Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1956-08-27PLACE TIME: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: '~ HAAS-HAYNIE-UTAH INDUSTRIAL PARK .SUBDIVISION:~? SAN FRANCISCO BRIDGE COMPANY LETTER OF PROTEST: ~5'~7 APPEARANCE OF COUNCILMAN ROCCA:" RESOLUTION NO. 2399 HAAS-HAYNIE-UTAH AGREEMENT: ~ ~ 7 FINAL APPROVAL OF SOUTH S. F, INDUSTRIAL PARK MAP: ~ ~7 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HELD MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 1956 Council Chambers, City Hall. 6:30 p.mo The meeting was called to order by Mayor Rozzi at 6:50 p.m. Present: Councilmen G. J. Rozzi, Emilio Cortesi, Francis Lucchio, Leo Ryan. Absent: Councilman Andrew Rocca. Mayor Rmzzt, upon opening the meeting, remarked that the reason for the meeting this evening concerned the approval of the final map of the Haas-Haynie-Utah Construction Company Industrial Park Subdivision. He'then brought to the attention!of the Council and those present in the audience a letter of protest which had!been written by the San Francisco Bridge Company concerning the relocat:on of Colma Creek and the resultant silting which they alleged would take place. He then asked Director of Publi: Works Louis Goss to explain to those present his opinion concerning the subject matter. Lengthy discussion took place, at which time Mr. Goss spoke on the plans and specifications which he had ch~cked, as prepared by Wilsey & Ham and which he had reviewed with Harry Mantn of that firm. He related his experi~nce in the dredging operations which hsd itaken place in the Colma Creek area during the last three years. After expl{aining the area which had been dredged out, he remarked that he felt that each iyear the area could be kept open wath a floating clam mhe11. He further re'aarked that he recommended that the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company guarantee to hold the City harmless for any damage tha~ might result to the San Francisco Bridge Oom2any as a result of silting condit;ons in the channel. He also recommended that the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company pay for the removal of any excess silt which is deposited at the outlet of the realigned channel of Colma Creek, which silt interferes with the operations of the San Francisco Bridge Company. Further discussion took place, at which time Councilman Lucchio asked the rep- resentatives of the San FrancisCo Bridge Company as to the number of times the area was lSed in their normal operations, to which they replied it averaged one-and-a-half to two trips a day. Councilman Ryan at this time stated that as he viewed the problem, it was one between the San Francisco Bridge Company and the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company, and further remarked that in approving the plans, a new channel was being opened up for Colma Creek and that the San Fran- cisco Bridge Company should be assured that it could be used for normal opera- tions. He also stated he could not see why the opinion of Director of Public Works Gos]sicould not be accepted inasmuch as he was a hydraulic expert. He also'remi;rked that the normal cost of cleaning out the mouth of Colma Creek was about $4,000.00 and that with the clause of'holding the City safe and harmless by the H&~s-Haynie-Utah Company, he could not see why the map for Industrial Park Sub&~imion No. I could not be approved, At this t~a:e, City Attorney Lyons stated that since the City was not doing any of the wo~k, it could not be held liable, the work being done by a private party ant the City not participating. He explained the agreement which had been prepared concerning the subject matter and stated that although it had not been signed, it was approved by the attorneys for the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company. He then read ~he part in the agreement concernin~ the holding the City safe and harmless, iMayor Rozzi asked City Attorney Lyons if the agreement would be bind- ing and not! involve the City in any respect, ~o which he replied that was correct. * Councilman Andrew Rocca appeared present at tae meeting at 7:06 p.m. and re- mained for ~he duration of the meeting. Lengthy discussion followed, at which time, members of the City Council, rep- resentatives of the San Francisco Bridge Comphny and representatives of the Haas-Haynie-Utah Construction Company discussed the matter of silting in the Colma Cre2k. channel. Also discussed was the ~mount of dredging which was done in the past!by the San Francisco Bridge Compa~.y at the mouth of Navigable Slough and whetherlor not Navigable Slough might come under the jurisdiction of some State age~y for assistance in dredging the area. After lengt~ discussion had taken place, Councilman Ryan stated he felt t~e map could be approved with the understanding that an agreement would be reached between the San Francisco Bridge Con_vany and the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company as to what was normal sand removal ant what is to be removed over and beyond the normal deposits. He fur- ther rema~ed he felt the San Francisco Bridge Company and the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company could come to some agreement. The attorney for the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company, p~esent, then stated that it was a problem between the two adjoining property owners and did not involve the City. There being~no further discussion, City Attorney Lyons remarked that before approving ~he map, the Council should adopt a resolution entering into a contract with the E~as-Haynie-Utah Construction Company. He then explained the agree- ment and conditions enumerated therein. He briefly explained the resolution prepared, a~thorizing the execution of the agreement, after which Councilman Ryan introd~ced "A'RESOLUrION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO At~HORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREiMENT BETWEEN SAID CITY AND HAAS- HAYNIE-UTAE, A COPARTNERSHIP, PERTAINING TO TH~ DEYELOPMENT OF SOUTH SAN FRAN- CISCO INDt'STRIAL PARK." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Rozzi, Rocca, Cortesi, Lucchio and Ryan. At this tim~, Mr. Lyons handed to the Haas- Haynie-Utak Company the agreements for execution, requesting that they be signed aha returned to the City for signature. City Attor£e~ Lyons then remarked that the final map for South San Francisco Industrial park could be approved and accepted pursuant to the conditions of the oral agreement between the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company and the San Francisco Bridge Company which was mentioned earlier. Councilman Ryan moved, seconded by Councilman ROcca and regularly carried that the final map of South San Francisco Industrial Park Subdivision b~ ~+o~ o~ ~-~ .... ~' ' II~DU$~iAL Pl~ . SUBDIVISION SAN FRANCISCO BRIDGE COMPANY LETTER OF PROTEST: APPEARANCE OF COUNCILMAN ROCCA: RESOLUTION NO. 2399 HAA S-HAYN I E - UTAH AGREEMENT: ~ 5- ? FINAL APPROVAL OF SOUTH S. F, INDUSTRIAL PARK thiS"~eni~ng'~0'nce~'fi~d'~hea~r~v~['Of"~h~ final map of the Haas,Haynie_Utah Construction Company Industrial Park Subdivision. He'then brought to the attention of the Council and those present in the audience a letter of protest which had been written by the San Francisco Bridge Company concerning the relocation of Colma Creek and the resultant silting which they alleged would take place. He then asked Director of Public Works Louis Goss to explain to those present his opinion concerning the subject matter. Lengthy discussion took place, at which time Mr. Goss spoke on the plans and specifications which he had checked, as prepared by Wilsey & Ham and which he had reviewed with Harry ~anin of that firm. He related his experi~nce in the dredging operatiom which had taken place in the Colma Creek area during the last three years. After explaining the area which had been dredged out, he remarked that he felt that each year the area could be kept open with a floating clam ~hell. He further remarked that he recommended that the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company guarant~ to hold the City harmless for any d~age that might result to the San Francisc~ Bridge Company as a result of silting conditions in the channel. He also recommended that the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company pay for the removal of any exces~ silt which is deposited at the outlet of the realigned channel of Colma Creek, which silt interferes with the operations of the San Francisco Bridge Company. Further discussion took place, at which time Councilman Lucchio asked the rep- resentatives of the San Francisco Bridge Company as to the number of times the area was used in their normal operations, to which they replied it averaged one-and-a-half to two trips a day. Councilman Ryan at this time stated that as he viewed the problem, it was one between the San Francisco Bridge Company and the Haas-Haynie-Utah C~mpany, and further remarked that in approving the plans, a new channel was being opened up for Colma Creek and that the San Fran. cisco Bridge Company should be assured that it could be used for normal opera- tions. He also stated he could not see why the opinion of Director of Public Works Goss could not be accepted inasmuch as he was a hydraulic expert. He also'remarked that the normal cost of cleaning out the mouth of Colma Creek wa~ about $4,000.00 and that with the clause of'holding the City safe and harmless by the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company, he could not see why the map for Industrial Park Subdfvi~ion No. 1 could not be approved. At this time, City Attorney Lyons stated that since the City was not doing any of the work, it could not be held liable, the work being done by a private party and the City not participating. He explained the agreement which had be~ prepared concerning the subject matter and stated that although it had not bee~ signed, it was approved by the attorneys for the Haas-Hay.nie-Utah Company. He then read the part in the agreement concerning the holding the City safe and harmless. ~ayor Rozzi asked City Attorney Lyons if the agreement would be bin, ing and not involve the City in any respect, to which he replied that was correct. Councilman Andrew Rocca appeared present at the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and re- mained for the duration of the meeting. Lengthy discussion followed, at which time, members of the City Council, rep- resentatives of the San Francisco Bridge Company and representatives of the Haas-Haynie-Utah Construction Company discussed the matter of silting in the Colma Creek channel. Also discussed was the amount of dredging which was done in the past by the San Francisco Bridge Company at the mouth of Navigable and whether or not Navigable Slough might come under the jurisdiction of some State agency for assistance in dredging the area. After lengtl~discussion had taken place, Councilman Ryan stated he felt the map could be approved with the understanding that an agreement would be reached between the San Francisco Bridge Company and the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company as to what was normal sang removal and what is to be removed over and beyond the normal deposits. He fur, ther remarked he felt the San Francisco Bridge Company and the Haas-Haynie-Uta! Company could come to some agreement. The attorney for the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company, present, then stated that it was a problem between the two adjoining property owners and did not involve the City. There being no further discussion, City Attorney Lyons remarked that before approving the map, the Council should adopt a resolution entering into a contr; with the Haas-Haynie-Utah Construction Company. He then explained the agree- ment and conditions enumerated therein. He briefly explained the resolution prepared, authorizing the execution of the agreement, after which Councilman Ryan introduced "ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAID CITY AND HAAS HAYNIE-UTAH, A COPARTNERSHIP, PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH SAN FRAN- CISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Rozz Rocca, Cortesi, Lucchio and Ryan. At this time, Mr. Lyons handed to the Haas- Haynie-Utah Company the agreements for execution, requesting that they be signed and returned to the City for signature. City Attorney Lyons then remarked that the final map for South San Francisco Industrial Park could be approved and accepted pursuant to the conditions of the oral agreement between the Haas-Haynie-Utah Company and the San Francisco Bridge Company which was mentioned earlier. Councilman Ryan moved, seconded b Councilman Rocca and regularly carried that the final map of South San Francis, Industrial Park Subdivision be accepted and ordered filed. ANNEXATION FEE ORDINANCE: At this time, Mr. Richard Doyle of the Associated Home Builders, asked the Council When the next reading of the Annexa=ion Fee Ordinance would come up, to which Mayor Rozzi replied that it would be held at the next regular meeting on Tuesday, September 4, 1956, at which time it would be ready for second reading. ASSESSMENT City Attorney Lyons briefly explained to the Mayor and members of the Council MEETING DATES:~? the meeting dates which had been set up in order that the assessment for Industrial Park could take place. He spoke of the adjourned meetings to be held - or~e mn September 11 and the other September 24, asking as to what time the Co~nciil wished to set for the meetings. Brief discussion followed. RESOLUTION NO. 2400 City Attorney Lyons briefly explained the next resolution ready for Council APPOINTING action coincerning the appointing of engineers for the South San Francisco ENGINEERS FOR Industrial Park improvement district #1. Councilman Cortesi introduced "A RES- INDUSTRIAL PARK:~~? OLUTIOI OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO-[NDUSTRIAL PARK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 - RESOLUTION NO. 2400 APPOINTING ENGINEERS." Roll call Votes as follows: Ayes, Couincilmen Rozzi, Rocca, Cortesi, Luc~hio and Ryan. RESOLUTION OF City Attorney Lyons then explained the next resolution for Council attention INTENTION NO. 2401 concer£1ng the Resolution of Intention, after which Councilman Lucchio introduce~ INDUSTRIAL PARK the following: "CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO - ~NDU~TRIAL PARK IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ~O. 1 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 2401." Roll call vote was as DISTRICT NO. 1:~-~7 follows: Ayes, Councilmen Rozzi, Rocca, Cortesi, Lucchio and Ryan. RESOLUTION NO. 2402 The next resolution as explained by the City Attorney concerned the fixing of FIXING ATTORNEYS' compensation for attorneys employed for the improvement proceedings. Brief dis- COMPENSATION FOR cussior took place, at which time Councilmaa Rocca asked City Attorney Lyons INDUSTRIAL PARK why he was named in the firm of attorneys to handle the matter, at which time IMPROVEMENT DISTRICI~. Mr. Lyons explained that he was mentioned as "City Attorney'* in the resolution, ~-~-~ After ~tscussion, Councilman Lucchio introd~ced resolution: "CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRAFCISCO - INDUSTRIAL PARK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-RESOLUTION NO. 2402- FIXING COMPENSATION FOR ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED FOR IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS." Roll call! vote was as follows: Ayes, CounciLmen Rozzi, Rocca, Cortesi, Lucchio and Ryan.i RESOLUTION NO. 2403 ENGINEERS' REPORT, PROTEST HEARING: ADJOURNMENT The last resolution for Council action concerned the protest hearing to be held. After a brief explanation by the City Attoraey, Councilman Rocca introduced the following! resolution: "CITY OF SOUTH SAN FIL. NCISCO - INDUSTRIAL PARK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 - RESOLUTION NO. 2403 - ADOPTING, CONFIRMING AND APPROVING ENGINEERS' REPORT OF ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGNATING TIME AND PLACE FSR HEARING PROTESTS TO PROPOSED IMP~)VEMENTS." After the introduction of the resolution, Mr. Lyons asked the Mayo~ and members of the Council as to what ho~r! the September llth meeting was to be held. Brief discussion followed, at which~ime it was decided that it would be held at 5 p.m. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Rozzi, Rocca, Cortesi, Lucchio and Ryan. There being no further business, Councilman Luc~hio moved, seconded by Council- man Ryan and regularly carried, that the meeting be adjourned until Tuesday, September!4, 1956, at 8 pom. Time of a,djournment: 8:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED: