My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
BOOK 22_1948-08-17 to 1950-05-15
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1948 to 1950 Book 22
>
BOOK 22_1948-08-17 to 1950-05-15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2017 2:56:33 PM
Creation date
10/12/2017 2:39:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
8/17/1948
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
513
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
16® <br />LETTER <br />Honorable City Council <br />Redwood City, California <br />Re: Kensington Square Improvement District <br />Gentlemen: <br />I have gone over the proposed Kensington Square Improvement District with a <br />representative of a bonding company in San Francisco that specializes in the purchase <br />of municipal improvement bonds. Due to the fact that this area at the present time <br />contains such a large' percentage of unimproved property, it As very doubtful whether <br />this district coulc stand the assessment for full street improvements, which would <br />probably amount to approximately $1200 per average 50 foot lot. The bonding company <br />advises that the property as it now stands would probably not justify bonds of more <br />than $400 per lot without the property owners paying an excessive bond discount, <br />unless the City desired to perform the work under the 1915 Act procedure whereby the <br />City guarantees the bonds. <br />A further study of the project, and of the petitions originally submitted., <br />indicates the following: <br />1. <br />Percentage of ownership for full improvements - - - - - - - <br />53.6, <br />2. <br />Percentage of <br />ownership for sanitary sewers only - - - - - - <br />69.60 <br />. <br />Estimated cost <br />of full street improvements - - - - - - - - <br />$260,000 <br />. <br />Estimated cost <br />of sanitary sewers, storm drains, and culverts <br />80,000 <br />5. <br />Number of lots <br />affected - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- <br />215 <br />6. <br />Lineal feet of <br />frontage assessable - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br />16,200 <br />7. <br />Estimated cost <br />per average lot for full improvements <br />19200 <br />8.• <br />Estimated cost <br />per average lot for sewers, storm drains, <br />and culverts <br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- <br />400 <br />It is recommended that this project be reduced to include sanitary sewers, <br />storm sewers, 'and culverts at an estimated cost of $80,000 and that the project be <br />started as soon as possible. Plans and specifications are practically complete <br />and bonstruction should be started sometime in June. <br />It is further recommended that we continue with right-of-way acquisition for <br />widening of both Jefferson Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas in order to take <br />advantage of all the work that has been done to date and secure this right-of-way <br />before additional homes are built. All right-of-way acquisition costs will be <br />borne from Gas Tax funds. <br />Very truly yours, <br />GLENN M. JAIN <br />City Engineer <br />GMJ : a.Mc <br />cc: E. A. Rolison <br />C. B..Currie <br />Residents proptested the condition of streets and desired immediate relief though <br />144 <br />of a temporary nature. After considerable discussion points brought out were that <br />after the sewers'were in, the second issue of, bonds would be more salable, and in <br />two or three weeks after the sewer project was commenced the residents could apply <br />for street improvements; fire protection would be provided this summer; police <br />protection was provided at the present time. It was understood that the residents <br />would request street improvements as the project progressed. <br />MR. MORRIS B. LUNDBECK APPEARED AND REQUESTED PERMISSION TO ERECT NEON SIGN AT FIVE <br />ELM <br />POINTS DRIVE-IN. This was denied on recommendation of the Planning Commission and <br />Traffic Fact -Finding Committee. Mr. Lundbeck applied again for a permit with the <br />stipulation that the sign would be 75 feet from the street, or highway. It was <br />to be blue and white. It was moved by!Councilman Holmquist that he make a new appli- <br />cation to the ,Planning Commission and include this information, seconded by Coun- <br />cilman Morgan, and carried. <br />SELF -SERV GAS STATIONS. Councilman Swift, Chairman of this committee reported that the <br />committee had met with the attorneys and they had decided to turn this over to <br />City Attorney Currie, who drew up several skeleton ordinances. Ordinances had been <br />presented by the two attorneys who had appeared before the committee. Fire Chief <br />Lodi would attend the National Fire Protection Association, May 16th, 17th and 18th <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.