CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

254 Backfill: I wish to again call to your attention that the methods of backfilling trenches are not satisfactory to this department. It is my understanding that large rocks are still being bulldozed or aladed into the trench. We would greatly apprec— iate having you instruct the proper parties to bed all piping with select material as previously directed to a point one foot (11) above the top of the pipe and to limit the remaining backfill in the trench to select material. We would be pleased to discuss these matters with you at your convenience. Very Truly Yours, H. L. Winter, Water Superintendent Re: Farm Hill No. 1 Water Meter Installation Gentlemen.- We entlemen: We acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 8, 1956s concerning the install— ation of water meters in the subject tract. We have been working with your office for approximately two months in an effort to obtain clearance for the installation of water meters to the homes in the Farm Hill area, as they become occupied. We originally requested that meters be installed to a maximum of approximately twenty (20) homes at the time that the first 250 g.p.mo pump was put in to service. At that time, the City, for a good reason, stated that meters could not be installed as long as there was no standby pumping facility avail— able. A number of customers desperately needed to move into completed homes in the Farm Hill area at that time, and after considerable discussion, the City agreed to serve water to our firm at the Hetch.Hetchy connection. It was understood that we were to go ahead with serving water to consumers. It has always been our under— standing, that when the second pump was installed and operable, the City would go ahead with meter installation; it being understood, of course, that transmission lines had to be tested for both pressure test and health test. Your letter of August 8th lists items of work which we acknowledge must be accepted before the system is accepted and the bond released. We have not requested that the City accept the water system for maintenance and operation in the subject trace -- there, can be no partial acceptance of subdivision improvements. The matter of meter installation is very important to our firm, for the reason that we must pay for all of the water consumed by the fity, or more, property owners now using water. We respectfully request that a meeting be arranged in order to discuss this situation, preferably on Monday, August 13th, in the early afternoon. Very truly yours, ODDSTAD HOMES Herbert Frahm (signed) Chief Engineer After such reading proceed: This, and previous conversations at study meetings, as well as personal enquiries makes me wonder whether the provisions of our subdivision ordinance are b6ing adhered to and complied with. To clearly indicate xy point, I request that the City Attorney favor us by reading to us Section 1.4 of Ordinance 631, governing subdivisions. ( page 321 of compilation)* 1.4 It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, association, syndicate, copartner— sip, corporation, trust or any other legal entity, as a principal, agent or otherwise to offer to sell, to contract to sell, to se31, or to lease any subdivision of land or any part thereof in the City of Redwood City, unless and until all the requirements hereinafter provided have been complied with. After such reading proceed: My concern was especially aroused because of par. 3 & 4 of the Oddstadt letter. -The letter clearly indicates that they are cognizant and aware of the provisions of the ordinance in question, yet they expect our city officials to give them special - exemption from the the provisions thereof, while at the same time they indicate some chagrin that they must pay for the water consumed by the 50 or more homes they have apparently sold and permitted to be occupied notwithstanding the provisions of the ordiance governing such subdivisions. My enquiries have elicited that so far not any of the utililities in said subdivision are complete nor have any of them been accepted by the city. Further, it is my understanding that only when competed as integral unit as indicated in approved final maps of the subdivision can they be so accepted. Who authorized this apparent violation I have been unable to ascertain, but certainly some one must have been instrumental in authorizing it. Thus the questions posed and which I wish to propound are: I*, Have the city's rights, prerogatives and responsibilities been compromised in any way? If -so., to what extent? The same for the responsibilities of the various public officials and member of this council? 2. Has the subdivider, in fact violated the provisions of the subdivision ordinance, especially section 1.4 thereof? 3. Are the rights of the people who have purchased such properties properly protected or are they also in jeapordy? 0 0 0 0 8