CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

203 undertaking by the City Council of the proceedin,;s without first complying with the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division ►} of the Streets and Highways Code), (2) the improvement, (3) the extent thereof, (4) the assessment district, and extent and boundaries thereof, (5) the amounts of the assessments, as estimated, (6) the inclusion of the real property of the undersigned in the assessment district, and the character and extent of the improvements and work relating to said real property. The undersigned hereby incorporate herein all grounds of protest provided for in the Act above mentioned (Division 4) and in the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code) and in Ordinance No. 333 of the City of Redwood City entitled "Redwood City Improvement Procedure Ordinance" to the same extent as though said protest `w grounds were fully enumerated at this point. The undersigned specifically certify and allege as follows: 1. They are owners in fee simple of the real properties respectively set forth and described after their respective names. 2. That the assessment according to benefits principle is not applicable because there are no benefits to this area represented by the undersigned. 3. That the assessments are disproportionate to any incidental benefit received. 4* That the assessments, assuming some incidental benefit and therefore some proportionate assessment with relation thereto, are oppressive, unrealistic, arbitrary and inequitable, as far as the real properties owned by the undersigned are concerned. 5. That as far as the area represented by the undersigned is concerned, it is one, separate and distinct district, and the protest represented by the undersigned constitures a substantial majority - therefore, the protest, as to this area, should be recognized by this City Council, the boundaries revised and this area be removed from the proposed assess- ment district. 6. That this protest be filed with the City Council and be considered a continuing protest through this assessment and improvement proceeding to whatever extent or -conclusion the proceeding reaches; and, that any amendment or modification or supplement thereto will be made through the medium of the GLE 1700D AVENU TIVROVE ENT .ASSOCIATION, recognizable as the author- ized representation of the undersigned subsequent to the circulation, presentation and filing of this document of protest. Dated this 2nd day of June, 1956, and respectfully submitted by, All Highlands of Emerald Lake # 1. rpm Councilman Herkner wanted to know if the present engineering data could be used if Glenwood area were 6w deleted. City Attorney Currie stated that it is assumed that the Engineering data would be available with the changes in this area. Councilman Herkner wanted to know if portions of the engineering charges be spread and divided against this smaller district. City Attorney Currie agreed that this could be done, however, it would require two separate proceedings. statement: Mrs. Donald Thirkell read the following prepared I have been requested by the Glenwood Canyon Area to bring before you the following reasons why we are asking again for deletion from the assessment district which we were included without representation. We resent being annexed with an area that is wholly undeveloped thusly needing improvements that we do not. This nevily annexed area petitioned for these improvements, we did not so naturally we resent being brought into the boundaries of an assessment that is truly out of reason for our small valley. We also resent this taxation because of the high cost and from this high cost we feel we do not receive the monatary gains or benefits in comparison to the newly annexed area, where the majority of the property in question is for speculation. opma The Council has often said we will be able to do this job of installing 6" water mains and fire hydrants cheaper staying in this assessment district, this we do not agree for after having b'"' several bon a fide bids on 6" w4ter mains and fire hydrants we find the cost more within our financial bracket. The City's Engineering Department says that $233.00 per 50' lot for 6" mains and fire hydrants and connections is a fair price. After visiting several pipe line contractors on the peninsula, we challenge that price. We might, agree it is a fair price given to Redwood City, jue to the FW" working conditions under the City Engineer's department. A contractor cannot give his time away nor can he afford to allow equipment to lay idle while minds and plans are being changed, therefore, we say its time costs of constructions of any type in Redwood City be challenged for it is the bWW peoples money b eing spent for unnecessary loss of time as has been recently noted on the Industrial 'Way project. It seems according to the Engineering Department it matters little where the money comes from, just so long as his plans are followed regardless of expenditures which includes a most important cost element TI11E. The Glenwood, Canyon and portion of Harding district realize fire protection is a necessity and had a fair price been quoted we would not have been arbitrating the original amount. Te