BOOK 21_1946-09-23 to 1948-08-09

Browse Search

0 68 the point of beginning, containing approximately 15.12 acres. WHEREAS the Council of the City of Redwood City does hereby determine and I declare that said petition is signed by the owners of not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the area of the land described in said petition, and the owners of said land represent not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the assessed value of such territory as described in said petition, according to the last preceding equalized assessment roll of the County of San Mateo, said County being the County in which said territory hereinbefore described is situated; { NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Redwood City does by this Reso- lution give notice of such proposed annexation and does further fix Monday, the 6th day of January, 1947, at the hour of S o'clock p.m., at the Council Chambers In the City Hall in said City of Redwood City as the day, hour and place when and where any person owningreal property within said territory so proposed to be annexed, and having any objection to the proposed annexation, may appear before said City Council and show cause why said territory should not be so annexed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City Clerk of the City of Redwood City shall cause a copy of this resolution to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks prior to the date fixed for said hearing; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at any time not later than the hour set for hear- ing objections to the proposed annexation, any owner of property to be annexed may file written protest against the proposed annexation. Such protests shall state the name or names of the owner or owners of the property affected thereby, and the description and area of such property in general terms. The territory herein described and so proposed to be annexed to said City of Redwood City is and shall be known as Alden Subdivision. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of Resolution No. 410, adopted by the City Council of the City of Redwood City, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of December, 1946, at the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Redwood City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said City this 2nd day of December, 1946. (seal) RALPH 8.' DODGE City Clerk of the City of Redwood City and Ex -officio clerk of the Council DATE; Dec. 24,30,1946. thereof. F7 City Manager Blom advised that he had held a meeting with representatives of the ®J Southern Pacific Company at which time the matter of installing gates at the Broadway crossing was discussed. After thorough investigation of the matter, it' was the opinion of the officials present at the meeting that gates, either manu- ally or automatically controlled, would not solve the problem of the Broadway crossing. The difficulty of gates lies in the fact that there are approximately fifty northbound trains a day which stop and start at the station and which would necessitate the gates'being lowered some time before the train arrived at the station and result in loss of time, both for the trains And the traffic. The conclusion reached was to install two more double signals so that when a train was approaching signals would be visible from four spots. City Manager Blom also reported on the number of accidents at the crossing in the last five years and stated that, while the rate was unfortunate, it was not alarming in contrast with the rate on open highways. The Southern Pacific Company will contribute 50°0 of the cost of the installation of the signals which will amount to 01500 to 02000. It was explained that the railroad company was working on the plans to install these signals ift)the Council had no objection to the plan. The Council i was of the opinion that the signals would not entirely solve the problem but ILI that it would be better4.than at present. City Attorney McCarthy advised that petitions for annexation of Redwood Village to Redwood City had been received signed by 74 registered resident voters. Mr Paul Traver, circulator of one of the petitions, stated that only one registered voter had refused to sign. It was believed that the requirement of 25% of