Loading...
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