CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

41 being held up by the, AttorneyUs office., Councilman Granger moved that this be carried on the agenda for one weeks seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried. Councilman Granger wanted to know if the Council -was aware that there is an ordinance prohibiting the selling of meat after hours. Councilman Granger wanted to know who made the original application for the ordinance setting the hours of selling meat., and he was of the opinion that these people should be contacted and asked if they want to repeal the ordinance. Police Chief Faulstich stated that the people who had been selling meat after hours had been contacted and told of the ordinance and they promised to abide by the ordinance. He also reported that these same people stated that they were going to ask the Council to repeal the ordinance* Councilman.Granger moved that the City Clerk search the minutes and find out where the .original application came from and write the people telling them to repeal the ordinance. Mr. Weiss spoke in regard to the question and stated his views on the subjects and he requested the Council to repeal the ordinance* This was followed by discussion. Councilman Granger's motion lost for lack of a second* Mayor Herkner asked that the minutes indicate that the ordinance will be enforced. Councilman Royer asked that the Fire Chief report next week on why the automatic nozels on gas pumps have been abolished* Councilman Royer reported that he had been told that there are some people in the area of Clinton Street bridge who are willing to pay for the improvement of this bridge. City Engineer Jain stated that his office has checked into this matter and he was of theopinion that there are not enough people willing to sign the petition to start proceedings. Councilman Royer stated that he could supply the City Engineer with some names to start a petition circulating and asked that the matter be placed on the agenda for one month. The Mayor so ordered* Councilman Stout read the following report on annexation and subdivision charges: Formany months the council has had under consideration Annexation Charges for newly annexed property* At times we have talked about Subdivision Charges* It was about nine (9) months ago that Mr. Tuite wrote a letter to the City Council suggesting that we enact legislation setting up charges against new annexations subdivisions* Then I proposed to the Council July 25th last that a $25-00 charge be assessed on new homes for park and recreation capital improvements* During our several study sessions in the interum we learned that charges on new annexation and subdivisions was not a new idea. Mr. Robson was requested to investigate the subject and furnish the council a report. Mr. Rolison's report was submitted the latter part of July and showed that many cities have already put into effect charges of varying amounts. He listed Beverely Hills, Chico, Haywards Pasadena and Sunnyvale* Mr* Rolison was further requested to have out Planning Advisor Mr. Larry Wise make a survey of Redwood City so as to come up with some fair figure we might apply. This report was submitted to the Council under date of November 3 and showed a charge of $196.00 per lots., based upon waters sewer., treatment and drainage demand and $168.00 per lot as a fair price for a share in the corporation of Redwood City* It is noted that the report by Hahn, Wise and Associates takes into account only water., sewer treatment and drainage and should not the following also be taken into account: Police and Fire Protection necessitating capital improvement. Extension of Library facilities., possibly a new Branch Library, Extension of our Parks and Recreation facilities, and last but not least Flood Control* Tdhe need for cities to make charges to offset increasing costs* It was to VY knowledge cussed at theLeague of California Cities Convention i -atiSan!Diego in 1952*- A -paper was read in the City Attorneys section under the title "Legal Aopects of Financing Mun- icipal Services in Newly Developed Areas". set -the thinking of City officials toward the financial relief brought about by the sudden population growth in California polo since World War II. The paper describes "Newly Developed Area" as "a development or improvement program involving the construction of such a substantial number of new homes and other buildings as to require a subdivision or similar proceeding under the subdivision or zoning laws of a city., or the annexation of such an area," We may refer to an area as a subdivision or an annexation., but in the final analysis we must consider the added services of the new people. An uninhabited piece of Prop- erty remaining in its undeveloped., natural state places no significant expense upon the city. The Farm Hills subdivision may be considered in this light., the ten years it laid in its natural state, and within the city limits demanded no services from the city. Now that it is being subdivided3 demands will be made on all the aforementioned