1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�3 Seminole where owner had already participated in an assessment district, and Bel Air Way, and whether he would be required to also participate in this impkove- ment, or whether it would be possible to place a non -access strip on to Bel Air. City Manager stated details not yet worked out for these assessments and pro- blems, but in a similar instance in Friendly Acres, a non -access strip was placed, before an improvement district formed, but was subsequently removed by Council action. Councilman Bury stated his question concerning this lot indicated his concern that use of improvements proposed might be available without property owner paying for privilege. City Manager advised Council that assessment diagram when completed required Council action and would show details of spread of assessments proposed. Council- man Keckley, after questioning City Attorney to confirm facts, thought point should be made this was not a new subdivision, therefore, easement granted did not necessitate Council action as an exception to a subdivision, but a variance under Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Motion carried. (MINUTE ORDER #67-87) Councilman Keckley moved to introduce Ordinance amending Section 25.8 of, and repealing Sections 25.9, 25.10 and 25.12 of the Code of the City of Redwood City relating to meetings of the Park and Recreation Commission, seconded by Councilman Granger. This Ordinance is necessary to change meeting location of Park and Recreation Commission from Veterans Memorial Building to the new Community Activities Building. Amending Ordinance as proposed also repeals other procedural sections which have now all been covered by the adoption of general board and commission rules. Motion carried. Appeal of Carl Ulbrich, 2631 Carson Street, from an order of the Department of Public Works to repair sidewalk, Lot 11, Block 2, Woodsicb Terrace #1 presented for con- sideration. Council advised Mr. Ulbrich alleges sidewalk damage caused by City diverting the creek and reconstructing a sidewalk on top of fill, which after settling, left sidewalk in its present condition, for which repair he claims City should be responsible. Report of Director of Public Works stated a review in the field of this sidewalk indicated that the entire section in question was raised approximately 1" and appeared to be caused by an adjacent tree on private property, and recommendation made for denial of the appeal. Mr. Ulbrich, applicant, appeared in behalf of his appeal and disagreed with Staff's contention that damage to side- walk caused by a tree. He claimed tilting of sidewalk caused from area where creek diverted some 15 years ago and filled. City Manager indicated he was not aware of this creek diversion this many years a ago. Councilman Keckley felt explanation offered by applicant sounded logical if such circumstances prevailed and asked that Staff present further details for their recommendation for denial of appeal. Councilman Bury asked if Staff recom- mendation would be affected in view of this additional information. Councilman W a •67