Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1987-10-28Mayor Mark N. Addiego Vice Mayor John "Jack" Drago Counci 1: Ri chard A. Halley Gus Nicolopulos Roberta Cerri Te§lia AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION - Red Ribbon Week 10-26-87 to 10-31-87 50 ~ Presentation by the Youth Commission to Mr. Delvin Williams on "Pros for Kids" MINUTES City Council 0 Municipal Services Building Community Room October 28, 1987 ACTION TAKEN 7:32 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. Council present: Council absent: Halley, Drago, Nicolopulos, Teglia and Addiego. None. The Pledge of allegiance was recited. Reverend Raymond Lockley, Aldersgate United Methodist Church, gave the invocation. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Addiego spoke of the Chamber Luncheon, wherein Mr. Delvin Williams, Executive Director of Pros for Kids and former running back for the 49ers and Miami Dolphins, had made a presentation on drugs in the workplace and the growing concern and acknowledgement of drugs in the community. He then read the Proclamation aloud and presented it to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams thanked the Mayor for the Proclamation, and stated that it was gra- tifying to see the cities, counties, schools, and businesses starting to recognize the nature of the problem and starting to do something about it in a constructive manner. Mr. Alvin Vaughn, Youth Commissioner, pre- sented a $250.00 check to Mr. Williams that had been raised over a weekend of programs sponsored by the Commission: it began with a Career Night on Thursday with Ken Henderson, a former S.F. Giant; on Friday night there was a dance; Saturday consisted of a Soccer Camp. He stated that the Commission was very proud to sponsor these activities and raise money for such a worthwhile organization. 10/28/87 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN · AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . 153 AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Lewis stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Warren Steinkamp, 112 Green Ave., stated that he had some questions for the City Attorney in reference to the two term limit Ordinance discussed at the 9/28/87 meeting: was the Attorney employed by the City and did she serve at the pleasure of the City; in light of that employment was the Attorney's opinion in deference to that; could the Chief of Police or a staff member discuss Section two of the Ordinance. City Attorney Armento stated that Ordinance 635 was not the Ordinance in question, even though it was the Ordi- nance Councilman Nicolopulos mentioned at the meeting, because Ordinance 635 was repealed in 1981 and reinacted by Ordinance 881; and was somewhat different from the one that was in the record and a formal part of the Minutes. Mr. Steinkamp questioned who would enforce the Ordinance if there was a violation of the Ordinance. City Attorney Armento stated that the Section on violations in Ordinance 881 was different than the violations in Ordinance 635. She stated that Municipal Code Section 2.16.030 stated, "Penalty for Violation. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter is guilty of an infraction, and upon convic- tion such person shall be punished as provided in Section 36900 of the Government Code." She stated that she did not have a copy of the Government Code with her, however, it provided for a first offense conviction of a violation that is an infraction, it goes by first, second and three or more offenses. She continued, the first offense was a fine of no more than $100, the second was a 10/28/87 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS fine of no more than $300, and the third violation - she thought, was as high as $5O0.00. Mr. Steinkamp questioned the difference in violation clauses in the two Ordinances. City Attorney Armento stated that Ordinance 881 was adopted in 1981 when the Council altered the election from April to November, and other things relating to Municipal Elections. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned why he had not been informed of the change in penalty when he had specifically asked if Ordinance 635 was still in effect. He continued, the City Attorney had stated it was, and the only way an Ordinance could be repealed was for the Council to amend it or by a Court of jurisdiction. City Attorney Armento stated that at the time that the question was raised and Councilman Nicolopulos had read the Ordinance into the record, she had not been focusing on the number of the Ordi- nance, because she used the substance of the provision in the Municipal Code. She stated that this discussion had focused on the two term aspect, which in fact had been recodified, and it had not been until after the meeting that she realized Ordinance 635 had been repealed, and that Ordinance 881 was now the operative ordi- nance. She stated that Councilman Nicolopulos had acquired a copy of Ordinance 635 from the City Clerk, however, if he had come to her - she would have referred him to the Municipal Code. She stated that Ordinance 881 reinstated the two term limit in addition to changing the election date and the penalty clause. Councilman Halley stated that the Ordinance was changed to accommodate the nineteen month extension in terms of the 10/28/87 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN __ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Council, and in that this item was not on the Agenda, Councilman Nicolopulos should not criticize the City Attorney for not having a staff report to answer his questions. Mayor Addiego stated that Councilman Haffey's observations were correct, except to the point that at or after the meeting the City Attorney did not alert Councilman Nicolopulos that Ordinance 635 was not in effect, and there was a dif- ference in the penalty clause. He stated that the same law was in effect, however, the penalty had been reduced to an infraction. Mr. Steinkamp stated that as a signer of the Ordinance while on the Council he felt it was still in force, and questioned who would enforce Section 2 of that Ordinance if a misdemeanor is created. City Attorney Armento stated that in both ordinances the penalty did not attach until the person who has been elected attempts to serve, so there was no enfor- cement that she could take prior to someone trying to serve a third term. She stated that if that situation should arise, it was possible for her to go into Court and proceed to ask the Court to find a Councilmember in violation. She stated that she wanted to clarify that the penalty that the Ordinance could impose was changed by the Council in 1981. Councilman Haffey stated, also for clari- fication, that in 1981 three members of the Council, Nicolopulos, Addiego and Teglia, voted for the repeal of Ordinance 635. Discussion followed: that there had been a Motion by Te§lia, Second by Addiego in 1981 to repeal Ordinance 635, and the Motion and Second had not passed by a 10/28/87 Page 4 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~,." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5'1 3 COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the regular Meeting of 9/23/87. APPROVAL OF BILLS 2. Approval of the Regular Bills of 10/28/87. ~'0 I~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 3. Public Hearing - To consider ~ I~ ZA-87-40, Zoning Amendment and environmental determination of same to add Chapter 20.75, Recycling Regulations, to the City's Zoning Ordinance (Title 20, South San Francisco Municipal Code) pursuant to the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. Staff Report 10/28/87 recommending: 1) Open the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public ORAL COMMUNICATIONS majority voice vote; that Councilmembers Addiego and Teglia had voted against extending their terms of office in 1981; that Ordinance 881 repealed Ordinance 635, and that the content was the same, but the penalty was different; that the penalty would be invoked when a violation incurs and someone is elected to a third term, etc. Mr. Steinkamp stated that there would be a class action suit filed in the event that someone is sworn in for a third term. COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the Consent Calendar. Carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF BILLS M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the Regular Bills of 10/28/87 in the amount of $1,042,478.08. Carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Addiego opened the Public Hearing. Director of Planning Smith stated that the Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act requires the establishment of recycling centers for consumers to redeem for cash their glass, aluminum, plastic and non-aluminum metal beverage containers. She proceeded to cite specifics on the particular designated convenience zones. 10/28/87 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 3. Staff Report - Continued. Hearing; 3) Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 605; 4) Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; 5) Motion to introduce the Ordinance. 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.75 ENTITLED "RECYCLING REGULATIONS" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO RECYCLING FACILITIES me Be Public Hearing - To consider the 5~5-~ appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny UP-87-808-Lillian E. Quinn and the environmental determination of same for a gaso- line service station with auto repairs in the C-1 Retail Commercial Zone District at 900 Linden Avenue in accordance with the South San Francisco Municipal Code 20.22.040. Staff Report 10/28/87 recommending: 1) Open the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public Hearing: 3) Motion to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Staff Report 10/28/87 recommending: 1) Motion to waive further reading COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Mayor Addiego invited those wishing to speak for or against the Zoning Amendment to step to the dais. Mr. John Ferrari, Reynolds Aluminum, stated that his firm had contracted with the QFI Store as a facility which would be a mobile unit trailer. He proceeded to describe the recycling operations and urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance. Mayor Addiego closed the Public Hearing. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To approve Negative Declaration No. 605. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Drago - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Haffey/Drago - To introduce the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Addiego stated that a letter had been received from the client's Attorney, requesting that the Public Hearing be continued to the 11/25/87 meeting. He opened the Public Hearing and con- tinued the item to the 11/25/87 meeting. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. 10/28/87 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~__ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Staff Report - Continued. of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to adopt the Ordinance. o95 2nd Reading/Adoption AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.26 (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A USE PERMIT FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES ITEMS FROM STAFF 6. Letter from Westborough Junior High School, dated 10/1/87, requesting funds in the amount of $12,000 for the good will and performance trip to Vancouver, Canada in May, 1988 by the "Wildcat" Marching Band. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1021-87 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM STAFF M/S Haffey/Teglia - To guaranty a pledge of $2,000 to the "Wildcat" Marching Band, and provide those types of in-kind ser- vices that are possible. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the City Attorney had responded to his questioning on the legal opinions, that the legal opinions by several Attorneys had not changed Ordinance 635. He stated that Councilwoman Teglia had stated that she had a right to run for a third term, however, he was concerned by the how - not the why of running. He stated that in his opinion she was flaunting the law, and if she felt that the law was not good she had the right to say so - and then get rid of the law. He reiterated that there were only two ways to change the law, for the Council to amend the Ordinance or go to a Court of jurisdiction for a ruling. He stated that Councilman Haffey had stated at the last Candidates Night in response to questioning, that he thought this was a mute point, however, he felt it was not mute - but alive. 10/28/87 Page 7 ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION 0 Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel mat- ters, labor relations and litigation. ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Councilman Haffey stated that he believed in the two term limit, however, you can not charge someone with an infraction until that person is elected to a third term. He stated that he thought that what Councilman Nicolopulos was doing was bla- tently political. He stated that the voters would speak on the issue next week. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he sincerely believed that Councilman Nicolopulos' concerns were from the heart, and from his many years as a Police Officer upholding the law of the City. He stated that if there was a class action suit brought forward for a viola- tion of the two term Ordinance, then the law would be served. Councilwoman Teglia stated that any of the Council in the last three years could have privately talked to her concerning a third term rather than bringing it for- ward now in a political arena. GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. Jake Jones, 12 E1Campo Dr., stated that the City spent a lot of money on other items, and questioned why the Council did not spend the money to go into Court and settle the issue. CLOSED SESSION Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. Adjournment time 8:40 p.m. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting Carried by unanimous voice vote. 10/28/87 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment 8:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED , B~aya< ~ ' 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. 10/28/87 Page 9