HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1981-07-15Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Mark N. Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Side 1 TF-O01)
CALL TO ORDER
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Add as Item No. 3a. a request
for the Purchasing Officer to
advertise for bids for the
printing of the Quarterly
Activites Brochure.
- Clos~ Session for discussion
of litigation and personnel
matters.
- Add under Items from Council
an appointment to the Coastal
Commission.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
July 15, 1981
ACTION TAKEN
Recited.
7:40 p.m. Mayor Nicolopulos presiding.
Council present: Damonte, Acosta,
Teglia, Addiego and
Nicolopulos.
Council absent: None.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Jane Lee, 1321 Hillside Blvd.,
read a statement into the record
(which is hereby incorporated as a
part of the record) which said the
following: 1) Council acted against
its own rules of procedure in taking
action on items not on the written
agenda; 2) Hired a law firm for an
opinion on a court case that does
not exist; 3) Council based its
actions on rumors, the source of
which are not identified; 4) Chall-
enged the intelligence of 4,000
people who signed the petition, by
saying they don't understand it;
5) Says Council is doing these things
to eliminate an aura of suspicion
that the Council is not acting in
the best interests of the people of
the City.
7/15/81
Page 1
MS. JANE LEE READ THE FOLLOWING INTO THE RECORD OF THE 7/15/81 MEETING.
On June 15, 1981, the City of South San Francisco was presented
an Initiative Petition, concerning the South Slope of San Bruno
Mountain, signed by 4, 144 people. On June 24~ 1981~ the City
Clerk certified that the petition carried 3,643 valid signatures~
meeting the legal requirements of such a document.
Page 1
Section 4010 of the Elections Code spells out your responsibilities
when presented with such a petition. I quote from your own resolution~
adopted by you at the adjourned meeting of July 7, 1981:
"Whereas, Section 4010 of the Elections Code requires that the
City Council either introduce the ordinance without alteration
at the regular meeting at which it is presented and adopt the
ordinance within ten (10) days after it is presented; or immediately
order a special election to be held not less than ninety-.four (94)
nor more than one hundred nine (109) days after the date of order~
at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to
a vote of the voters of that city."
Where is it written that you, the City Council, are expected to:
~1.) Determine the validity of the Initiative Petition?
#2.) Question the constitutionality of the Initiative Petition?
#3.) Argue the weakness and/or the merits of the Initiative Petition?
#4.) Second-guess the outcome of the election, and begin acting upon
it before the fact?
It is not so written.
Your sole responsibility is to submit the measure to the voters of
your city in a timely manner, following the schedule as adopted by
the City Clerk. You have far exceeded your responsibilities in this
matter.
Page 2
You have introduced RUMORS regarding the initiative at public
meetings and, without substantiating the source of these rumors,
proceeded to fire the first salvo in your campaign against the
Initiative.
105
I give you some quotes from the tape of the City Council meeting
of July 1:
"...some people we have talked to." What people?
"...the cloud surrounding this initiative." What cloud?
"...this (the initiative) doesn't quite measure up." Measure up to what?
"4000 people tried to say something. Maybe they are not using the
right secret password to get through to us." Tried? Secret Password?
"We would like to remove the shadows surrounding this." What shadows?
Acting City Attorney Rogers, at that July 1 meeting, advised that
these matters should be discussed in closed session, and then
proceeded to spell out what he had heard also. He raised questions
regarding possible "forced annexation" based upon a "kind of a
commitment to move in a given direction" with reference to LAFCO'S
Sphere of Influence Study.
Attached to your copy of my remarks is a transcript of statements
made by Ron Grudzinski, then Project Manager of Visitation Associates,
speaking for the landowner at the City Council meeting of June 1, 1977.
I won't take your valuable time readin~ this now, but Mr. Grudzinski,
in two separate statements indicates on the part of the landowner
that acceptance by South San Francisco of the LAFCO Sphere of Influence
Study is in no way a commitment on the part of South San Francisco
for annexation. Why does Mr. Rogers, then, raise a question about
something about which the landowner has already made a consession?
Page 3
Another question Mr. Rogers raised was that of the legality of
the Initiative in regard to the mutual aid contracts that may
exist between the County and the City with reference to Police and
Fire protection. I suggest that he read the Initiative, Page 1,
Item #2, which states:
"Nothing contained in this ordinance shall be construed to prevent
the City of South San Francisco, in the event of an emergency
declared by the City Manager of South San Francisco, from supplying
temporarily any municipal service - including but not limited to
police and fire protection - to all or any portion of the area
commonly known as San Bruno Mountain."
Mr. Rogers also questioned the boundaries included in the Initiative.
We refer him to the fact that the stated boundaries are in conjunction
with the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey,
San Francisco South Quadrangle, California 7.5 Minute Series
Topographic Map (1976). It is entirely up to Mr. Rogers if he
decides to question the validity of this map. Mr. Rogers should
know, however, that over the years, the land in question has been
referred to as the South Slope. The LAFCO Sphere of Influence
Study, in its description on Page IV-1 is actually less specific
in designating boundaries than is the Initiative. Everybody knows
what is meant by "South Slope"
Mr. Rogers then went on - against his own stated advice - and talked
about a case in San Jose, which is on appeal, stating that the facts,
while similar to ours "did not precisely match facts with the facts
at hand".
Why were these things discussed at the City Council Meeting of July 1,
Page 4
1981, at which the agenda item, #7, specified only two choices:
adopt an ordinace or call for a special election. If indeed there
are any "clouds being cast upon this initiative", it is being done
by this body.
107
It is our contention that the public has a right to know the
identity of the circulators of these rumors, and how, when and
where this information was given to the Council. The statement
that "...some people w~e have talked to..." just isn't good enough.
Who, where, how, and by what authority can judgment be made on rumors
without an identifiable source? What right does the City Council
have to assume the position it has on the Initiative placed before
it by the people of South San Francisco?
On May 19, 1976, a motion was passed by the City Council that no
action would be taken on any item that was not on the written
agenda. This decision to go to an outside law firm for an opinion
was done in such a manner.
The Initiative has not yet passed. If it does not - then there is
no need for an outside law firm. If it does pass, one would reasonably
feel that the need for the outside law firm's assistance would arise
only if the Initiative law was challenged in court, assuming that
the City Attorney was not qualified to defend it properly. That is
only common sense. You are putting the cart before the horse.
As far as the opinion of ANY law firm with regard to the Initiative
is concerned, keep in mind that LAWYERS do not decide court cases
and/or the constitutionality of law. JUDGES do. Until this Initiative
passes, any opinion is just another opinion.
You also considered the possibility of putting an additional measure
Page 5
on the same ballot, but did not have time. I would like to point
out that the public has been attempting to let you know how they
feel about the South Slope of San Bruno Mountain for years. You
told us last year that we were being premature. The fact that you
did not act in a timely manner in response to the voice of the people
is the reason that this Initiative is on the ballot. The matter was
taken out of your hands because you refused to act on this issue
in a manner satisfactory to the people.
This is symptomatic of what is going on in our society today.
For example, three cities in San Mateo County have filed either
an Initiative or a Referendum recently. The classic example of the
use of the Initiative Process is Proposition 13, which followed 20
years of people unsuccessfully petitioning the State Legislature
to correct an unjust property tax system. Then the Legislature
produced an alternative measure known as Proposition 8 on the same
ballot, which was soundly defeated. Were you reacting as our State
Legislature did when you planned an alternative to the Initiative
on our ballot? Do you wonder why people have lost confidence in their
government?
The actions taken by you may have been "well meaning", but they are
inappropriate and far in excess of legal requirements with regard
to the Initiative Process. This does indeed give rise to suspicion
regarding your reaction as a body to the wishes of the people .you
represent.
Mr. Rogers stated that any findings by this outside law firm will
be kept as a closely guarded secret. I would like to go on record
now to state that, in light of that, your reasoning behind your
Page 6
decision has gone out the window. You collectively stated that you
"had an obligation" to let the people know what they are voting for.
Mr. Rogers stated that this opinion must be kept secret because of
the possibility of a law suit if the Initiative passes. The people
who signed the Initiative Petition had a copy of the Initiative
itself available and attached to the petition they signed. Are
you questioning their ability to read and understand what it says?
In a nutshell, what I am saying is that:
#1.) You acted against your own rules of procedure in taking
action on items not on the written agenda.
#2.) You hired a law firm for an opinion on a court case that
does not exist.
#3.) You base your actions on rumors, the source of which you
don't identify.
#4.) You challenge the intelligence of 4000 people who signed
the petition, by saying they don't understand it.
#5.) You top it all off by saying that you are doing these things
to eliminate an aura of suspicion that the City Council is
not acting in the best interests of the people of South San
Francisco.
I leave you with a quote from Ghandi:
"There go my people. I must hurry and catch up with them, for I am
their leader."
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilman Addiego stated that he
wanted to make the following statement
in response to the transcript. "In
Light of the fact that I don't believe
anything in this document deserves
a response - quite honestly. We have
been through these items over and
over again and it appears to me,
being an ex-member of the Citizens
Action League, I am well aware of
how the Citizens Action League
operates and the group thrives on
misinformation and ignorance; and
this is a prime example of ignorance."
Ms. Lee stated that the information
was directly quoted from the tape
of the City Council meeting and that
if it is ignorance then it is not
CAL's.
Councilman Addiego stated that
Ms. Lee had been taught very well
how to pull information out of
context and add it up and make it
look very damaging, but that she
should realize what Council was
trying to do. He said that the
educational process was an important
thing in the democratic process -
to understand, not to limit oneself
where one person in a group determines
what is best for an entire group.
He stated that in his opinion this
document and the Citizens Action
League itself resembles nothing
more than a fascist group - and
those are the rules they operate
under.
Mayor Nicolopulos said he wanted the
record to show that the comments made
by Councilman Addiego were strictly
a personal statement.
Councilman Addiego agreed and stated
that the "shadows" referred to in the
transcript was Item No. 1 in the
Initiative which ended up, saying "for
public use and enjoyment." He sai
d
that it was one thing to determine
7/15/81
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1!~
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(TF-090)
INTRODUCTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Late claim as filed by Robert
J. Valkevich, Attorney at Law,
on behalf of Mason Ng, a minor,
and for Wing L. Ng his father
and legal guardian, alleging
injuries sustained in the haz-
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
that someone's property is to be
left in open space - and quite another
to determine that it is for public use
and enjoyment. He stated that Ms. Lee
should understand the ramifications
of the statement.
Ms. Lee asked if he understood that
he did not say that at the last
meeting but had introduced rumors
without identification of the source.
Councilman Addiego stated that Item
No. 1 may entail a taking of land
and that was why he wanted a legal
opinion on that portion of the
document.
Councilman Acosta said that he
respected Ms. Lee in making her
statement and understood it was
part of the process of competing
for votes. He continued, every
attempt was put toward CAL's side,
however Ms. Lee should understand
it is the right and the responsibility
of the Council to protect the entire
citizenry of South San Francisco.
He concurred that a legal opinion
was just an opinion, but if the
document was not constitutional then
it must be said.
A discussion followed on CAL being
contacted for input on a legal firm
and that CAL did not have a rec-
ommendation and the City Attorney
had selected Shute, Mahally and
Weinberger.
Mayor Nicolopulos introduced a
group from the South San Francisco
Demolay.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7/15/81
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 113
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Late claim - Continued.
e
e
ardous intersection at Callan
Boulevard and Lexington Way
(Leix Way). Motion to allow
the late claim and deny and
refer the claim to the City's
Insurance Adjuster and to the
Office of the City ~ttorney.
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
by Motion to award the bid for
Custodial Paper Supplies to
Blake, Moffitt & Towne, Division
of Saxon Industries Inc. as the
lowest bid. ~~
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
by Motion to set a Public Hearing
date for 8/5/81 for consideration
of an eight month extension of a
moratorium on the Adult Enter-
tainment Urgency Ordinance.
3a.
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
by Motion to authorize the Purch-
asing Officer to advertise for
bids for the printing of the
Quarterly Activities Brochures
for the Fiscal Year 1981-82.
(TF-142) ~~
APPROVAL OF BILLS
4. Approval of the Regular Bills
of 7/1 5/81.
CONSENT CALENDAR
So ordered.
So ordered.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela asked for a correction
on the date of the hearing to cor-
respond with the expiration of the
Ordinance. He asked that 7/29/81
at 4:30 p.m. be set for the Public
Hearing.
So ordered.
So ordered.
M/S Addiego/Damonte - Consent
Calendar be approved.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Councilman Addiego questioned a bill
from California Water Service Co.
Director of Public Services Yee
stated it was to relocate certain
fire hydrants.
Councilman Addiego questioned a bill
from Ewald Travel Service.
7/15/81
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
APPROVAL OF BILLS
CITY MANAGER
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
consideration of a proposed
agreement on the Brentwood
Shopping Center Parking Lot.
e
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution deter-
mining the units for employer-
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Assistant to the City Manager Wilson
said it was for travel expenses to
Los Angeles for mechanics to train
on the Calavar.
Councilman Addiego questioned a bill
from Kelly Services for the Park and
Common Greens.
Director of Park & Recreation Norton
stated that the Common Greens were
maintained by contract, however
large cracks were in the sidewalk
and additional manpower was needed.
He stated that by using Kelly Services
it was less costly for the City in
that workmens compensation did not
have to be paid.
Vice Mayor Teglia asked for a report
on the number of mechanics that went
to school on the Calavar.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To approve
the Regular Bills.
Carried by unanimous voice vote,
Councilman Addiego did not participate
or vote in the matter of the claim
of Brentwood Market.
CITY MANAGER
City Manager Birkelo stated that he
had not obtained signatures on the
agreement and that Arco, Kenwood and
the holding company had questioned
the cost of resurfacing the parking
lot at their expense.
A discussion followed on the delay
in handling this matter; to investigate
other options - such as parking meters
and an enforcement officer; potential
revenue, etc.
Consensus of Council - to continue
the matter for two weeks.
7/15/81
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
6. Staff Report - Continued.
employee relations purposes and
assigning job classifications
to those units. (TF-207)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING UNIT
DETERMINATIONS AND MODIFICA-
TIONS AS MADE BY THE CITY
MANAGER PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE
NO 647
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (TF-212)
e
Be
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
that a Public Hearing be set for
8/5/81 for PCM/Height Limit/
ZA-81-19, an amendment to Zoning
Ordinance No. 353, Section 4.45
and Negative Declaration No. 329.
Staff Report 7/15/51 recommending
adoption of an Ordinance from
"R-I" Single Family Residential to
"RPD-6" Residential Planned Devel-
opment Zone District properties
at E1 Rancho Drive-In Theatre
site Home Savings and Loan Assoc./
Hamlin Land Co.): 1) Motion to
waive further reading of the
Ordinance; 2) Motion that the
Ordinance be passed and adopted.
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 353, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO" AND ESTA-
BLISHING A "RPD-6" RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONE DISTRICT ON CERTAIN
PROPERTY (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
EL RANCHO DRIVE-IN THEATRE SITE)
CITY MANAGER
City Manager Birkelo stated that
the only change this made in the
Units was to delete all department
heads from Unit No. 1.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
M/S Teglia/Damonte - To set a Public
Hearing for 8/5/81.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Clerk Battaya read the entire
title of the Ordinance.
Ms. Doris Agee, a member of the
Design Review Board, stated that she
was very encouraged by this design
and hoped that a design as good would
be used for the development of
Chestnut and Grand Avenues.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - That the Ordinance
be passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 870-81
Carried by majority voice vote, Vice
Mayor Teglia voted no.
A discussion followed on past problems
with the slope; Council having the
opportunity to review the Use Permit
and Tentative Map; the difference
between a RPD-6 and R-1 zone.
7/15/81
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
RECESS: (TF-239)
RECALL TO ORDER:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
e
Public Hearing - SA-81-70/Bayland
Development Corp. appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision on
5/14/81 denying approval of the
Tentative Subdivision Map SA-81-70
(Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5).
10.
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
by Motion that the decision of the
Planning Commission be upheld --
continued from the 7/1/81 meeting.
Public Hearing - UP-78-440 (Mod. 1)
Bayland Development Corp. appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision on
5/14/81, denying (Mod. 1) a proposed
modification of Bayland Development
Company to the Site Plan, Building
Elevations and Floor Plans for
Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5, to
create a 79 unit air space condomin-
ium project located on the westerly
side of the terminus of Ridgeview
Court in the PC - Planned Community
Zone District.
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
by Motion that the decision of the
Planning Commission be upheld --
continued from the 7/1/81 meeting.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared a recess
at 8:26 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the meeting
to order at 8:40 p.m., all Council
present.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela asked that Items 9 and
10 be considered together in that
one dealt with the Subdivision Map
and the Modifications to the Use
Permit; and that one of the issues
to be resolved was whether or not
the Use Permit that was approved in
1978 was still a valid Use Permit.
He stated that Staff after investi-
gation of the map in existence at
that time, the Assessors Map and
the lotting arrangement, it was
Staff's opinion that the Use Permit
is a valid Use Permit at this point
in time. He said that the other
issue is the Tentative Subdivision
Map which is the Tentative Subdivision
Map for Unit 5. He stated that the
applicant was in attendance and
recognized the concerns of the
Planning Commission, Staff and the
residents of the Stonegate community
and thought a request would be forth-
coming from the applicant to refer
both items back to the Commission
and Staff for additional study
and redesign. He said that Staff
would support that recommendation
and ask the applicant to waive any
time requirements in connection with
the Subdivision Map.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked for a clari-
fication from the City Attorney.
Acting City Attorney Rogers suggested
that the Mayor ask the Developer
for his comments and any requests
he may wish to make and Council act
on the requests.
Daniel J. Modena, Esq., 421 Grand
Ave., stated that he represented the
owner, C. N. Chow, and the Developer,
7/15/81
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Public Hearing - Continued.
10. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Sprincin, on this Project. He
commended Staff for their efforts
and diligence in arriving at a
settlement or a compromise type of
settlement whereby both the City
and the applicants can go back and
further negotiate this matter. He
stated that Mr. Chow and Mr. Sprincin
upon a finding that UP-78-440 is a
valid Use Permit for Phases 5 and 6
of the Stonegate Planned Community
request the following: that this
matter be referred back to the
Planning Commission for their 10/8/81
meeting; and will then withdraw this
matter without prejudice from con-
sideration tonight; in the interim
before the 10/8/81 meeting the
appellants will work with Staff to
find a mutually accepted basis for
introducing a new Tentative Map for
both phase 5 and phase 6. He said
that at the 10/8/81 meeting the
Commission would consider either
one of these two alternatives: the
new Tentative Map (to be proposed),
5 and 6 with Use Permit Modifications
thereof or if a new Tentative Map
cannot be arrived at then the nine
findings that are before Council tonight
on the modifications will be sent
back for consideration by the
Commission. He stated that the validity
of the Use Permit was a consideration
for all of this and that a written
communication would be mailed tomorrow
to the City Staff.
Mayor Nicolopulos said that there
were people in the audience who
wished to speak and invited them
to step to the dais.
Ms. Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate Dr.,
expressed support of the referral for
further redesign and felt that that
way it was possible to arrive at a
mutually acceptable development
at Stonegate.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that Mr. Modena
talked about the map and the residents
7/15/81
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Public Hearing - Continued.
10. Public Hearing - Continued.
PARKS & RECREATION (TF-309)
11. Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution which
creates a Youth Advisory Board.
A RESOLUTION CREATING THE YOUTH
ADVISORY BOARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
are talking about redesign and asked
that Mr. Modena address that point.
Mr. Modena agreed that whether the
plans are acceptable or not the
appellants are going back to discuss
design.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that it was Staff's
intention to have meetings with the
residents of the Stonegate community
to acquaint them with the alternatives
that are going to be considered.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - That UP-78-440
is still a valid Use Permit and to
refer both SA-81-70 and Modification
1 to UP-78-440 back to the Planning
Commission, through Staff for
redesign and reconsideration.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
PARKS & RECREATION
Councilman Damonte said that paragraph
2 read "living within the South San
Francisco Unified School District
Boundaries" and questioned why all
other Boards and Commissions must
live in South San Francisco.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said that
if all other Boards and Commissions had
to be residents this Resolution could
be changed accordingly. He stated
that the Ralph M. Brown Act also
applied to the Youth Advisory Board
meetings.
Councilman Damonte asked for clarifica-
tion on the one and two year tenure
of the Board.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
that in all odd numbered grades
an appointment would be made with
a two year tenure.
Councilman Addiego said that the
Resolution did not address that the
7/15/61
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PARKS & RECREATION
ll. Staff Report - Continued.
PUBLIC SERVICES (TF-374)
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution awarding
a contract for the Rodent Control
Program to Bay Pest Control as
the lowest bidder.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM
PARKS & RECREATION
individual Councilperson was to
select two appointees.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
that the Resolution was silent on
the selection process.
M/S Teglia/Damonte - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Mr. Ron Kovalenko, Vector Control
Specialist San Mateo County, des-
cribed in-depth the County program
on sewer rat abatement. He spoke
of the three inspections made per
year; the number of litters per
year; the bait blocks used in the
sewers; the number of bait stations
in Colma Creek and the produce market;
estimates of rat activity; more rats
in the creeks than there were in the
sewers; the produce market having
problems with mice and the poison
being used in the market to combat
the mice, etc.
Discussion followed on whether there
was a roof rat program available that
was comporable to the sewer rat
program and if at a subsequent meeting
a County Health person could address
Council on the roof rat problem.
M/S Teglia/Damonte - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The Mayor directed the City Manager
to ask someone from the County Health
Department to address Council on the
roof rat program.
7/1 5/81
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES (TF-504)
13.
Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
the introduction of an Ordinance
on Flood Damage Prevention: 1)
Motion to waive further reading
of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to
introduce the Ordinance.
1st Reading/Introduction
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ITEMS FROM STAFF
14. Consideration of a request to
modify the Final Map for the
Willow/Grand Condominiums, naming
certain private streets - Brosnan
Court and Marcie Circle.
15. Staff Report 7/15/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution requesting
County Clerk of San Mateo County to
render specific election services.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY CLERK
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TO RENDER
SPECIFIED ELECTION SERVICES
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
PUBLIC SERVICES
City Clerk Battaya read the entire
title of the Ordinance.
Director of Public Services Yee
stated that this Ordinance was
related to the Flood Control Insurance
for the City that deals with most
of the properties along Colma Creek.
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To introduce
the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
City Manager Birkelo asked that
this item be removed from the Agenda
and that Staff would prepare an
alternative.
So ordered.
City Clerk Battaya said that this
Resolution authorizes the County
Clerk, through a Municipal Services
Agreement to perform specified
election services, such as consol-
idation of precincts; furnishing
precinct indexes; polling place
notices/labels; select election
officers; precinct supplies; check
absentee application signatures
and mail ballots.
Vice Mayor Teglia asked for a few
minutes in order to read the agreement.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared a recess
at 9:32 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the meeting
to order at 9:45 p.m., all Council
present.
7/15/81
Page 11
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF
15. Staff Report - Continued.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
16. An Appointment to the Coastal
Commission.
Councilman Acosta:
Councilman Damonte:
ITEMS FROM STAFF
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
M/S Addiego/Acosta - To nominate Bob
Garcia.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To nominate Grace
McCarthy.
A roll call vote for Bob Garcia failed
by a 2 - 3 vote, Addiego and Teglia
voted yes.
A roll call vote for Grace McCarthy
won by a majority vote, Addiego and
Teglia voted no.
Mayor Nicolopulos directed Councilman
Acosta to convey the City's vote to
the next meeting of the Coastal
Commission.
Asked that a report be submitted to
Council on the costs of renting the
public address system.
Asked that a sign be put in the entrance
of the atrium indicating the location
of the restrooms.
Asked that a meeting be set up at the
Senior Center to discuss the utilization
of excess space and using it for a
bond issue for Magnolia Center. He
further stated that he wanted this
issue to be to put to a vote of the
people.
Expressed concern with the litter
underneath the newspaper structures
and the flower beds. Questioned
when the Newspaper Ordinance would
be presented to Council.
7/15/81
Page 1 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Councilman Addiego:
Vice Mayor Teglia:
GOOD AND WELFARE
(TF-709)
CLOSED SESSION: (TF-844)
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Acting City Attorney Rogers said it
would take three months due to alter-
natives offered by the newspaper,
some of which were not acceptable.
Stated Vice Mayor Teglia had indicated
that she wanted to see the maintenance
work program to see why it is not
working out.
Director of Parks & Recreation Norton
said that Public Works and Parks &
Recreation share the responsibility,
however a report would be forthcoming.
Said the curb is sinking in front
of the pet shop on Grand Avenue.
GOOD AND WELFARE
Ms. Pat Martinson, 1288 Morningside
Avenue, said she was not a member of
CAL nor a fascist and took umbrage
to the abuse Ms. Lee had taken this
evening.
Mrs. Doris Agee said that she was
offended by the term "fascist";
applauded the goals of CAL; concerned
about Council campaigning for and
against; concerned that adjourned
meetings have new items added to
them without the public being informed.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 10:35 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the meeting
to order at 12:05 a.m., all Council
present and stated that the City Attorney
was instructed on a matter of litigation
and Staff instructed on personnel
matters.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To adjourn to
Wednesday, 7/22/81 at 5:00 p.m. at
the Municipal Services Building, 33
Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Time of adjournment 12:07 a.m.
7/15/81
Page 13
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
APPROVED:
Barbara A. Battaya, City ~;~erk
City of South San Francisco
i~us Nicoiopulos, MayOr
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 presentations, 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.
7/15/81
Page 14