Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1967-09-18REGULAR ME2'TING OF 7142. CITY COUNCIL OF TH£ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO H2'LD MONDAY, S£PT~B£R 12, !967 TIM£: PLAC r': CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGY. OF ALLEGiANCZ AND INVOCATION: CLAIMS: PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 CLAIMS: CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2 CLAIMS: 8;00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall. The meetinW was called tc order by Mayor Ahem at 8:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the FlaW was recited. The Invocation was 9ire by Reverend Irvin Tweet of $~r Redeemer's Lutheran Church in place of R~verend Donald ~,eztz Present: Councilmen Pat~ick ~. Ahem, ~rank J. Bertucelli, 2mili~ Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guid~ 3. Rozzi Absent~ None Mayor Aborn asked if there was a ,notion approving the minute? of the s?ecial meetin~ of August 20~ 1967 and the regular ~eeting of September 5, 19A7. Councilman Bert~cell~ mc,zed, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the minute~ of the ?pccial moet~c..~ ~.~ Augusto~,~n .~°av and the regular meetin September 5, !967 be approved as m~bmitted. Mayor Ahem the~ asked if there was a motio~ apFzovinC the regular' claim~ a~ ~ubmitted for payment. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regulaxly carried, that the regular claims totaling $78,939.ql be approved for payment. ...... ,~o. Mayor Ahem a~ked ~f~ there was a ~otion approving the ~-;~ ~ az. submitted for payment. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Bertuce!li and regularly carried, that the claims as. submitted for Parking District No. I totaling $~27.00 be approved for pay~ Cabot, Cabot & Forbe? Industrial Park, Unit ~o. 2 Claims: (a) Cooper Clark & A~sociates claim dated August 21, !967 in the amount of $581.18 for Site Grading Imspection. (b) Cooper Clark & Associates claims dated 3uly 3, lO67 %bro~gh August ~, !~67 for 3ohs Nos. 38!-Q~, 381-L$ and 381-Ld totaling $1,052.8~ for Soil~ ~ngineezing Servic ~ ~ 2790, PSOC (c)%~ilsey & Ham claims dated through August 5, !967 for Invoices -o.,. 285~, 2851, 285?, 2853, and 2855 totaling $8,673.80 for 2n~ineering Service¢. Councilman Rozzi moved, ~econded by Councilman Bertucelli and regularly carried, that claims as submitted for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes I~dustrial Park, Unit No. 2 be approved for payment. 18: CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2-A CLAIMS: STS;;EGAT2 RIDGE ~:o~.~c.~.~,"NT DISTRICT CLAIM: FUJLIC HEARING UP-S8 SERVICE STATION ;YES TBOR DU~t- GULL ER T: RESOLUTION NO. 47nl GRANTING USE PERMIT ~ESTBDROUGH AND GELLERT" BJULEVARDS: PUBLIC H=,~R,NGS PARKING BAN REQUEST 3F S.S.F. INDUSTRIAL PARK A~o~IATION AMFNDMKNT TO S~CS. 4~! AND 4.~80P DRD. NO. 353: ~ T ~UBL,C HEARING V-32 AIRLAND FREI~{T CONSOLIDATED INC.: Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, Unit No. 2-A Claims: (a) Cooper Clark & Associates claim dated August 21, 1~67 in the amount of $$81.17 for S~te Grading Inspection. (b) Cooper Clark & Associates claims dated July ~, 1067~through August 4, !967 for 3cbs Nos. 381-Q~, 38!-L5 and 381-L4 totaling $1,952.81 for Soils ~ngineering Service~ (c) ~%ilsey & Ha~ c!ains dated through august 5, !967 For Invoices Nos. ~854, 2799, 2~00, 2851, 2852, 2853, and 2855 totaling $8,673.76 for Engineering Services. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Bertuce!!i and regularly carried, that the claims ~ub~itted for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, Unit ; .No ~-,,o * be approved for payment. Stoneqate Ridqe ' ~ment D!~' :- ' ' ,,sees .,r~t ho. ~ Claim: The Lowrie Paving Co I~c. claim dated Ausu~t 31, 1967 ~n thea,.oun~, * c:" $46,063.58 for Pro9res~ ~- + ,oymen~ for work performed. Counci~ma.' -n Bertuce!l~, moved, seconded .... by Counc~iman Rocca and recu!ar]v. . cams'ted, that the c!a~m a~._ submitted for Stonegate R~.dge As?e.~.:m~,.*~ Distr~ct ,~o."~ 1 be approved for payment. The next item v,a? the continued Public Hear-'.ne on Planning Commission Resolution No 2080 ent~'tle~: "A o'o~,,,,~,~ ~. ...... ..... =~.~, OF ~E PLAN~ING CO~ISSION OF ~E CITY O~ cwf~p SAN ~RANCISCO RECO~NDING TO ~E CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ~2 AMEND:;mNT PETITION OF CAZSAR~ALLAN ~.~=e 33 AS TO ~ = R_~N_ AN ~d~PRgXI~.~iTZLY I~O-ACR2 PARCZL OF ,, ..... ~, iNC. , .... LAND FROM A 'U'~.,~i~rITcTDW~T ..... Tn /'. '~' DISTRICT." City Attorney Nocnan stated that there were just a few more details to work out on thi~, matter and requected a continuance to the next re~,,lar meeting There being no objectlon~, ~'4ayor Ahern continued the ?ubllc Hearing. The continued Fubllc .Hearing on Appeal to Planning Commission's recommendation of denial for the proposed ~ervice ~tat~on at northwesterly corner of ,,e_,~borough and Gellert Bo,J!e,~a~d.- ~ ~ wa~ the ,next item for Council's consideration. Mayor Aborn asked if any other protests had been received to which the City Clerk replied that in addition to the communications already received and on file opposing the proposed service station, one had been received from the Zest Park Homeowners Improvement AssociatCon ~ated September 8, 1967 over the signature of Bruce Jacobs, President, copies of which were forwarded to rue City Council~tli~ng in detail their feelings and recommenda+ions concerning this matter. ,~ayor ,-,horn then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register a protest. There being none, Mayor Ahem declared the Public Hearing closed. City At~rney Noonan then explained the procedure which the City Council could follow ~n either approving, disapproving or modifying the application, after which Councilman Rozzl introduced a resolution entitled: "A R~SOLUTION GRANTING n USE P~Ri~IT - NORTH~PSTSRLY CORNER OF f~ESTBOROUCH AND GELLERT BOULSVARDS." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Patrick E. Ahem, Frank J. Bertucelll, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. The next items were the continued Public Hearing on the Request of the South San Francisco Industrial Park Association to ban parking in the Industrial area and the continued Public Hearing on the Notice of Hearing - Amendment to Sections 4.1! and 4.~8 of Ordinance No. 353 as amended, entitled, "ZONING ORDINANC~ OP THE CITY OF SAN FR~NCISCO," modifying Parking Requirements. Zayor 'k . th~e Public Hearings, ~ince they ~,~.ern remarked that if there ~ere no objections, ....... were related, would be continued since communiaationt were being received from the people affected and more interest v, as being shown. No objection~ having been registered, it was so ordered. The Public Hearing on Notice of Hearing of ;,ppeal from grant of Variance ±o Aid!and Freight, Inc., ~o. F[ve, Block sloven, South San Francisco Industrial Park 22 -. V~32 - was the next item. for Council'~ consideration. Mayor Ahern declared the Public Ilearin9 opened, after whkh lengthy discussion fallowed. 5k'. ;,Atom Capaccioli, of the firm of Capaccioli and Tragoutsis, commented that he represented the South Sa, Francisco Industrial Park ~ssociation on the appeal rs'om the Planning Commission's decision a~k!ng if there was anyone present who could ~nform him as to whether or not the applicant would use the streets for parking of vehicle? including trucks overnight. :,ir. Arthur Fritz, Sr., rcmar!-e~, that he was the President of Air!and Freight, was present to listen to the hearing, that his firm was engaged in ai~£reight activities, had made arrangements with the owner~ of the property to erect a b,~ld~ng s~i~:able to their needs and that their vehicles wou!~ be parked on the Fremi~e~ an8 not on the ~treets. ~r. Ca?acc~o!~ then reqvested the City Cotmcil that the a?F!]cation be denied, rec,.ting the reasons why such den!al shou!d be made, remarking that the application had not been filed by the owner of thc property, was ~n violation of the covenant restrictions and that the company was net a corporation, not qualified to conduct bu~!nes~ v/tibia the 18 PUBLIC HPAR ING V-3? AIRLAND FREIGHT CONSOLIDATPD INC.: RESOLUTION NO. 4742 GRANTING A VARIANCe- (V-32): RESOLUTION NO. 4743 REJECTING BIDS - LOMITaS SLOPE STABILIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 4744 AUiqiORIZING ISSUANC~ OF BLASTING PEP~!T TO CONSTRUCTION CO~4~ANY: ~q*-+~.=~ and that tbi~_ was contained, in a commun'lcat¢on~ as received from the Secretary of State which he filed w~_tb the City. City Attorney Noonan exD!alned to Council the commun].cat~o? which had just been filed after which .~ir. Fritz remarked that there must have been an error in the designating of the company name on lhe applicatfon since the company name was Airland Freight Consolidated Inc., was a licensed corporation, qualified to conduct operations within the ~*~ o~te. In answer to the question of Councilman Rozzi as to whether the City could proceed on the matter, City Attorney Noonan stated the applicant must be an interested party, that the application named Airland Fre~ght~ Inc., and was signed by a Mr. ~aury Kolv~ as partner. Discussion followed on the matter of ownership to the property at which time Mr. Maury Kolvl stated that he submitted the application for variance a~ the agent for the company and in answer to the City Attorney's question as to whether or not he was a partner of Airland Freight and what the word "partner" stood for, answered that he was a partner of Kolv~ Construction. Further discussion followed at which t~me the matter of the number of truck§ to be parked overnight~ the ownership of the propert'f~ the organizational background of the corporation was discussed after which .~r. Dan1:~l Pass, Planning Officer for the City, explained the appl~cation as ~t was filed with the P]annln9 Commission and the processin? and study ~ade of the app!~catfon prior to its being forwarded to the City Counc-l!. Discussion followed at whO. ch time the apFl!canz made mention of a hardship ~*:h~ch ~'ould be experienced by any uadue delay. In answer no Counc¢l~an Rocca'~ inquiry a~ to ownership in the propert7~ ~,~. Fritz reFl~ad tba2 Arthur 3. [r~tz, Sr., and Lynn ~ *~ each 15~, .~ C~.n~..n Fritz have h~s dauoher ha~ !5~ and that b.e and his wifs have the remaining ='=~ The matter of the opezat!oqs wb!ch would be conducted with regard to the merchandise to be received and delivered was discussed. In answer to Councilman Rocca'- inquiry as +o whether or not there was any ' * +~ ~ '~ =tit- ~ed using on-street parking, ,',,r. , ~ rep!. that they did not ~ntend to have on-street parking. Further discussion followed at which time discussion was held relative to the ~ections of the Zen[ps Ordinance as they affect the application after wh[ch the C[fy ,.,ttorney ex- plained to Council how the app![cation could be amended on its face to correct the error as well as the courte of act?on which the Council could take pursuant to the Ordinance in granting, denying or modifying. Mayor Aherr declared the Public Hear[ng closed. Brief discusslon followed at which time the C~ty Council ~ndicated thef. r desire to intro.* duce a resolution approving the application and granting the variance. Councilman Rocca introduced the resolution entitled; "A R~SOLUT!ON GP~{NT!NG A VARIANCE tv-3?) FOR LOT 5, ~LOCK 11, ~U,~7{ erin FRANCISC$ !;qDUSTRIAL PARK NO. o~-..u ,, Roll call vote was as follows: /lyes, Councilmen Patrick 2. Ahem, Emilio Cortes,_, ¢~ndzew Rocca and Guido J. Councilman Bertucelli remarked that before voting on the resolution, wanted to be sure that the proper applicant was on the permit. Furthe~ discussion followed after which Councilman Bertucelli voted "No." Fritz then remarked that he would s,bmit to the City evidence from the State of ,.,a.lfornia that their statements were true and correct. The next item was the Inter-gfflce Memorandum dated August 29, 1967 from the Director of ~ ad.ert~..ement of bids and compilation of bids received for the Public ~,orks advisinc of " '~ Lomitas Slope Stabilization. Accompanying was the resolution entitled: "A R32SOLUTION OF A~'iARD OF CONTR^CT FOR TH£ LO~4ITAS SLOPE S%tBILIZATION." Director of Public ;~orks Louis Goss reported that only one bid had been received which was over the £ngineers' estimate and recommended that the bid be rejected and due to the approach of the rainy season, he be authorized to call for bids in ~4ay of next year'. C~.ty Attorney then explained the resolution rejecting the bid received after which Council- . , -'v:,, .... o SLOP~ man Rozzi introduced the ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ o ze.~o_~ut~on entitled "A R~PSOLUTION REJECTING B~Do, ,q,~,,.,o STABILIZATION ·" Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Patrick E. Ahern, Frank J. Bertucelli, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. The ~n~er-Offzce ;4emorandu, m dated September 7, 1967 from the Director of ¢ubl].c ~' ~o.,..t.u,.t~on Company for a Blasting ~'erm_t and recom- submitting the request of ~zombo ~ .... ~ ~ mending approval~ =,]b~ect to ~nd~*~ ~ ~, ........... was the next iter, for Council'~ consideration Accompanying v, as the communication 4~*o~" 29 ~oA~ from Piombo Cons'Lz~ orion ~ompa%. ~ ~+~ ~ Perm;~ for Re~la..a~.on, ~ requesting a u~a=~.qu - ~ *'= ~il! and ~z~...:nc, Stage 2, c~'k¢~ Cabot Forbes Industrial Park, Units No. 2 and i;3. 2-A. Brief discussion followed at which time City Attorney Noonan explained how the permit would be prepared, that ~,. tn +,,to~.. ~art~:~. .. .one ~oncern~ng the storage of powder, and the other, the programming. ;,Wyor Ahem _.,u~m~ the Fire Chief, present in the audience, that t~e applicant had been 18 RPS©LUTION NO. 4744 (CO,~TII,U=D, ?o RD.,.ANC~ ~.49 OF ORD ND. 353: DISCUSSION CONC£RNING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTAL- LATION - ~,ViSTBOROUGH: D · oC ~ go I~N CONC FRN ING ~H2 ZN,=ORCPM:NT OF CITY ORDI NANC 2S: nPPLICATION OF THRIFTY CAB C051PANY: CITY PLANNER' S REPORT: RF-?ORT OF THC SPPCIAL ;,E~TBOROUGL SIGN informed to contact his department regardin~ the storage of powder and that the permit v:ou!d not be iscued unt[1 he ha~ ~ied with the ~ ~ ~'~+' re~omm~n~zon of the Fire m~ef Councilman Bertucel~.. then ~ntroduced 'the resolution =--*~ed: ...... "A R,-o~UTIoN-~ .... AUTHO- RIZ!NG ISSUANC2 OF A BLASTING PERMIT TO P!O..,,o~ CONsTRUCTIon CO/4P,iI~Y." Roll call vote ~;'as as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Patrick 2. ,",bern, Frank Y. Bertucelli, 2mille Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozz~. Noes, none. Absent, none. The next matter for Council's attention was the Ordinance entitled: "AN ORD~Nz,,,C. At,I~ND!NG ~.-CTIONo 4.11 AND 4.48 OF ORDINANC2 NO. 353 AS A~4END~D, ENTITLPD ORDINANCE OF ~E CITY OF SOU~ gAN FRANCISCO." City Attorney Noonan remarked that thi~ matter was relative to the Public Hearth9 and in as much as that item had been continued, reque.+ed ..... a continuance on the ;n~roduction + of the ordinance as well. There being no objections, it was so ordere~. The next item was the communication dated August 31, 1967 from Mr. Herbert Bloom, Chairman of the Traffic & Safety Committee, hestborough Homeowners Improvement Asso- ciation concerning the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont and Callan Drives. At the request of Mayor Ahem, City ~anager Aiello explained the agreement which existed between City, Couty and developer for ;he imFrovement to Westborough Boulevard and the ingtal!ation of the traffic signal. He explained the meetings which had been held and the contract which had been submitted by the attorney for the developer which carried out everyone's de~ires a~ well as the cost to be borne by each. He further explained the ~nsta!lation of the signal prior to the improvement of ~estborough Boulevard or at the time cf the improvement of ~,estborough Boulevard. Df.~cussion followed at v:hlch time, ~kr. Herbert Bloom, 2480 Ardee Lane, suggested con?iderat!on to a four-way after!al stop prior to the s~gnal in~tal!at!nn at ~h!ch time C~%y Manager Aiello replied that this had prev~ou~!y been ~ubm~tted to thc Police De- partment for study and that ~% had been shown that this wa~ a very poor location for a four-way ~top and would be more dangerous than the present ~ituat[on. Mayor Ahem ordered the communication accepted and placed on file, and the matter referred to the ~' ~4anager. The next matter'wac the commun~*'~a.}.on dated ~usust 31, .... ~67 from ;~. David A~br~aht,~ Director of the %'.'estborough Ho.neowners Improve7ent Association, concerning the enforce- ment of City Ordinances. Brief discussion follow~d at which t~me City Attorney Noonan stated that when the matter of the building material debr~ and building materials stacked on City streets was brought to Council's attention, a letter had been written to ~. Burmah of American Gul]d Homes requesting that he clean this up and that compliance had been received. Mr. Robert Albright, a resident of ;;estborough, remarked that while the ~ssue had been resolved, asked why it had taken three weeks, also asking why the City departments could not enforce these matters. He commented that he, too, was in construction work and was aware of what regulation~ should be followed. Police Chief Fabbri explained the procedure involved through the filing of a formal complaint and that the method 'the City followed was the fastest and m~t expeditious. The communication received was ordered filed. ~ ' o gu oh The application of~nr~ ~=*~,~ Cab Company to operate a taxicab service ~n the ~zty of ~ * San Francisco wa~ the next item for Council's attention. City Attorney Noonan commented that the ordinance required background.information and suggested that this application be referred to the departmentz concerned for a report. There being no objections, it was so ordered. ~.. ~ Report to the City Council with respect to Use The next item was +he C~y Planner's Permit and Variance Requests considered on September I!, 1967. There bein9 no objections, ;4ayor Ahern ordered :he report accepted and placed on file. The next item was the Inter-Office Memorandum dated July 25, 1967 from the City Planner c~ ' ' hestborough Sign Committee." concerning Commission action on the "Report of ;he ~eczaz Accompanying was the Inter-Office L{emorandu~ dated July 13, 1967 to the Planning Commission from Daniel M. Pa~s, City Planner, ~on,~r,.,ng the subject Y, ayor Ahem stated that if there were no obj~ *' ~ the communications would he acco. prod and ordered placed on file with a request that the staff take the nececsary ~teps for enforcement. No objections having been registered, it was so ordered. The Inter-Office ,,e,a~.a,,d,.].: dated August 16 1967 from the City Planner concerning tape recording of Planning Commission meetings was the next item. ;,layer Ahern commented that th!? had been discussed earlier and it wac the feeling of the City Council tbs+,, the Planning ~-mm~¢¢i.~v .......... on should ........... ~*~n,,~ to tape record their .... +~-~ and that the tap:~ ~= retained for two years 18 GOOD AND V,F-LFAR2: DISCUSSION CONCZRNING GRANTING OF PERI,lIT FOR S~RV!C2 STATION: R~2?ORT CONCERNING TH2 i4~ilGtF~ORHOOD YOUTH CORPS: Reports v;ere receives f~om the following. "~ ~ ' ~ reports There being no obi-~ : ~ ,.~ay~_r :~her.. ordered th~, accepted and ~laced on ~le. ~ere being -ot~ln9 further,",layer Ahern asked ~ a~y,,, member of th~ C:+,, Co,,,nc~l ha~ anvth!ng, ...... they v'~*he~. to ~cr.~,.c.. ~.nd~r C~oH, and ;',e!faro. T~erc being none, he then a~ked ~r. =ny p.~r=on,.~ . in the a~dience ~am~ .. anyth~.no, t~ey._ ;',,i~ "'~ to offer at thi~ time. A resident of thc Z'estboro'.~gh area asked concernin9 the permit which ~a~ granted to ~h~ Caesar Caf!an Homes, Inc., earlier in the ~e~t~ng.. ~ .. for the locati~n .~., ~'~ a ~erv]ce station in their area, commenting that both the Association and Planning Commission had recommende~ ~enia]. Discussion followed at which time menticn was made of the ~erv~ce station= which exist ~ ~ and v;hich wet ....... ~n ~h~ area e not w~thtn the City control and that th~s location was in an area z~nea commercially. Mr. David Friedenber9, attorney representing nhe ",'==tborough,~ Homeowners ImF. forewent Association, d~scussed %he matter of the permanent park site and the delay in thic ~ '~ +~e~... ~uly, requesting ~nformation regard and which shoul~ have been comp~ted some in ~, as to when thi~ matter v. ou!d be commenced and concluded. City Manager A~ello explained the contact which the City bad w~th the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Mayes and Beck, the dissolution of %he partnership and the cubsequent exe- cution of an agreement with David Mayes to perform this ~crvice. He, ~n detail, ex- plained the phases of work to be performed as well as the work to be ~one by the school authorities and F1re Department architect in che area. He br].efly explained the procedures which would follow as a result of ~he new agreement with Mr. ,~vlayos and the possible commencement dates ~n this regard. Discussion then followed between Mr. Friedenberg and the City N' ~' ,'anage~ with re~ard to the matter of the temporary park site and its development. !',Ir. Anthony Mcntoya, 1125 !~lil!er Avenue, briefly commented on his earlier appearance before the City Council in the summer month~ at whlch time he discussed the matter of a job center for the Neighborhood Youth CorFu, advising Council of the number of appl. i- cat~.ons which had been received, processed and the m,~be~ placo~. He expresse4 thanks to the City Council for their part in the prcgram and urge~ that the fo!!cv:~n9 year, tho program be en]arTe~ an~ commenced earlier v:ith ibc wlih!n the City, Councilman Rocca ~oved, ~ocond,~d b7 Councilman Rozzi and regularly carried, meeting be adjourned ~ of adjournment: ~n;3~ RSSF2CTFULLY SUB~ITT£D, AP?ROV2i)~--h *The discussion contained herein are excerpts and not varbatim.