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