen were the same
cities used in establishing salary
control points for members of Executive
Management.
She stated that the results of the survey
indicated a large discrepancy, 40.3%,
between the salary of the S.S.F. City
Clerk and the average salary for City
Clerks of the five comparable cities.
She requested that Council approve the
Resolution to correct the inequities that
have occurred since her last salary
adjustment which had been in November
1983, thirty-three months ago.
Vice Mayor Addiego questioned how many of
the five cities had elected City Clerks.
City Clerk Battaya stated that Daly City
was elected; San Leandro had the elected
position that was unfilled, and the
Secretary to the City Manager performed
the function with a 10% differential over
her salary; Redwood City was appointed;
San Bruno was elected; and San Mateo was
appointed. 8/13/86
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0216
CITY CLERK
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY CLERK
Mayor Teglia stated that San Bruno had a
split position, part of which was staff
and part as the elected function with two
different salaries. She stated that at
this time the two salaries are collected
by one individual, but in the future may
be split if the City so desires.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the San
Bruno Council thought that by doing that
they would protect the status of the City
Clerk in the event someone was elected
without here qualifications.
Councilman Drago questioned if the salary
survey figures had been verified by the
City Manager.
City Manager Birkelo stated yes, Staff
believed them to be accurate.
Councilman Drago questioned if it was
true all the other Department Heads
salaries were based upon the five bench-
mark cities.
City Manager Birkelo stated yes, those
were the cities used to compare the
Executive Management salaries with com-
parable cities.
Councilman Drago questioned how the
Clerk's salary could fall behind 40% in
the last three years.
City Manager Birkelo stated that neither
the Clerk or anyone else had made a
request of the Council for a salary
adjustment.
Councilman Drago commented that in
looking at the figures and the Clerk's
salary, he felt that she had a legitimate
request, but he was not saying that 40%
was proper. He stated that he was not
one to go along with any vehicle
allowance, unless there was a real need.
He stated that he did not feel she sould
be treated any differently than any other
Department Head.
8/13/86
Page 11
I I I
AGENDA
CITY CLERK
9. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
0317
CITY CLERK
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he had to
disagree because they were using bench-
mark cities for Council gui delines on the
people for performance evaluations. He
stated that he wouldn't begin to enter-
tain the notion of sitting down with the
elected Clerk, elected by the citizens,
and do an evaluation on her performance -
because that was done every four yours.
He stated that the Council needed to know
in San Mateo what the appointed City
Clerk's functions were for the City.
Councilman Haffey stated that he agreed
that in no way could this position be
compared to Executive Management because
it is an election position, and the
Council should not evaluate this position
as it was evaluated every four years by
the voters. He stated that at the same
time he did not want to play games with
someone's salary, he felt that someone
should receive a cost of living increase
every year; and in this instance this
person had not received a cost of living
increase since November of 1983. He
stated that obviously some type of
adjustment had to be made.
He stated that last night, in another
City he happened to work for, he had sat
through this very discussion of setting
the salary for the new City Clerk, which
had been set at $2,750. He stated that
that was a City half the size of this
one, so it was obvious that the City
Clerk's request was entirely justified
for some type of adjustment. He
suggested looking at the CPI Index since
November 1983, or another equitable
measure might be to look at the kind of
increases given to other employees since
November 1983. He stated that it was
only fair and equitable that the Council
make that kind of adjustment after the
increases had been researched by Staff.
Mayor Teglia stated that she was hearing
8/13/86
Page 12
AGENDA
CITY CLERK
9. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN 0218
CITY CLERK
a consensus of Council directing Staff to
prepare that information for the Council.
City Clerk Battaya, in response to Vice
Mayor Addiego's question on San Mateo,
stated that there were over 1,000 duties
set forth in the Government Code that the
City Clerk shall do. She stated that a
City Clerk whether elected or appointed,
had no distinction.
She stated that in San Mateo the Clerk
had taken over the Print Shop in addition
to being responsible for the Word
Processing Center and was paid accord-
ingly.
She stated that what she did, i.e., elec-
tions, annexation, assessment districts
and bid openings were all spelled out by
Government Code.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he
understood those duties, but there were
other duties that the Clerk had been
willing to take on.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the dif-
ference in her function was unlike San
Bruno, wherein she served as Secretary to
the Council, because that function had
been given to the City Manager's secre-
tary some time ago.
Mayor Teglia stated that there was a con-
sensus to grant the Clerk a fair
increase, but there may be a distance in
the Clerk's proposal, and what the
Council felt comfortable granting. She
referred the matter to the City Manager's
Office to ko come up with a middle ground
where all will be comfortable.
Councilman Haffey stated that he wanted
Staff to come up with the facts con-
sistent with the MOUs of other bargaining
groups, so that Council would treat this
position as the Council had treated other
employees; and there is no injustice.
8/13/86
Page 13
AGENDA ACTZON TAKEN 0319
CITY CLERK
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY CLERK
City Clerk Battaya stated that she had
used the benchmark cities to put herself
in the same category as the salary of the
five other City Clerks. She stated that
some of the Clerks received additional
monies for Redevelopment meetings, which
was not what she was requesting - only
fair consideration to make what her coun-
terparts were paid.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that the bench-
mark cities had been established to
attract talent, whereas the Clerk was
elected - which was different.
Councilman Drago stated that he felt that
the City Clerk position had the same
responsibilities, the same requirement of
qualifications similar to Department
Heads; and he felt that the Clerk was a
part of the Executive Management Group.
He staed that if the cost of living had
been 7% per year it still would not be
compounded and a fair salary established.
City Clerk Battaya stated that prior to
1983 the City Manager, City Clerk and
City Treasurer had all been on the same
salary Resolution with a flat percentage
general increase. She stated that in
1983 she had compiled a 24 city salary
survey of Clerks and the Council had
given her an increase. She stated that
there after she had thought she would
again be included on a Resolution for a
fair raise with the City Manager, however
the Executive Management had been
established and the City Manager had been
included in that Resolution.
City Manager Birkelo stated that he would
have the information at the next meeting,
and pointed out that there was a com-
pounding factor that would also come into
play.
8/13/86
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
10.
Public Hearing - Consideration of
an increase in garbage rates by the
South San Francisco Scavenger ~~7
Company.
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to adopt a
Resol uti on.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCAVENGER
RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1986 AND
AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF AN
AGREEMENT FOR SCAVENGER SERVICES
11.
Public Hearing - Consideration of
the Revised Zoning Ordinance, ~~
Revised Zoning District Maps,
General Plan Amendment (GP-86-30),
and Negative Declaration No. 547.
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Motion to continue
the Public Hearing to the meeting
of 8/27/86.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Mayor Teglia stated that a Subcommittee
was being formed of herself and Vice
Mayor Addiego and the item would be
continued to the first meeting in
September; and she did not open the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Douglas Butler stated that when the
old present General Plan was adopted in
1985 it had included wording that hotels
and motels of fifty rooms or less would
be on E1Camino. He stated that the
intent had been to keep the larger deve-
lopments on 101 with less impact to the
neighborhoods. He stated that in the new
Policy 38 there was no mention of E1
Camino, or any limitation on the number
of hotel or motel rooms. He stated that
this suggested that other areas could be
impacted because the wording "small" was
ambiguous in relation to E1Camino in
the new policy.
He stated that he was very concerned that
there could be negative traffic impacts
if there was high density along E1 Camino
or in other parts of the City along
feeder streets. He requested that the
present policy be retained, as the speci-
fic number of fifty rooms was still
valid today as a limitation on E1Camino.
Director of Planning Smith retraced the
many workshops and public hearings that
the Planning Commission had held on the
General Plan Amendment and the drafted
Zoning Ordinance to receive public input.
She stated that a joint meeting had been
held with the Council as a study session
to review the documents.
8/13/86
Page 15
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
11. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
0321
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
She addressed specific issues in the
documents: Additions to single-family
homes should be compatible with the
existing house and with the surrounding
neighborhood; Senior citizen housing,
which should not be restricted to any
particular section of the City, may be
permitted at a maximum density of 50
units/acre, etc.; that the item Mr.
Butler referred to had been determined
that the limitation of 50 rooms was not a
valid one, and proposed a new Policy 38
to clarify the intent of the limitation;
Fast food restaurants should be
restricted to E1 Camino Real; Landscaping
policies should be incorporated,
reflecting existing Design Review poli-
cies; That auto, truck, and/or equipment
lots should be located under major util-
ity lines in the industrial and planned
commercial areas, not just along South
Airport Boulevard.
She stated that the revised Zoning
Ordinance contained five major sections:
1) Basic Provisions, 20.02, organizes all
the various land uses by type and inclu-
des provisions for home occupations;
Basic Zoning District, 20.12, describes
the ten zone districts which relate to
the land uses designated in the General
Plan., Rural Estates, Single Family
Residential, Duplex Residential,
Multi-Family Residential, Retail
Commercial, Planned Commercial, Downtown
Commercial, Light Industrial, Planned
Industrial, and Open Space; Sign
Districts, 20.36, the Sign District Map
which establishes five distinct districts
for the regulation of sign standards
within the City, with regulations
regarding the amount, type, and height of
signs permitted; Development Standards
and Criteria 20.68, the signal receiving
or transmitting antenna regulations sec-
tion establishes a procedure for antenna
permits, and ham radios; Administration,
8/13/86
Page 16
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
11. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
20.80, includes the procedures necessary
for administering the provisions of the
Ordinance and describes the processes
involved with application, notifications,
and decisions on Use Permit, Variance
Procedures, Antenna Permits, Planned Unit
Development Permit procedures, etc.
She requested that the Public Hearing be
opened, testimony be received, the
Hearing be Closed and continue the item
to the 8/27/86 meeting.
Mayor Teglia opened the Public Hearing
and invited those wishing to speak for or
against the item to step to the dais.
She stated that she would not close the
Public Hearing, but would leave it open
for testimony at the 8/27/86 meeting.
Mr. Bob Flickinger, 351 Arrow, stated
that his professional forte was in tele-
communications; had been licensed for
40 years as a radio operator; was cogni-
zant of the law in maintaining and ser-
vicing a radio station, satellite
antennas, etc.
He stated that he was very concerned by
this Ordinance, which in his opinion was
technically in complete violation of
Federal guidelines by trying to regulate
the height and location of antennas for
amateur radio operators.
He stated that he would volunteer to
serve on a committee to assist the City
to correct those sections of the
Ordinance that were in violation of
Federal guidelines.
Mr. R. L. Morgan, 713 Haven Ave., stated
that he was a licensed radio operator and
requested Council return this Ordinance
to a committee with expert assistance,
such as Mr. Flickinger.
Mr. A1 Salogga, 112 April Ave., stated
that he was assisting Kaiser Permanente
8/13/86
Page 17
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
11. Staff Report - Continued.
(Cassette No. 3)
ACTION TAKEN
0223
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Hospital as an amateur radio operator to
assist in the event of a national
disaster when all communications would be
out of commission.
Mr. John Ruddy, 112 Escanyo, stated that
if ever there was an emergency with all
power damaged and ineffectual, amateur
radio operators would be the only tool to
effect communications. He stated that he
was the only one present tonight that had
a permit from the Planning Commission for
his antenna.
Jim Basin, Esq., McDonald's Corp., spoke
of McDonald's being denied its appeal by
the Council for a fast food restaurant on
South Airport Boulevard. He stated that
the proposed General Plan Amendment would
exclude fast food restaurants to E1
Camino Real, when during the appeal pro-
cess his understanding had been that if
another location was available on South
Airport Boulevard that was not traffic
sensitive McDonald's had the opportunity
to build a restaurant.
He stated that a decision of the Planning
Director could be appealed to the
Planning Commission and it seemed that
that body was precluding appeals to the
City Council.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that an
appeal to the City Council would be held,
however evidence could not be presented
that had not first been reviewed by the
Planning Commission in their hearing.
Mr. Lou Dell'Angela stated that he was
representing Peter Massanti, Lou Poletti
and other clients and would like to bring
forth some salient facts for clarifica-
tion that perhaps had not been con-
sidered. He stated that his goal, as a
former Planning Director for this City,
was for the City to have the best General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance it could
possibly have.
8/13/86
Page 18
MICHAEL J. FLYNN
PAUL & STEWART
WILLIAM E. SARBOUR
JOHN C. BREWER
NANCY A. BuI"rERFIELD
JULIAN a SAPIRSTEIN
ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ
ROBERT J. MCCOY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY~ AT LAW
353 SACRAMENTO STREET, SUITE 1100
SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94111
TELEPHONE (415) 421-2~00
August 13, 1986
OF COUNSEL
F. RICHARD LOS£Y
CHARLES M. THOMPSON
SANTA ANA OI='F'ICE
3 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE. SUITE: 420
SANTA ANA. CAUFORNIA 92707
TELEPHONE (714) 540-5400
HAND-DELIYERED
City Council of the
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Ave.
South San Francisco, California 94080
Re: Comments of Philip Bill and Elaine Bill Regarding the Proposed
Revised Zoning Ordinance
Dear Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Philip Bill and Elaine Bill, owners of approximately
twenty (20) acres of land located on the northeast side of Sign Hill. This land is
presently zoned R-1. We understand that the proposed revised zoning ordinance
provides that our clients' land be redesignated as open space, with a density of 1 unit
per acre.
Our clients want to be able to develop this land for residential purposes in
a manner compatible with the site and the neighborhood. Owners of neighboring
parcels have been able to develop their property, as for example in the Stonegate
subdivision. Our clients believe that the new zoning ordinance should allow them to
make economically beneficial use of their property by developing it for residential
purposes.
Although we previously requested notice of all hearings regarding the
proposed revised zoning ordinance, we received no notice of the Planning commission
hearings so were denied the opportunity to be heard by the Planning commission. We
are calling our clients' concerns to your attention because we think that it is
something which should be considered by the City Council in its deliberations about
the proposed revised zoning ordinance. Please make this letter part of the record of
your hearings about the revised zoning ordinance. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Naney A. Butterfield
NAB/fly
8/13/86
Page 19A
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
11. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
0324
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
He stated that he agreed with Mr. Basin
in that the General Plan Amendment was to
have been a clarification, instead
involved major changes to policies
established in 1984.
He addressed the following wherein the
language was confusing: Policy 13
eliminates density for private streets in
new developments; lowering the density of
the Chestnut and Grand property which
would effect the sale value for the
City; that the open storage policy should
not be approved, because if the area was
covered it was not a problem; Policy 1-11
restricting car rental agencies only
under utility lines would reduce revenue
to the City; Policy 5-4 and 5-7 -
Chestnut and Grand should not be paced in
a Planned Development Zone as it would
take away development density (by taking
away land for street widening without
increasing density); potential definition
problems, "should" was being changed to
"shall" and "may" caused potential defi-
nition problems.
He stated that his client Peter Massanti
was negotiating with the City on zoning
that could adversely affect his property
and he did not want the property down
zoned.
He stated that the Zoning Ordinance was
not ready for adoption; had organiza-
tional problems; was an unclear
unrealistic document; created layers of
bureaucracy; made the Design Review Board
too dominant; was inconsistent with the
General Plan in relation to secondhand
stores; had a PC zone for adult enter-
tainment, etc.
Mayor Teglia read a letter into the
record from Nancy A. Butterfield, Esq., a
copy of which is attached and a perman-
ent part of the record of this meeting.
Mayor Teglia continued the Public Hearing
to the meeting of 8/27/86.
8/13/86
Page 19
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
0326
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
12.
Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to author-
/
ize the City Manager to make
application for Rental ~'
Rehabilitation Program Grant Funds.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR "RENTAL
REHABILITATION PROGRAM" GRANT FUNDS
ITEMS FROM STAFF
13. Report on the Cable TV Franchise.
(Cassette No. 4)
14.
Request from Oyster Point Village
Association to change the lease
parcel description to revise sub-
divisions used for leasing.
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the
Resol uti on.
RESOLUTION NO. 145-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Deputy City Manager/CD&A Lewis gave
background information on the Cable TV
franchise in response to Mr. Ahearn's
question at the last meeting on the
City's ability to regulate the franchise
fee. He spoke of State law that had
allowed Cable TV to cull out the
franchise fee on each customer's bill
through deregulation. He stated that
Cable TV submitted a certified audit to
the City each year as compiled by their
auditors.
Mr. Pat Ahearn questioned why the audit
was not on file in the City Clerk's
Office, and why the City did not perform
its own audit.
Councilman Drago questioned why Cable TV
did not provide a transmission from the
mountain for those people that could not
afford cable.
Mr. Edward Allen, President of Western
Communications, spoke at length from a
letter he had sent to the Mayor which
responded to Mr. Ahearn's concerns (a
copy of which is attached and a permanent
part of the record of this meeting).
Removed from the Agenda by the City
Manager under Agenda Review.
8/13/86
Page 20
COMMUNiOmONS.
EDWARD M. ALLEN
PRESIDENT ,
August 11, 1986
0327
The Honorable Roberta Teglia, Mayor
City of South San Francisco
City Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisao, CA 94080
Dear Mayor Teglia:
As I'm sure you can understand, I was deeply disturbed to
read the recent remarks of former Mayor/Councilman Patrick
Ahern concerning the relationship between WESTERN TV CABLE
and the present and former City Councils of the City of
South San Francisco. This is particularly true in light of
the fact that, for the past nineteen years, WESTERN TV CABLE
has enjoyed a totally cooperative relationship with the
various City Councils.
My information came from an article which appeared in the
Enterprise Journal on July 26th. There are several state-
ments in this article which are in error. As I do not know
whether the statements should be attributed to Mr. Ahern or
to the reporter who wrote the article, I think it 'is impor-
tant that I identify and correct these errors before comment-
ing on Mr. Ahern's statements.
ERROR:
The article indicates that WESTERN TV CABLE provides
service to some 22,000 subscribers. This is not the
case. WESTERN TV CABLE is the smallest cable system
operated by WESTERN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. As of August
1, 1986, and including some 2,075 subscribers who live
in the unincorporated portions of San Mateo County in
the vicinity of Belmont/San Carlos/Redwood City,
WESTERN TV CABLE provides service to 14,759 subscri-
bers. Of this number, 12,684 subscribers reside in
the City of South San Francisco.
ERROR:
The article indicates that at one time WESTERN TV
CABLE paid a franchise fee of 6%. WESTERN TV CABLE
has never paid a franchise fee of 6%. Under our
original franchise, we paid a franchise fee of 5% of
our basic service revenues. We are currently paying
a franchise fee of 2.5% of our basic and pay 'service
revenues.
Interland Executive Park, Suite 225, 2855 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek. CA 94598
Post Office Box 4610, Walnut Creek. CA 94596 (4'15) 935-3055
8/1 3/86
Page 20A
The HOnorable Roberta Teglia
August 11, 1986
Page Two
0328
ERROR:
Mr.. Ahern indicated that the new franchise fee was a
58% reduction over the previous franchise fee. This
is not the case. In addition to the mathematical
error through his use of a 6% figure, Mr. Ahern is
ignoring the substantial difference in the defini-
tion of gross receipts which was enlarged from
paying on just our basic service revenue to paying
on both our basic and pay service revenues. Immedi-
ately prior to the issurance of the new franchise,
our franchise fee was the legally permitted maximum
fee of 3% (of our basic service). Under the new
franchise, the franchise fee became 2.5% of both our
basic and pay service revenues.
ERROR:
The article states that WESTERN TV CABLE's rates
were deregulated as the result of "an October 1985
Supreme Court decision". I know of no such Supreme
Court decision. There may be some confusion with
the passage of the Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984 which was passed in October of 1984 and
became effective on December 29, 1984. One of the
provisions of this Act provides that cable televi-
sion systems which are subject to "effective compe-
tition'' (this would include WESTERN TV CABLE) are
rate-deregulated as of December 29, 1986. However,
WESTERN TV CABLE's rates were deregulated under the
provisions of Section 53066.1 of the Laws of the
State of California in the summer of 1984.
Mr. Ahern seems to raise two concerns:
1)
A concern that the City is receiving too little
money from WESTERN TV CABLE in the form of its
franchise fee payments.
2)
A concern that our rates are too high for senior
citizens who are on fixed incomes.
Franchise Fee: When the original franchise was granted to
WESTERN TV CABLE in 1967, the franchise fee was established
as 5% of our basic service revenues. In March of 1972, the
Federal Communications Commission declared that rates in
excess of 3% were illegal. However, they permitted the
collection of franchise fees in excess of the now maximum
legal rate of 3% (in the case of existing franchises) for a
period of fifteen years or until the expiration of the fran-
chise, whichever occurred first.
8/1 3/86
Page 20B
The Honorable Roberta Teglia
August 11, 1986
Page Three
As the original franchise issued to WESTERN TV CABLE was for
a period of eleven years, the 5% rate was grandfathered only
until the expiration of the franchise or until July 20,
1978. WESTERN TV CABLE voluntarily agreed to continue to
pay franchise fees at the 5% rate through the expiration of
the 1978 franchise payment year. The franchise fee was then
reduced to the Federally-mandated maximum permissable fee of
3% as of January 1, 1979.
During the period of 1978-1980, WESTERN TV CABLE was engaged
in negotiations with the City of South San Francisco for a
renewal of its franchise. During this entire period, the
maximum permissable franchise fee rate was established by
Federal Law as 3% of our gross revenues. As is true'with
all franchise negotiations, there was much give and take
between the City and WESTERN TV CABLE as to the provisions
to be contained in the new franchise. The City wished to
expand the definition of gross receipts beyond just our
basic service so as to include our revenues from our pay
services. WESTERN TV CABLE was asking a longer term (fif-
teen years) for its renewal franchise. Ultimately, these
negotiations led to an agreement to pay 2.5% (just ½% below
the legal maximum) of our gross receipts from both our basic
and pay services. We began paying franchise fees at this
new level on October 1, 1980 and have continued to pay fran-
chise fees at this level ever since.
I think, rather than being criticized, the City of South San
Francisco should be commended for its negotiating skills.
We are now paying franchise fees to the City of-South San
Francisco at the rate of about $7,000 per month. This is
about a four-fold increase over the franchise fees paid in
1979 (the last full year of payments under the old fran-
chise). Currently our franchise fee payments to the City of
South San Francisco (for permission to do business in the
City of South San Francisco) are running in excess of
$80,000 per year.
I am enclosing a schedule of our franchise fee payments
since we were first awarded a franchise in 1967.
I call your attention to the dramatic increase in payments
since the issuance of the renewal franchise on October 1,
1980. As you can see, and to date, we have paid more than
$684,000 in franchise fees to the City of South San Fran-
cisco over the last nineteen years. ~
8/]3/86
Page 20C
The Honorable Roberta Teglia
August 11, 1986
Page Four
Mr. Ahern also expressed a concern that the renewal fran-
chise no longer requires "an independent audit of the Com-
pany's financial records". The inference is that WESTERN TV
CABLE might somehow submit false information to the City in
an effort to reduce its franchise fee payments. I object
strongly to such an inference and there is nothing in the
past history of WESTERN TV CABLE that would lend any cre-
dence to such a suggestion.
While it is true that, unlike the original franchise, there
is no longer a requirement for certification of our fran-
chise fees by a certified public accountant, WESTERN TV
CABLE has voluntarily continued the procedures we followed
under the original franchise ordinance and has submitted a
statement from our certified public accountants as to the
accuracy of our franchise fee payments for each year we have
been operating under the renewal franchise. Further, under
the provisions of Section 5(a) of the franchise renewal
ordinance, the City has a right to audit our revenue
records to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of our
franchise fee payments with the costs of such an audit to be
borne by WESTERN TV CABLE. The City of South San Francisco
has never found it necessary to exercise this right.
Councilman Jack Drago was exactly correct when he character-
ized franchise fee payments as a "double-edged sword". He
stated, "If you increase it too much, it's likely to be
passed right on to the people you're trying to help". Since
our rates are deregulated, it can be accurately stated that
WESTERN TV CABLE no longer pays franchise fees. As our only
source of revenue is payments from our subscribers, and as
our franchise fee payments are a separate line item on our
billing, it is truly our subscribers who pay franchise fees.
Should the franchise fees ever be raised, they would, in
fact, be passed on to our subscribers with a subsequent
increase in the subscribers' total monthly billing.
Of course, the issue of raising the franchise fees at this
time is a moot question as we are operating under a fran-
chise/contract between WESTERN TV CABLE and the City of
South San Francisco which fixes the franchise fee payments
until October 1, 1995.
Senior Citizens: During the prolonged and highly publicized
negotiations for the renewal of our franchise, no citizens
came forward to request any special kind of rate'considera-
tion for any segment of the public. I do remember that, at
the final meeting where the new franchise renewal ordinance
0330
8/] 3/86
Page 20D
The Honorable Roberta Teglia
August 11, 1986
Page Five
0331
was adopted, a representative of the "Grey Panthers" ap-
proached me during an intermission period to inquire as to
whether some special consideration might be given to senior
citizens. Of course, by this time, it was too late to
incorporate any such provision in the ordinance.
I assured the representative of the "Grey Panthers" that I
would be willing to entertain such a provision as long as
age was not the sole criterion for any discount as it would
be unfair to our subscriber base to offer such a discount to
wealthy people who had no need for such a discount just
because they were sixty-five years old. The representative
seemed to understand this position but we have never, until
Mr. Ahern's remarks six years later, had the issue arise
again.
I can tell you that, during the negotiations, the issue of a
possible senior citizens' discount was discussed by the
negotiators. However, both sides were concerned about the
precedent .such a discount might establish which could lead
to additional requests from other special interest groups
such as clergymen, students, public employees, retired mili-
tary, etc., etc. The City opted for a position of non-
discrimination toward everyone. That is, WESTERN.TV CABLE
could not Structure its rates in such a way as to either
advantage or disadvantage any particular group.
If the City of South San Francisco wishes to change its non-
discrimination position and afford some advantage to senior
citizens, WESTERN TV CABLE would be glad to discuss the
matter with the City. However, any such discount cannot be
based solely on raw age but must be tied to some demonstra-
tion of need. Further, WESTERN TV CABLE does not intend to
be the instrument of establishing this need - this would
have to be done by some outside agency such as the City.
Further, as any such discount must be absorbed in the rate
structure paid by our other subscribers who are not eligible
for a discount, we must know the magnitude of the amount of
lost revenue which would have to be made up through in-
creased fees to the balance of our subscribers.
It is my understanding that Mr. Ahern's remarks'are sched-
Uled for additional discussion on Mond~-~ August ~.~th. AZ I
~have served as Chairman of the Soard oI WESTERN TV CAB---~E
since the granting of the original franchise in 1967, I
should like to be present as I believe I can lend a ~ense of
continuity to the discussion. Currently, my travel schedule
is such that it is very probable that I cannot be present
for this discussion. However, I am attempting to rearrange
my schedule and I would hope I could be with you.
8/] 3/86
Page 20E
The Honorable Roberta Teglia
August 11, 1986
Page Six
WESTERN T~ CABLE has enjoyed a friendly and professional
relationship with the City of South San Francisco for almost
twenty years. I am hopeful that the discussions on August
18th will only serve to solidify the fact that WESTERN TV
CABLE has been a good corporate citizen in the City of South
San Francisco and has provided an excellent cable television
service under fair terms and conditions which is now being
enjoyed by two out of every three families in the City of
South San Francisco.
Sincerely yours,
E. M. Allen
Chairman of the Board
WESTERN TV CABLE
EMA/ff
Enclosure
CC'
Councilman Mark Addiego
Councilman Gus Nicholopulos
Councilman Jack Drago
Councilman Richard Haffey
City Manager Walter Birkelo
Deputy City Manager Mark Lewis~
Director of Finance Barry R. Lipton
Terry Cotten, President, Western TV Cable
Christopher J. Lammers, Esq.
8/13/86
Page 20F
· 0,333
WESTERN TV CABLE
Franchise Fee Payment History
South San Francisco
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Payment
No Revenue
$2,816.62
(partial year)
$16,805.92
$21,745.04
$22,188.90
$25,036.73
$30,429.34
$32,870.01
$33,059.78
$34,115.52
75.11
$34,190.63
$41,799.26
$43,479.14
239.95
$43,719.09
$28,027.55
$22,295.78
10,.006.66
$32,302.44
Rate
No payment
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
(Overpayment of $6.55 per audit)
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic (underpayment per audit)
5% of Basic
5% of Basic
5% of Basic (underpayment per audit)
3% of Basic (rate adjusted by FCC)
3% of Basic
2.5% of Basic and pay (new Franchise)
8/13/86
Page 20G
Franchise Fee Payment History
Western TV Cable/South San Francisco
Page Two
Year Payment
1981 $44,908.79
1982 $51,864.25
1983 $65,306.88
1984 $76,461.03
1985 $80,507.58
Rate
2.5% of Basic and pay
2.5% of Basic and pay
2.5% of Basic and pay
2.5% of Basic and pay
2.5% of Basic and pay
$684,039.84
TOTAL Franchise Fees
8/13/86
Page 20H
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
0335
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION
15.
Closed Session for the purpose of
the discussion of personnel mat-
ters, labor relations and litiga-
tion.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT
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
12:32 a.m., to discuss the items listed.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 12:46 a.m., all Council present,
no action taken.
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT:
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Time was 12:47 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Barbara A. Battaya,
City of South San Francisco
APPROVED.
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.
8/13/86
Page 21