Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1991-03-27 Mayor Jack Drago Council: Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna ~Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room March 27, 1991 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 6:30 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. ROLL CALL: Council present: Council Absent: Haffey, Nicolopulos, Teglia, and Drago. Penna. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. Councilman Penna Arrived: Councilman Penna arrived at 6:57 p.m. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., all Council present, no action was taken. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 7:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, City Cl~k City of South San'Francisco APPR~/~'l x~_~~Drago, Mayor~ /~ty of South San VFrancisco 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. 3/27/91 Page I Mayor Jack Drago Council: Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Roberta Cerri Teglia AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - Week of the Young Child ., ~ April 1-7, 1991 - ~ AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Armas requested: - That Item No. 12 be heard after the Consent Calendar. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room March 27, 1991 ACTION TAKEN 7:43 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Haffey, Nicolopulos, Penna, Teglia, and Drago. None. The colors were presented by Cub Pack No. 281, and the pledge was recited. Rev. Neeley, Grand Avenue Baptist Church, gave the invocation. PRESENTATIONS Councilwoman Teglia read the Proclamation aloud and presented it to Ms. Ann Torres of the Leo J. Ryan Intergenerational Child Care Center. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. COMMUNITY FORUM Councilman Haffey expressed the concern of his children over when the Buri Buri Park improvements would be finished and the park reopened. He wanted to make sure the park improvements were solidly in place before it was opened to the public. Mayor Drago invited everyone to attend the Skyline College Alumni Association event on 4/19/91 at 7:00 p.m. in their Gallery Theatre. 3/27/91 Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN '-'~CONSENT CALENDAR !1. Motion to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/27/91, and the Special Meeting of 3/13/91. 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of 3/27/91. Resolution approving plans and spe- cifications, and calling bids for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting Project. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING PROJECT 4. Motion to accept South Linden Bridge Rehabilitation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. 5. Motion to accept Winston Manor III and V Park Rehabilitation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. 6. Motion to adopt an ordinance establishing design and siting criteria for flag poles. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO ADD SECTION 20.76.155 TO TITLE 20 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING FLAG POLE STANDARDS m Resolution approving plans and spe- cifications, and calling bids for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting Project. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. Approved in the amount of $1,068,755.04. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Vice Mayor Nicolopulos. So ordered. So ordered. ORDINANCE NO. 1098-91 M/S Haffey/Teglia - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item #3. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos was happy to see this item going forward, and asked when it would take place. 3/27/91 Page 2 AGENDA Resolution - Continued. SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING PROJECT ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion relating to Senate Bill 226. ACTION TAKEN City Manager Armas stated that the award of contract would be in May. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 28-91 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mayor Drago stated that this item arose from a letter he had received and shared with the Council from the Director of the Airport, Mr. Turpen, advising of the possibility of withholding funds for our noise insulation program because of our support for Senator Kopp's Bill. He stated that Mr. Turpen had graciously consented to join us tonight and give the Council the Airport view on why we should have opposed it, instead of supporting the Bill. Mr. Turpen spoke of comments he had filed previously, and had filed further com- ments today in anticipation of our discussion of this item this evening. He cited the following: that the Bill did nothing for SFIA; that his position on the Bill had been confirmed by both the Airport General Counsel and outside legal counsel in terms of its permissive nature and failure to live up to its advertisement; the Bill appears to encourage a whole new group of noise injured people; long after the developer is gone this new constituency will be coming before this Council and the Airport seeking some type of relief from aircraft over flight and noise intrusion; a difficult lesson had been learned from Foster City in 1959-60 in building under an existing flight path by an aggressive developer that had led to a noise problem that is still unresolved; Airport Commission had unanimously opposed the Bill for the same reason that they had opposed the Shearwater Development - con- 3/27/91 Page 3 --'ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL cern for a development of a residential community beneath an existing airport flight path; that the Shearwater situation was probably the only blemish on what had been a long standing positive working relationship between S.S.F. and SFIA; he pointed to the success of the noise insulation program, and the first negotiated variance in the State of California, etc. He continued, the concern here was that even with Federal immunity we will create a new noise constituency; his commitment to attach the noise problem and mitiga- tion; urged Council not to take a posi- tion to endorse this Bill. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos read aloud part of the content of SB 226, and asked Mr. Turpen to explain why he felt the Bill was flawed. Mr. Turpen responded: he saw no further immunity offered by this legislation; the Airport has no control over compliance with the statute unless it is made a con- dition of the developer's permit; Mr. Les Fonsit, Sierra Assoc., acknowledged that the Bill was permissive at the Airport Commission meeting on 3/19/91; it does not require that the aircraft noise agreement and limitation on right to sue be included with the documents filed with the County Recorder; does not mandate that any buyer after the first buyer be specifically and directly advised of the limitation of their right to sue any nearby airport; limitations on a person's ability to seek legal redress - which should be clearly and directly com- municated; nothing in the Bill mandates that the developer deliver a copy of the declaration to the nearby airport; nothing in the proposed legislation requires the builder or developer to per- form any of the conditions set forth in 3/27/91 Page 4 AGENDA ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL the legislation; it would permit recovery of damages resulting from airport noise or other related environmental impacts; if a property owner establishes, "that improvements on the property that are used for human occupancy are located within an annual CNEL boundary of 65 decibles or greater and the improvements are not sound attenuated sufficient to limit interior annual CNEL to 45 decibles or less"; it is apparent the airport has no control over the sound attenuation incorporated by the builder or developer for any particular structure and if in fact 45 dB or less are not achieved, the purchaser of that particular structure would be eligible to seek damages from the airport, and would defeat any immu- nity which this Bill purports to give the Airport. He suggested the City Attorney review the Bill and the outlined points that he would supply in writing. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos stated that the Bill was not any different than what Mr. Turpen had said, and this City had been battling for five to six years over 65 decibles that the Airport had dictated in noise constraints with which the City abided. Mr. Turpen stated that they did not see the Bill mandating anything, and they saw it as permissive and offering nothing more than the Airport currently has - which is immunity for noise nuisance. He spoke in detail: Airport had immunity when there was the Shearwater debate, and they were very concerned about the creation of a new noise constituency in the vicinity of the Airport which will seek to exercise political influence over the operation of the airport and will seek before this Council and the Airport Commission to attempt to influence because of their concerns with aircraft noise; should abandon the concept that 65 CNEL is 3/27/91 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL really a noise problem; there was a single event noise issue in this com- munity and was part of the complaint of any constituency under the shoreline which does not fly over any homes, etc. Councilwoman Teglia stated that it was a proven fact that there was a 10% fly over residential area contrary to what Mr. Turpen said. Councilman Penna questioned: while the Airport had immunity on lawsuits coming in -- he thought that the community only existed on small claim matters that can be filed against the Airport, but anyone could file a noise suit against the Airport in Superior Court. Mr. Turpen stated that he was not an attorney, however, his understanding was that the filing of a part 150 was deter- mined to have constructed knowledge of the noise nuisance after February 1993, and their defense would be under the Federal Immunity of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150. Mayor Drago questioned why the threat of withholding funds for the insulation program had not been raised during the Shearwater episode. Mr. Turpen stated that it was a question of the Airport's disagreement with S.S.F. which they manifested in a legal action, but here there was concern over the amount of money the Airport has available for insulation programs wherein now there are four communities and two School Districts petitioning for the matching funds. Mayor Drago related: he felt that Mr. Turpen was using leverage on this City, and the only leverage they had right now was the insulation funding; the Airport was starting to get into land use dic- tation; pilots will have the tendency rather than fly over 500 homes, would fly 3/27/91 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL over 5,000 homes; starting to separate noise from safety; punishing people that have suffered for many years from airport noise; being concerned over homes that might not happen; if he had his druthers there would not be flights over the City for safety reasons; this was more than a veiled threat which he did not appreciate; Brisbane voted to support the Bill; in City Hall the aircraft noise is apparent; that being threatened made him want to strike back; there would be future actions to be taken by the City and the Airport with meetings to be attended, and there should be a cooperative spirit, rather than this threat setting the tone of you get me, and I am going to get you. Mr. Turpen questioned why the urgency in passing the Senate Bill if there was not to be construction of new homes. He stated that this was not intended to be a threat, but a position and if this Council takes a position for the Bill then the Airport would look to priori- tizing matching funds available. He stated that the Airport had spent $10,000,000 over the ten years on noise abatement issues because they believed in what they were trying to do, and for this City to endorse the Bill indicated that they did not have the same commitment and had a downward prioritization, etc. Councilman Haffey found the discussion to not be threatening, but more educa- tional and looked forward to the Senator's comments to provide additional education to the Council before addi- tional debate and discussion. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos stated that the City had a high priority to meet the needs of airport noise, water problems, clean air, transportation and gridlock. He stated that in the next six months there would be bills that say that cities could build homes closer to transit centers. 3/27/91 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --'ITEMS FROM COUNCIL i12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Turpen stated that he did not believe that people at the work centers would be able to afford the housing to be build, and therefore no guaranty that traffic would be alleviated. Senator Kopp felt that this debate was probably the most remarkable, unique event that he had seen in twenty years of elected public life - open and public. He stated that this Bill had a history and did not just arise full borne, and proceeded to give background on the legislation for airport noise: the legislature had established a vehicle called the Calif. Commission on Aviation and Airports; in 1988 that Commission issued a report called "Calif. Aviation Into the Future"; five pages in the report discussed the issue of airport noise and concluded with legislative recommendations; that one of the members of the Commission was Mr. Turpen; that the report identified the fact that air- ports by their nature attract commercial development which brings jobs and people who had to get back and forth to work; the report indicated and recommended a public policy consistent with Calif. Air Quality Law authored by Assemblyman Byron Sherr to create housing as close as possible to jobs which cuts down on com- mute, gas reduction, and improves the quality of air in the Bay Area. He continued: that it was a statewide Bill; it was true that the origin of the Bill was specifically from a represen- tative of the Kohl Corp., which was not unusual for someone to have an idea that is related to a problem which is related to an issue, where now someone can say, "Oh well, this is some kind of a special interest or well, this company makes contributions to members of the legislature"; but the primary issue was whether or not it was good policy or not; the converse of the policy is that land 3/27/91 Page 8 AGENDA ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL lays fallow, unimproved, bearing little value as far as property tax assessment and revenues are concerned to a City, or District in which it is located; people are working at the Airport and commuting to the Bay Area from Stockton and Sacramento; that businesses were moving to where their employees lived, and away from poor air quality; that the Bill was amended five times to include suggestions from the Airport Roundtable, Mr. Turpen, and councilmembers through- out the State; the only suggestion not taken was to extend the purvue to a ten mile radius around the Airport; the Bill had four or five conditions built into it and full disclosures; that the prior bill was passed by both houses and vetoed by the Governor; when a per- son's suggestion was used in the bill, he expected that person to be satisfied with the bill and will support it; mind boggling that now the person says the bill is unacceptable; he made reference to letters addressed to the Mayor from Mr. Turpen; the whole world does not revolve around SFIA; there are 30,000,000 in this State with 16,000,000 jobs; this Bill was designed to immunize people that want to build homes in a state that is beset by the vagaries of housing construction which is never enough; that is why San Mateo County has the highest average cost of housing in the State; that the purpose of the Bill is to pro- vide immunity under restricted narrow con- ditions that will encourage someone who wants to build homes, to come in and build them in a logical place; recommen- dation of the Roundtable was an explicit maintenance of local control and to meet land use requirements. He further commented: on a new bill that will result in the reappraisal of corporate owned real estate in Calif., and one of the most strident opponents of the bill is the Kohl Corp.; any proposed housing is totally outside the shoreline 3/27/91 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL departure route; he disagreed with Councilman Haffey - this is not infor- mation, this is a threat; he could not believe that the Director of the Airport could make such a statement and put it in writing - it was such a valuable document that he would ask for a legal analysis of the document; document says clearly - you change your mind and if you don't we are not going to give you the money for the people you represent; the Airport has about $41,000,000 of unappropriated reserves; he did not want the Council to jeopardize a benefit to their constituency, however, he had big shoulders, he could take this kind of stuff and could dish it out; he did not want the Council to impale the City under circumstances set forth in this most amazing document; if the Council wanted to rescind the action taken in good conscience and take no position; he was sure Mr. Turpen will reward everyone with the dollars that the Airport already agreed to, etc. He concluded by saying that he had no hurt feelings if the Council decided to withdrawn their action and take no posi- tion on this Bill. Councilman Haffey stated that the Senator had been very open, very public and can- did on his comments and lengthy, and he admired him in the way he could speak in the manner he did. He stated that he had first heard about the Bill from the Senator's Chief of Staff and from a representative of the Kohl Corp. and PIBC, and it was a Kohl Corp. issue. He stated that the prime concern of the Kohl Corp. was to build homes at Sierra Point which is primarily in Brisbane, but the residential is in South San Francisco; and we would provide services to the people, so that was his special interest - that of the citizens he was elected to represent. He stated 3/27/91 Page 10 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N kJ~t~}?~ '-- ITEMS FROM COUNCIL '12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL that his concern was the special interest of Senator Kopp and the Kohl Corp. He stated that he had always admired the strong stance taken by the Senator and for being a strong person when he raises money, and he assumed that the Kohl Corp. had been involved in helping him - that was a matter of politics. Senator Kopp felt the Councilman's com- ments were penurious and that was quite a imputation. He stated that the Kohl Corp. has never assisted him in raising money. Councilman Haffey stated that he was surprised at the Senator's fervor in sup- port for this legislation. He stated that it disappointed him for he wished the Council could have this kind of publicity to have the Director of the Airport and the State Senator come to the City of S.S.F. to speak on this one piece of legislation when there are so many pieces of legislation the City is concerned about. He stated that the Council knew how he stood on this Bill since he had opposed this on the last meeting, and would oppose it again. Senator Kopp related that he was not the only Senator that introduced a bill on the same subject - Senator Newton Russell introduced a bill on the same subject and would have pursued it, but he withdrew after telling him that his bill was better in safeguards; and had become a co-auther. He related that the Kohl Corp., if they had contributed to his campaign, was among 3,000 other contributors in the District he represents. Councilwoman Teglia stated her belief that her job was to protect the people and she had major concerns: that the 3/27/91 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ........ ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL City would be unable to attract matching funds from the Airport when our City is one of the most impacted by noise; City and County of San Francisco through the Airport has interjected into our right to regulate and develop our own land use policies; we are being threatened in our right to take a position on this Bill. She stated that they had fought before and one learns a lot about one's adver- sary when you battle, and felt that each knew the other's measure. She stated that she knew that San Francisco has the resources to ultimately, in a practical sense, become right as they had on Shearwater, wherein the City had fought on principal in Court and supposedly won, however, there are no houses there today or perhaps ever. She questioned the right to land use out there, and secondly had the experience of sitting in a room with Mr. Turpen when we ham- mered out a deal on the stipulated variance agreement, and she knew he would make a deal for the entity he was representing. She spoke in detail of the homes in S.S.F. in the 65-70 CNEL noise level, and found it difficult to risk funding the insulation of those homes, and felt some deal could be struck with Mr. Turpen. She stated that the Airport had money stashed away to fight the City - that was reality, etc. Mayor Drago stated that Councilwoman Teglia was one of the votes that sup- ported the Airport and opposed the Bill, and questioned if she still felt the same way. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she was not opposing the bill, but was trying to get some attention to some other concerns this and other cities had. She stated she was serving as the Chairman of a Committee that was formed by the Council 3/27/91 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL of Cities for the cities to repeal another bill that was onerous and because of that was horse trading; and that was the context of the no vote. She stated that reading the bill she did not see major harm, and saw the Airport fighting to keep what they see as the only oppor- tunity in the future for any kind of noise abatement - they have nothing else. She felt it would be very wise to simply retreat from support of the Bill to a neutral position, and she would like to make that as a Motion. Councilman Haffey suggested a Motion to become neutral at this point on the legislation until such time as members of this Council can meet with the Airport and set up a situation where there might be a compromise in which we talk about use decisions on the eastside of the freeway in return for essential addi- tional assistance with regards to insula- tion of homes on the westside of the freeway. Mr. Turpen stated that with respect to Council's co-mingling two issues: 1) he continues to be on direction from the Airport Commission - opposed to SB226 on its merits and for what it may bring with respect to an impact upon airport noise mitigation; 2) we have never, with a slight blemish for the Shearwater, been opposed to setting down with anyone on any subject and discuss it openly and candidly and honestly at your request. Mayor Drago solicited comments from Councilmembers Penna and Nicolopulos. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos stated that he had made the Motion and did hear all the information, and Mr. Turpen had revealed some harmful information, and he still felt that the Council had made the right decision. Councilman Penna stated that he felt that 3/27/91 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL !12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL he had been viewing multi-dimensional games, and was trying to focus in on what was in front of Council: the position this City took regards support of SB226. He stated that the reason he supported the Bill was because he saw it as a means of preventing people who own new construction from suing the Airport, and felt it was clear on that point. He stated that the council was in a position to try to accommodate an Airport, who is our neighbor who has been participating with the city over many years with several programs for noise insulation and other things, but the Airport would love to have a 10 mile insulation zone around it so there isn't any problem with its operation - and that will never exist because the situation was getting worse as new commercial development occurs and new job centers begin to open, the City needs to provide the housing that goes along with it, and if not then we should not provide the jobs - it is sinful to have people commute hours away from work. He felt that the bill did have safeguards for insulation against noise, and was a reasonable Bill to support. He thought that this Bill prevents people from filing lawsuits, and there is a disclo- sure. He felt that developing housing was very important, and the more that were built, the more affordable the housing. He stated that new housing had taken place in the gap, yet the Airport had not voiced any objections. He stated that he was in support of the Bill, and would not back off from that support. Councilwoman Teglia stated that irrespec- tive of this Bill the Airport will fight the City on housing on the bayside, yet there were many many homes that needed to be insulated and to turn around and tell them that is no longer available - she could not take that risk. She thought it would be smart for the Council to take a 3/27/91 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL neutral position on the Bill. She stated that it had opened up some subjects that needed to be discussed with the Airport. Mayor Drago stated that she had opened up a very interesting avenue for the Council to travel, and he wondered because he really should be directing it to the two other persons and himself who voted to support the Bill two weeks ago. He won- dered if the City continued to support the Bill if that gave us leverage with the Airport to negotiate what he thought the Councilwoman was intending to do with that property out there in development policies on the bayside which may even mean the prohibition of homes on the bayside. He questioned if the vote was rescinded tonight, then what good faith do we have with the Airport that they will open that sort of negotiations with a couple of members of Council. He stated that he knew this was going to happen and could visualize the third vote no matter what Motion was made. He stated that he was grateful the Senator appeared tonight and gave him an out, because he was not prepared to call Mr. Turpen's bluff on withholding these funds. He stated that he might do it if it only pertained to his house, but there were 40 homes out there waiting to be completed and another 100 on the drawing board that he did not want to jeopardize. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To reconsider and rescind the original vote of support for the Bill. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos stated that he had asked for an opportunity to make a Motion at the proper time. Motion/Second withdrawn by Councilmembers Teglia and Haffey. Motion by Vice Mayor Nicolopulos - To concur with the Motion made two weeks ago 3/27/91 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN '--ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL to support the Bill. Motion died for lack of a second. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To rescind the Motion on SB226 and pursue a position of neutrality. Councilman Penna questioned if rescinding the Motion was because someone had said to us, "We are holding these funds back from you if you support SB226" or are we voting for neutrality because we are agreeing with the Airport that we are not going to have any housing on the other side of the freeway. Councilman Haffey reiterated his opposi- tion to the Bill. Councilwoman Teglia stated that it was simply taking care of our provincial or tangible interests, and she did not think there had been any granting of our rights with respect to housing or any kind of land use but hoped to set up a meeting with the Airport. Councilman Penna questioned what the Bill has to do with having a builder develop housing on the other side of the freeway. Mayor Drago stated that it was just the ramifications of the support of the Bill will jeopardize airport funding. Councilman Penna agreed that the Council should not jeopardize the funding that is there for people in this City to get their homes insulated against noise. He stated that this was a threat that is going to be carried out if we don't rescind this vote - that is extortion as far as he is concerned. Vice Mayor Nicolopulos shared the Councilman's concerns, and felt there came a time to take a stand when things are right and the Bill was right. 3/27/91 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN :~ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 112. Discussion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Motion to adopt an ordinance regarding parking standards for group care facilities. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TO RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES Councilman Penna Left the Podium: ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Louis Bartell, 352 Ferndale, stated that he was quite concerned with Council direction due to the conservation that -- changing their stand from a couple of weeks ago because circumstances for the change -- to him it appears like black- mail, and it looks like blackmail, and he was opposed to blackmail. Carried by majority roll call vote, Councilmembers Penna and Nicolopulos voted no. Senator Kopp requested that a letter be sent to him setting forth the reason for the change. Councilwoman Teglia stated in respect to the issue of blackmail - that Mr. Bartell was absolutely right, he called a spade a spade; it was blackmail, and she didn't like it either. She stated that Mr. Bartell had an advantage, he lived in Sunshine Gardens where he may hear some noise, but it was not one of the noise impacted neighborhoods where the well being is at stake. Councilmen Haffey and Penna volunteered to work with the Airport to improve insu- lation projects in S.S.F. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS M/S Haffey/Penna - To adopt the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1099-91 Carried by majority roll call vote, Councilwoman Teglia and Mayor Drago voted Councilman Penna left the podium due to a possible conflict of interest and did not take part in the discussion or vote on Item No. 8. 3/27/91 Page 17 AGENDA --')kDMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ~8. Loan program for an engineering ~ analysis for unreinforced masonry buildings and adoption of a reso- lution if the proposal is approved. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING LOAN PROGRAM FOR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY (URM) BUILDINGS ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Chief Planner Solomon read the staff report and concluded by saying that if the Council chose to establish a loan program for owners to obtain an engi- neering analysis and to extend the deadline to 4/15/91, and renotice the property owners. Mr. Alan Askar, 7031/2 Linden Ave., stated that it was a problem for the owner to pay for the analysis, and he felt that using public funds with a City chosen engineer seemed improper or illegal. He suggested changing the wording to allow the owner to pick his own engineer. He stated that he hoped that the Council would use public funds for the retro- fitting cost, because if the owners could not find $5,000-10,000 for the analysis they certainly would not be able to afford the retrofitting costs. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela stated that he represented the Metro Hotel, and felt that the loan program was needed and justified, however, he did not agree with only being able to contract with EQE, and felt it should be left open and flexible for the owners to select their engineer within parameters. Ms. Lupe Gavidia, 223 Grand Ave., thanked the Council for the loan program but wanted a repayment period longer than five years. She stated that she and her mother worked 18 hour days and with the quality of the structures she could not justify the engineering costs. She stated that she had gone to Richards and Positively Flowers, who lease their buildings, and they assured her that they did not know anything about the URM requirements. Councilwoman Teglia spoke of the finan- cial hardships that had led to this program, and stated that the City was not in a position to give funds and there would have to be a demonstration of 3/27/91 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Loan Program - Continued. Councilman Penna Returned to Podium: 9. Transportation System Management ~ Program: Motion to waive reading and introduce the ordinance; resolution approving a joint powers agreement. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 18.04 ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ("TSM") PROGRAM" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING MAYOR TO EXECUTE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS financial necessity. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To accept the report and adopt the resolution. Discussion followed: that there should be interest on the loan; a longer period than five years and some guarantee when the property is sold; that the City chosen engineer had an unfair advantage so they should be able to pick their own engineer; there could be battles at staff level on whether the chosen engineer is qualified; by definition a structural engineer was certified; question of liability; Chief Planner suggested moving the date to 4/15/91 and bring the item back on 4/10/91 meeting; for staff to put out another piece of advisory correspon- dence to every owner on the list. Motion and Second withdrawn by Councilmembers Teglia and Haffey. Discussion followed: problem with charging a 1% interest rate; problem with opening it up to any engineer; that City Attorney needed to cover questions on liability. Mayor Drago continued the item to 4/10/91 meeting. Councilman Penna returned to the podium. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To waive reading and introduce the ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 29-91 Carried by unanimous voice vote. 3/27/91 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Transportation - Continued. 10. CITIES WHO BECOME SIGNATORIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHING THE MULTICITY TSM AGENCY Motion to approve the Conference Center Preliminary Design and budget. ADMINISTRATAIVE BUSINESS Director of Conference Center Carl pre- sented her staff report and introduced Mr. Charley Hamm of Group 4 Architecture. Mr. Hamm reviewed the elements of the functional and conceptual design with the glassed open areas, the landscaping element, etc. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To approve the Conference Center Preliminary Design and Budget. Councilman Penna stated that his comments did not reflect on staff or Group 4 because the concept was favored by him for S.S.F.: he was opposed to the loca- tion; felt it was terrible, and did not provide good access during week; funds better used to pursue location that could be expanded on; study our market and capture the market; Conference Board would be better served if two members that have adjacent properties were not on the Board. Councilman Haffey pointed out that Councilman Penna had voted for the two members. Councilman Penna stated that yes, that was at his first meeting and he had been told that it was already decided; and he thought they should be removed from the Board. Councilwoman Teglia stated that no one had told Councilman Penna that, and felt that he had a conflict of interest with a letter he was circulating through Council. 3/27/91 Page 20 AGENDA ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 10. Motion - Continued. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 11. Motion to waive reading and intro- duce an ordinance on the removal of animal excrement from public and private properties. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 9.04.075 ENTITLED "REMOVAL OF ANIMAL EXCREMENT FROM PUBLIC PARKS AND SCHOOL YARDS" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE .ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Discussion relating to Senate Bill 226. GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION 13. Closed session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. ADJOURNMENT ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Councilman Penna stated that he had asked when this was advertised, however, he did not have a conflict on Shearwater and was waiting for a legal decision and had never received any compensation. Carried by majority roll call vote, Vice Mayor Nicolopulos, and Councilman Penna voted no. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To waive reading and introduce the ordinance. Discussion followed on what the penalty was, and not knowing asked that the information be available at the next meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Considered earlier in the meeting. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:30 p.m. 3/27/91 Page 21 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~)~taya~, ~ City of South San Francisco f /Jack Drago,~Ma~r ~y/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. 3/27/91 Page 22