Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1954-01-11CONSE~r TO SPECIAL ~EETING We, the undersigned, being the mayor and all the councilmen of the City of South San Francisco, do hereby consent to the holding of a special meeting of said City Counci~ on Monday, the llth day of January, 1954, at 'the hour of 4 o'clock p. m. for the purpose of considering and acting upon the following matters: To ~consider the request of property owners for the improvement of Victory Avenue. Dated t~is llth day of January, 1954. Emilio Cortesi, Mayor Joseph Bracco Telford Smith Adolph Saui John Noonan City Councilmen of the City of South San Francisco PLACE: TIME: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: VICTORY AVENUE IMPROV~NT: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO B%~.O MONDAY, JANUARY ~, .1954 Council Ch~bers, City Hall 4p.m. The meeting was called to order at 4:16 p. m. by Mayor Cortesi. Present: Councilmen John Noonau, Adolph Sani, Emilio Cortesi, Joseph Bracco, Telford Smith Ab s e ut: None Mayor Cortesi asked City Manager McCluug if the interested property owners on the improve- ment of Victory Avenue had been invited to this special meeting this afternoon. City Manager McClung replied that Mr. Riccomi was iu direct contact with the property owners and could speak for them. Mr. Riccomi remarked that the properly owners who had signed the petition wanted to know why the improvement had not been done as yet. Councilman Smith remarked that he felt that those who did not sign should have been notified. City Attorney Lyons said that it was not legally necessary to notify the property owners as they could protest later when the notification was mailed to them. At that time they can appear and be heard ou their protest. Councilman Bracco asked what percentage of the property owners had signed the petition to which Mr. Riccomi replied a little over 80% had signed. He then went on to explain those who had signed the petition and the approximate amounts that would be paid by the property owners involved. A discussion was then held regarding the percentage that was to be paid by the property owners in relation to the amount he would pay as his share for the improvement of the street and the improvement ~-~ the drainage district. It was indicated that one property owner may be paying for a greater amount and would not get as much improvement on one of the types of work, that is, paying for a major portion of the drainage although he would not be dir- ectly benefiting by it. It was explained that both improvements were to be done under one Job, street and drainage. Councilman Noouau then asked how was the assessment set up to which Works Engineer Randlett remarked that the street work was ou a front footage basis, storm drain ou acreage basis, and the intersection per lineal foot. A discussion was then held ou the method of assessment. City Attorney Lyons explained that at its completion, the council can set the policy of assessment. If the one proposed by the engineer was not suited to the council they could set the policy of assessment themselves. Councilman Sani remarked that the improvement as proposed to be done 'would improve the property of Mr. Gamlen. City Attorney Lyons further stated that the law reads that the person who benefits by the improvement will pay the assessment. Councilman Smith asked since some 4500 people use this street why not extend the assessment to them as well. City Attorney Lyons stated that the Government owns the Lindenville project and that the city could not do that. Mr. Riccomi at this time explained the lease that exists between the Land Company and the Governments that the Government at the time it leaves tile project, mml~ return the land to its natural condition, that is, it must remove all the improvements such as buildings, sidewalks, utility lines, streets, etc. Councilman Smith asked Director of Public Works Goss that some question of drainage had arisen and that now that we had the signatures on the petition, what was the feasibility of drainage. Mr. Goss explained a meeting he had with the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. on this drainage problem. It was found that the California Terrazzo Co. t~d filled in a drainage ditch and had also built retaining walls over this ditch. He asked the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. if the tracks were covered with water what would they do. He was~informed that the company would then raise the rails. He further remarked that the Southern Pacific Co. would not allow a drain ditch to go along their railr~i tracks as they stated it would be a hinderance to their employees iu getting ou and off the railroad cars. He explained the possible routes investigated to take the drainage and that the only feasible means was that as designed by Works Engineer Randletto He further cited the 500 feet of drainage ditch tb~t wo~ld have to be built where the water empties near the slough. He re- marked that unless the work done was under the assessment amount the cost of $500.00 for this ditch would have to be borne by the city. The city wo~ld also have to acquire ease- ments to do this work. At this point, a discussion was held ou the drainage of Victory Avenue, the council referring to the map that had been prepared. At the conclusion of the discussion, Counci~m~n Sani stated that he felt the work should be taken care of and is essential. He felt no discmimination existed iu the assessment and that it was justified. He therefore moved that the city proceed with the resolution of intention for the improve- ment of Victory Avenue. City Attorney Lyons explained that resolutions had been prepared and that they must be passed in their proper order. Councilman Bracco seconded the motion of Councilman Sani. CounciLman Smith, under the question, asked wh~t provisions would have to be made in order to go under the San Francisco Water Co. line to which Works Engineer Raudlett replied that the city would not have to go under the Water Co. line, explaining the RESOLUTION NO. 1965 DECLARING INVESTIGATION PROC~T2DINGS NOT NECES- SARY, VICTORY AVENUE, D~PROV~: RESOLUTION NO. 1966 INTENTION TO IMPROVE VICTORY AVENUE: RESOLUTION NO. 1967 APPOINTING ENGINEER VICTORY AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 1968 EMPLOYING AT~ OR~Y VICTORY AVE. IMP: ~-/~,. RESOLUTION NO. 1969 ADOPT. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS VICTORY AVE. IMP: RESOLUTION NO. 1970 APPROVING ESTIMATE OF ENGINEER, VICTORY AVENUE IMPROVIDENT: RESOLUTION NO. 1971 ESTABLISHING WAGE SCALE, VICTORY AVE. IMPROVEMENT: RESOLUTION NO. 1972 NOTICE INVITING SEAT.MD BIDS, VICTORY AVE~JE IMPROVEM~IT: AD JOUR~iENT: APP ROV7~): route to be taken to the vicinity of Lowrie's plant. Councilman Smith then asked that if the easements were not obtained and condemnation proceedings had to be done and legal notices sent out, what was gained other than making ourselves liable to expense. City Attorney Lyons replied that if the council had uo desire to go ahead what would the reasons be for obtaining the easements. Voting ou the motion and second as made was as follows: Ayes, Couucllmeu Saui, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noouan and Smith. Councilman Sani introduced a resolution of the City of South San Francisco declaring that inve~stigatiou proceedings are not required iu connection with the improvement of Victory Avenue. Councilman Smith requested an explanation relative to the investigation .proceedings not being necessary to which City Attorney Lyons explained regarding the debt limitation ~ct. Councilman Saui requested to ask City Manager McClung one question and wanted it a matter of record. He remarked that he understood Mr. McCluug had spoken to Mr. Gamlen over the phone after he had registered his protest and that M~. Gamleu had changed his views. City Manager McCluug stated that he had explained to Mr. Gamlen relative to his assessment, that it w~s not what he was led to believe it was, that Mr. Gamlen came to his office and was shown the map with Director of Public Works Goss. Mr. Gain!au then stated he would ,~ith- draw his protest by letter and would check with his attorney. He later called Mr. McClung and said that he would not sign the petition but would discuss with his attorney the ad- visability of sending a letter withdrawing his protest. Councilman Smith remarked that this information should be declared heresay information. Mr. Riccomi stated that he had spoken to Mr. Gamlen and the same information was given to him as was given to City Manager McCluug. Roll call vote was as f~llows: Ayes, Councilmen Saul, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noouau and Smith. Councilman Bracco introduced a resolution of ~he City Council of the City of South San Fran- cisco declaring its intention to do certain public improvement work in the City of South San Francisco on Victory Avenue. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Sani, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noonan and Smith. explaining City Attorney Lyons brought up the matter of resolution appointing~ the engineer/to the council, that they could designate the engineer. He further remarked that Mr. Randlett had been Instructed to prepare the plans an~d specifications. Councilman Bracco introduced a resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco appointing au engineer for the improvement of Victory Avenue, and directing said engineer to make an estimate of the cost of said improvement. Councilman Smith asked Mr. Goss if this was proper to which Mr. Goss replied that all uaw work, as he understood it, was to be done under his super- vlsiou. City Attorney Lyons again remarked that Mr. Randlett h~d prepared the plans and specifications, that it was iu order to go ahead with Mr. Raudlett as engineer, and then enter into an agreement regarding charges. Mr. Raudlett remarked that it would be the same as iu other jobs that he had done for the city prior. Plans and specifications would be ~ of the first $10,000 and 5~ ou the balance. Supervision wo~ld be ~ ou the first $10,000 and 5% on the balance. Inspection would be 2% and the preparation of the assess- meut l~. Councilman Smith asked Mr. Goss how this sounded to him to which he replied that it was iu line with the specifications of the American Society of Engineers. Discussion then took place in which Councilman Smith remarked that no test borings h~d been made iu the area and that if it was found blue mud was present and that uo good base was there, it would incur added expense. Mr. Randlett then remarked that a gravel base would have to be put iu if such mud w~re present. Roll call vote w~ as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Saul, Cortesi~ Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noouan and Smith. Councilman Braceo introduced a resolution employing attorney for Victory Avenue proceedings. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Saul, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noonau and Smith. Councilman Sani introduced a resolution adopting plans and specifications for the improve- meut of Victory 'Avenue between Linden Avenue and Maple Avenue in the City of South San Francisco. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Sani, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noonau and Smith. Councilman Braeeo introduced a resolution approvi~ estimate of Works Engineer, Victory Avenue improvement. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, CounciLmen Sani, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noonau and Smith. Councilman Sani introduced a resolution establishing prevailing wage scale, Victory Avenue improvement. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Sani, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noouau and Smith. Councilman Bracco introduced a resolution directing publicatiun of notice inviting sealed proposals and fixing date of hearing thereon for i~provemeut of Victory Avenue between Linden Avenue and Maple Avenue. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Sani, Cortesi, Bracco; Noes, Councilmen Noouau and Smith. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 P. m. Re spectfully submitted, ' City Clerk