The San Francisco call., 1901-12-24
SOUTH END CLUB
NEED NOT MOVE
DISTINCTIONS on Third
Street May Remain
Temporarily.

The resolution directing the removal
within sixty days of the distractions on
city property at the foot of Third street
was amended by the Board of Supervis-
ors yesterday to grant the South End
Rowing Club one and one-half years from
January 1, 1902, to remove its lighthouses.
Attorney ]. Lehrmann, representing the
South End Club, which would have been
directly affected by the terms of the res
olution, urged that the club be given time
to remove property on which $1,000 had
been expended. He stated that it was in
tended to appeal to the Legislature for
the grant of sites in the bay for rowing
clubs and that a former Board of Super
visors had granted the club the original
privilege.
Reed made the motion that the obstruc-
tiOnS be allowed to remain for eighteen
months, which prompted Jennings to ask
under what authority the privilege could
be granted. Mccarthy suggested that the
lighthouses be not disturbed until such
time as a wharf shall be built on the
property.
Attorney Wheeler, representing Payne
brothers and other protestants, agreed to
build a wharf if the distractions were re-
moved. FOntanas motion that the OBJ
structors be given six months to move
was not seconded. Comte pleaded that
consideration be shown the rowing club,
because it was occupying property not
Immediately required by the city, but
urged that all other trespassers be evict-
ed.
The City Attorney was requested to in
form the board upon the following ques-
tions arising in connection with the op-
Grafton of the proposed Geary-street mu-
nicipal railroad system:
First-Over how many blocks may the city
operate municipal railroad on a street, on
which a franchise for railroad now exists
which a railroad is being operated?
Second-Ls the franchise granted November
6, 1878 to Messrs. Main, Norton, Bigelow Nc
Cord, ct al, valid franchise, it being in ef-
feet an extension of two blocks to the fran
chse granted to Messrs. Deane, Eppelsheiner
Stanyan, Morrow, Porter and CroweH, April
49, 1877, for a railroad on Geary and other
Thirds that portion of the Geary-street
franchise granted to use Point LObos avenue
valid, said avenue at the time of the grant
being under the jurisdiction of the Park Com
missioners?
Fourth-If a portion of the franchise is in
valid does it invalidate the entire franchise?
The resolution granting the American
Can Company a permit to erect a bridge
across Seventh street, near Townsend,
was adopted. Chairman Curtis of the
Street Committee explained that the
committee had reported against the reSO-
luton because it was held to be simply
the forerunner of a series of bridges
throughout the city. The Emporium
Company was denied permit to erect a
bridge across Jessie street, between
Fourth and Fifth.
The department of electricity submitted
a plan for private exchange telephone
system at the City Hall, and estimates
its cost at $56l3 go.
The roadway of Page street, between
Central and Masonic avenues, was ac-
cepted.
repave Bush street, between SanSOme and
Battery.
David Hewes was denied a permit to
maintain a corrugated iron structure on
the roof of his building at the corner of
Sixth and Market streets.