Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Herkner explained that if two 16ts were taken into the City then it would create an island but <br />if Mr. Riffs lot was taken in alone there would not be an island. City Engineer Jain explained that <br />normally this would not be good annexation planning. This was followed by discussion after which Council— <br />man Royer moved that the annexation be allowed to proceed if Mr. Riff agreed to pay for the sewer line and <br />let the people join onto his line and he to be reimbursed at a later date, seconded by Councilman Spillers. <br />City Engineer Jain stated that there were areas in which people have had to put in sewer lines and had <br />not been reimbursed and he was of the opinion that Mr. Riff should not be reimbursed as it would be <br />setting a precedent. This was followed by discussion on reimbursement and how the sewer could be built. <br />City Attorney Currie stated that Mr. Riff could have a private agreement with his neighbors for paying <br />for sewer connection if and when they are allowed to connect. Councilman Britschgi amended the motion <br />to have the City Engineer, the City Manager and the City Attorney work out the problem with Mr. Riff. <br />This was followed by discussion after which Councilman Britschgils amendment to the motion lost for <br />lack of a second. Councilman Royer offered amendment to the motion approving the annexation, Mr. Riff <br />to install sewer at his own expense, seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried. <br />CITY ENGINEER REPORT ON CONDITION OF SIDEWALK FRONT COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY. The Clerk read the original <br />report submitted by the City Engineer dated April 29, 1955• The report is as follows: <br />At the adjourned meeting of the City Council April 25th we were requested to submit <br />a supplemental report on the condition of the sidewalks recently constructed <br />around the Coast Electric property at Broadway and Cassua Street, with any <br />suggestions we might have for improving the appearance. <br />As. stated in our previous verbal report, we do not feel that the contractor on the <br />project can be held responsible for uplifting of the sidewalk, caused by encroach— <br />went of water in.the subgrade. It is our opinion that the contractor complied <br />with the plans and specifications. <br />As previously stated, similar conditions develop where ever excessive moisture <br />can penetrate the area under a sidewalk or pavement, particularly in the late <br />Summer of Fall seasons when the adobe soil is cracked and shrunk to its minimum <br />volume. As soon as the rainy season starts the water enters and travels along <br />these cracks for condiderable distances, apparently causing the maximum <br />expansion of the subgrade and subsoils wherever the greatest saturation occurs. <br />We have checked with many agencies, and have found no guaranteed solution to <br />the problem, where expandable soils are encountered. <br />In this particular case, large sections of the sidewalk could be removed and <br />replaced, but there could be no guarantee that the same condition would not <br />occur again when the construction had gone through one or more complete annual <br />cycles. To remove and replace the worst sections on Broadway would probably <br />cost at least $500. In our 1955-56 budget we have requested a piece of equipment <br />which, among other uses, could be used in jacking or raising depressed sections <br />of concrete sidewalk and pavement slabs, and which could be used to some <br />extent in this particular section of sidewalk. Those sections of sidewalk <br />which have raised above other sections would probably have to be removed and <br />replaced. We have also requested authorization to purchase a poweroperated <br />concrete saw so as to perform a more satisfactory job of cutting concrete slabs. <br />As previously reported verbally, the owners of the property were advised, both <br />during construction and since, to pave or concrete the unprotected area between <br />the sidewalk and their building, and the floor of that portion of the building <br />exposed to the weather, to prevent the accumulation and penetration of water <br />under the sidewalk, which to date has not been done. <br />We appreciate the concern of the property owners in paying a large assessment <br />for improvements, and having conditions such as these develop. Inasmuch as <br />we do not feel the contractor can be held responsible for conditions which <br />developed after acceptance, through no fault of his own, it would seem that <br />the only way that this condition could be corrected would be for the City to <br />expend the necessary funds, providing that the owners waive any claim for <br />further damage which might occur. <br />Councilman Stout reported that he investigated the place and he couldn't see where the sidewalk was <br />raised to any particular amount. It was <br />explained that <br />there was <br />at least a <br />211 depression and the <br />City Engineer reported that the water was <br />still getting <br />under the <br />sidewalk. <br />Councilman Britschgi <br />moved that a copy of the report be sent to Mr. Wm. Phoenix, attorney for Coast Electric Company, <br />seconded by Councilman Royer and carried. <br />REPORT ON FLOOD CONDITIONS, MIDDLEFIELD ROAD AND SPRUCE STREET. City Manager Rolison stated that the <br />reports were downstairs and he was excused to get the reports. <br />llllll 111 4 .,--- - - <br />e <br />0 <br />0 <br />