1966 329-330 _ 10-24- cont. - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

000 Lw cities not having a Grading Ordinance in effect in some form or other, that most more inclusive than one proposed. Councilman Henderson favored Grading Ordinance and felt need had been expressed by citizens for protection of hillside areas but admitted she was not prepared to accept proposed ordinance at this stage because of points raised. Councilman Rosselli asked whether Staff believed ordinance necessary. City Manager advised ordinance was considered best answer to what Council had directed the Staff to do. Mrs. Barrentine, of Redwood City Civic Association, questioned whether ordinance proposed would have prevented Farm Hill Estates #2, with which their association had been mostly con- cerned, and if possible under proposed ordinance. Mr. Hanson advised grading plan should be added to Subdivision Ordinance, but that proposed Ordinance would not have prevented Farm Hill Estates No. 2. Mrs. Barrentine recommended further study of proposed ordinance and quoted from County Ordinance. Councilman Henderson requested more information and more time for study of County Ordinance. Councilman Bury in view of comments both by Council and those present, made substitute motion to instruct Staff to review proposed ordinance in light of present discussion and points raised and return to Council with (1) a recom- mendation as to whether this type of grading ordinance with changes proposed should be adopted, or (2) recommendation for amendments to present Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, if such additions to present controls could accomplish the desired regulations, seconded by Councilman Petersen and carried on roll call vote, Councilman Rosselli voting no. (MINUTE ORDER #66-218) Mr. Fred Gates, 3871 Vineyard Drive, requested time for making several observations concerning proposed ordinance. Council requested that City Manager meet with Mr. Gates before final draft of proposed ordinance prepared. (Memo 10/25/66) Report and recommendation of Staff re Storm Drain Channel through Community Park. Report and recommendation of City Manager regarding channel read in full in which area described as being part of design proposed for Project SD -12 of Adamson report and for which bond issue provided an open gunite channel, cost estimated at $97,000. In view of the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation that this solution was undesirable as it would have effect of dividing the property within the Park and have officially requested complete covering of the creek, City Manager submitted following alternatives with estimated costs: 1. Complete Covering - The City's consulting engineers have estimated _ that closed -box 6onstruction of the channel would necessitate an expen- diture of $203,000, or $106,000 more than the amount budgeted for the project. It is estimated that 3 -Plus acres of usable land would be gained by this method of construction. 2. Reals n and Landscape - It is felt that this approach to the problem would not be feasible from either an engineering or economic stand- point; in addition, it would not eliminate the objection rasied by the Park & Recreation Commission - the division of the Community Park property. 3. Development of Holding Basin - This solution envisions a holding area for water which could be used for a water fowl refuge and/or fishing facility for youngsters. Further study will be necessary to determine the costs