HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-08 e-packet
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Vice Mayor
MARK N. ADDIEGO
Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
STEVEN T. MATTAS
Interim City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG
Interim City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it
relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The
address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
• Proclamation adopting January, 2014 as Covered South San Francisco Month urging City
residents contact Covered California and obtain healthcare coverage before the close of
open enrollment on March 31, 2014.
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of the meetings of November 13, 2013 and December 3,
2013.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for January 8, 2014.
3. Waive reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 15.48 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code Regarding Minimum Security Standards.
4. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding to support Project
Read Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program and amending the Library Department's
2013/2014 operating budget.
5. Motion to accept the City Hall Fountain Path and Grand Avenue Library Disabled
Parking Project (Project No. pf1404) as complete in accordance with the plans and
specifications.
6. Resolution supporting the East Grand Avenue Bike Lanes Project, submitting an
application for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding in the amount of
$490,000 for the East Grand Avenue Bike Lanes Project, and committing $85,556 in
matching funds.
7. Resolution authorizing the filing of an application to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission requesting the allocation of $181,000 in FY 2013-2014 Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project funding for the Oyster Point
Boulevard Bike Lane Improvement Project, and committing the necessary non-federal
match in the amount of $72,900 for the project and stating the City’s assurance to
complete the project.
8. Resolution accepting the Repair of City Bridges in accordance with plans and
specifications and amending the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget
by adding $123,976 in federal grant funding.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 2
9. Resolution awarding a minor construction agreement with Gonzalez Construction and
General Contractor, Inc, of South San Francisco, CA in an amount not to exceed $35,519
for the repair of city-owned housing units.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
10. Resolution amending the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Program to include the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure Standby Generator and HVAC Upgrade Project, appropriating
a project budget of $60,716 from the Information Technology Department fund reserves,
and awarding a consulting services agreement to AEPC Group of San Ramon, California
in an amount not to exceed $50,596 to provide engineering services.
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
11. Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco making finding
and establishing a temporary City-wide moratorium on the establishment of E-Cigarette
Lounges, Hookah Bars/Smoking Lounges, and E-Cigarette Retailers to become effective
immediately.
PUBLIC HEARING
12. Waive reading and adopt Ordinances Repealing Chapters 15.06, 15.08, 15.12, 15.16,
15.20 and 15.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and Adding Chapters 15.06,
15.08, 15.12, 15.14, 15.16, 15.20, 15.22, 15.24 and 15.26, adopting by reference and
amending the 2013 Editions of the California Administrative, Building, Plumbing,
Residential, Mechanical, Electrical, Green Standards, Fire and Energy Codes.
13. Motion to open the public hearing and continue to the regular City Council meeting on
February 12, 2013.
Britannia Cove at Oyster Point
HCP Oyster Point III LLC/Owner
Project Mgmt Advisors, Inc./Applicant
101 OYSTER POINT BLVD
P12-0061: SPA13-0001, ZA12-0005. UP12-0004, PP12-0001, DR12-0029, TDM12-
0004, SIGNS12-0032, DA12-0003, PM12-0002 and EIR12-0002
Britannia Oyster Point I
SLOUGH BTC LLC/Owner
Project Mgmt Advisors Inc/Applicant
1100-1170 VETERANS BLVD
P13-0041: SPA13-0002 & DAA13-0003
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
• Committee Reports and Council Announcements
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 3
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: David LeClaire [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:50 PM
To: Addiego, Mark; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council
Subject: Fw: Moratorium on E-Cigarette Stores and Lounges
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: David LeClaire <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:47 PM
Subject: Moratorium on E-Cigarette Stores and Lounges
In consideration of the Vote tonight I desire to offer the following;
I am a California Citizen that works at the San Francisco Airport and I support banning
sales of e-cigarettes to Minors. However, I oppose any action the City Council might
take that would limit Adult Access to these Life-Saving Products.
I have been off of Cigarettes for close to 60 Days now thanks to my Vaporizer (E-
cigarette).
Each and every Council member should come to the San Francisco Airport either to the
front of Terminal 1, 2, or 3 to talk to people that have made the switch successfully to
get off of Cigarettes using a Vaporizer (E-cigarette).
Until Council members make a move to educate themselves of the benefits they should
not Vote on this proposal.
David J LeClaire
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: John Roberson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:31 PM
To: Addiego, Mark; Matsumoto, Karyl; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council
Subject: Proposed e-cigarette store ban will make ex-smokers start again.
Hi,
This is in regard to your proposed moratorium on e-cigarette stores. As a former smoker who
was able to quit cigarettes because of this device, I suggest this is a very bad idea. I had been
smoking for 25 years, and had tried to quit many, many times. Nothing ever worked. Not the
patch (which also causes my skin to itch, so I couldn't stay on it anyway) nor the gum (which I
cannot use because it dissolves fillings).
My only option was cold turkey, and when I tried it that way, I never, ever lasted more than a
month. The vicious headaches, the nervousness, the sleeplessness, and the complete inability to
concentrate on ANYTHING but trying to not smoke eventually would get to me. These are not
issues of will, or character. They are physical things that cannot be ignored. Non-smokers do not
understand what this is like. I lost count of how many times I tried to quit after twenty.I have
issues with anxiety, which makes it especially hard to quit.
In May I tried using an e-cigarette instead. And from that point onward I have not felt a single
craving for a cigarette. Not one. Nor any of the other effects of it. And the one time I tried one
again, I couldn't--it now tasted terrible, as it had before I got used to it. It was a compromise. If
my body gets the nicotine, it does not care about the other stuff a cigarette has--which is what,
after all, causes cancer. I was always a considerate smoker who tried to keep it away from others.
and I remain in that habit even though the e-cig does not pose any risk to others. There has not
been a single downside to it. I've even saved money.
If you make it impossible for people to get that anymore, all you will be doing is forcing a lot of
people to resume smoking. Period. Unless you're also going to ban the sale of cigarettes, trying
to keep people from buying e-cigs will in fact force people back to the thing you're trying to get
them to quit. I don't WANT to return to smoking. But I also do not want to go through
withdrawal. I will not win. I know this. I will just start smoking again.
It could be argued to be hypocritical to ban this but not the sale of cigarettes. Personally, I have
no issue with the rules of vaping being the same as those of smoking; as I mentioned I still
remain in those habits--I don't vape in restaurants or stores, etc.
But to ban their sale entirely would be a major mistake. I urge you to consider the harm you will
cause and how counter-productive this action would be.
--
Sincerely,
John Roberson
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: CEE Ess [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Addiego, Mark; Matsumoto, Karyl; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council
Subject: e cigarette shops / stores please read
I am a California citizen and while I support banning sales of e-cigarettes to minors, I
unequivocally OPPOSE any action the City Council may take that would limit adult
access to these life-saving products to former smokers.
I quit smoking cigarettes 4 years ago after being a smoker for 36 years directly due to
my use of electronic cigarettes, specifically the ego type. I had heard something about
a smokeless (no fire) cigarette more than 10 years ago but could not find them for
purchase. My doctor even told me if you can find them; I will write you a prescription for
it if need be. So my doctor understood the immediate health benefits to me. Why can’t
our lawmakers? It has made a huge difference in my health. As well as 90 % of the
nonsmokers in my life support me in this and agree access for adults should not be
limited in this way. These stores you are proposing to close are where we can get
quality products locally. Your local 7-11 type stores / shops charge too much for the
older inferior products that don’t work as well therefore more people will go back to
regular cigarettes. Is that what you want, to have us all back smoking regular cigarettes
around SF?
I also hear that big tobacco is behind a lot of this due to loss of revenue (this time not
due to the death of a smoker but a smoker who now uses the electronic healthier
alternative) they want to take it over and one way is to put what is already in place for
Adults only out of reach to consumers so they can begin marketing for profit. I feel that
if they cared about our health they would have done this long before the grass roots
effort was successful, they care about our money not our health and I do not want to
purchase the ego type from them.
E-cigarette shops and lounges are more than simply stores. They provide an important
resource for smokers looking to dramatically reduce their health risks by switching to e-
cigarettes, a product that poses an estimated 99% less risk than smoking. These
stores offer knowledgeable employees and diverse products to allow adult smokers to
make a successful transition from smoking to e-cigarette use.
I realize the concern is expressed that “permitting the sale of e-cigarettes and/or
associated equipment may promote the consumption and purchase of these devices by
children and minors by increasing exposure.” But California law already prohibits sales
of e-cigarettes to minors. Enforce the existing laws, You will find that the e-cigarette
shops and lounges do not and have no intention of selling to minors. You will also find
that non-smokers will not start smoking due to these products. Lets use common sense
and the health welfare of the people who use these instead of cigarettes be your guide
to decide this is really not needed as minors are not purchasing at these stores/shops.
And especially given the low risk of e-cigarette use, there is no need to impose an
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
"urgency ordinance" which bypasses normal rules regarding public notice and
comment. Has big tobacco contributed to any of the campaigns of those considering
this unfair, unwarranted ban.
The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston
University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the
Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of
Drexel University, and by the fact that the 2009 FDA testing, in spite of its press
statement, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in
the vapor.
A comprehensive review by a Drexel University professor based on over 9,000
observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders
exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
I am tangible proof that by switching to a smokeless product, I have greatly reduced my
health risks and other adults should have the right to do so as well.
I respectfully request that you vote due to knowledge not fear of something that is not
happening. I have NEVER seen a minor using an e-cigarette much less in one of the
stores purchasing. For knowledge not hype I respectfully request you go to
the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for more information.
Don’t be led by those who are creating hype for greed instead of thinking for yourself
and taking the time to read and become knowledgeable about something that your
voting on and effects many people who have real health benefits from these products
vs. cigarettes.
I thank you for your time in reading this letter and hope you have an open mind to what I
have said and at the bare minimum delay a vote until the knowledge available on this
issue is brought into this decision.
Cynthia Searls
[email protected]
r
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: uma [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:45 PM
To: Addiego, Mark; Matsumoto, Karyl; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council
Subject: Electronic cigarette meeting
Dear representatives of the fine area of San Francisco,
It has come to my attention there will be an "urgent" meeting tonight, to ban Micro
Businesses & Small Businesses from stirring the economy, as well as helping smokers switch
over to a safer alternative to smoking while they continue their difficult journey towards a smoke
free life. This will be a hardship on the Businesses, the Consumers, the employees, as well as the
tourists & visitors who will need to replenish their consumer goods.
It's been proven that the electronic cigarette is magnitudes safer than a real cigarette. There is
absolutely no tar, or stink. There is no toxins or carcenogen Traces worth jotting down let alone
being considered of threshold importance.
The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University,
Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer
Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by
the fact that the 2009 FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of
carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.
A comprehensive review by a Drexel University professor based on over 9,000 observations of
e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette
vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf
The propaganda attacking the safer alternatives is just that, propaganda. I trust you will research
(CASAA.org has a nice collection) of credible info) & put the health and economy of your area
in the top position of priorities. The long term values are extraordinary. I realize it must be
difficult to turn down the grant monies available from the anti-ecig crusaders who are
desperately trying to ban the only competition that real smokes have ever had. Everyone from
TSET to Pfizer (aka RWJ foundation) are in a state of panic about the smoke funds depleting. I
celebrate this! I hope you will too.
Hope to see you at the next Golden Gate marathon. I'll be the one without an oxygen tank,
vaping a nice flavor of SF Blend Coffee, and rooting for the masses who have finally found a
way to rid themselves of smokes.
Sincerely,
Uma Kirk
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
Sent from my iPad
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: Lili Peck [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:48 PM
To: All Council
Subject: Ordinance regarding E-cigarette stores and lounges
Dear South San Francisco Councilmembers,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding E-cigarette stores and lounges. I
am a resident of the city of Brisbane and do much of my shopping in South San Francisco. I
cannot adequately express my disappointment with this proposed ordinance. I am 50 years old
used to smoke a pack a day for the last 20 or so years and I was able to QUIT ENTIRELY with
the help of e-cigarettes/personal vaporizers. I have also influenced at least 3 friends to quit as
well with the help of e-cigarettes. All of us have been able to START REDUCING OUR
NICOTINE INTAKE with the use of e-cigs as well, something that is not possible with actual
cigarettes. All of us shop locally for our supplies.
This moratorium on e-cigarette shops and lounges be a substantial hardship on consumers. E-
cigarette shops and lounges are more than simply stores. They provide an important resource for
smokers looking to dramatically reduce their health risks by switching to e-cigarettes, a product
that poses an estimated 99% less risk than smoking. These stores offer knowledgeable
employees and diverse products to allow adult smokers to make a successful transition from
smoking to e-cigarette use.
A moratorium would leave South San Francisco residents with little or no local access to e-
cigarettes other than mass-produced products sold in convenience stores and gas stations,
products which are generally of a lower quality and satisfaction level than those offered by e-
cigarette shops and lounges. (Lower quality and satisfaction mean less chance of successfully
making the switch from smoking to e-cigarette use.)
The concern is expressed that “permitting the sale of e-cigarettes and/or associated equipment
may promote the consumption and purchase of these devices by children and minors by
increasing exposure.” California law prohibits sales of e-cigarettes to minors. Rather than
limiting adult access to e-cigarettes by imposing a moratorium on e-cigarette shops and lounges,
EXISTING LAWS SHOULD BE ENFORCED to keep these products from minors.
Given the low risk of e-cigarette use, there is no need to impose an "urgency ordinance"
which bypasses normal rules regarding public notice and comment.
The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University,
Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej L Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer
Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by
the fact that the 2009 FDA testing, in spite of its press statement, failed to find harmful levels of
carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
A comprehensive review by a Drexel University professor based on over 9,000 observations of
e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette
vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
I encourage you to visit the CASAA.org website, as well as the CASAA Research Library, for
more information. In addition, if you want to read about the THOUSANDS of personal success
stories, please visit the Electronic Cigarette Forum at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum.
I hope my smoke-free friends and I can count on your opposition to this dangerous proposed
ordinance.
Lili Peck
693 San Bruno Ave. #7
Brisbane, CA 94005
415-497-5481
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda 01.08.14
Item # 11
From: Kenneth Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Addiego, Mark; Matsumoto, Karyl; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council; Addiego, Mark; All
Council; Normandy, Liza; Garbarino, Rich; All Council
Subject: City of South San Francisco, California, May Issue Moratorium on E-Cigarette Stores and
Lounges
Dear sir or madames,
I am writting you this to BEG you to not do this. I have been a smoker for over 30 years.
I have tried and tried to quite smoking by various methods. I have NEVER been able to
go a day with out smoking. Some of the previous methods I have used even made me ill
to the point I needed to be hospitalized. By using E-cigs and E-juices I have gone a
week now with absolutely 0 ZERO cigs. And E-juices (Vapeing) is safe. I refer you to
this peer study.
http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-
cigarette-contaminants/
Vaping saves lives. The community of vapers have been so instrumental in me being
able to break the chains. Please DO NOT allow ignorant people who are misinformed or
people who may use vaping devices for illegal practice ruin for the mass majority of the
people who turn to E-cigs and vapes when nothing else works.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Could I please ask one of you to email me in
return to inform me on the decision of tonight's meeting? Thank you.
Kenneth Johnson Sr