BOOK 23_1950-05-15 to 1952-04-21

Browse Search

property,to be acquired to build the bridge should be paid for the same as other cysts fo building r 175 equities' the . 11. Incidental Costs. Should be detailed and the spread shovm. 12, Re -Assessment Before Action Taken. All property should be re -assessed on the above basis with each property owner notified before action is takC0 by the City Council to their assessments, together with a break -down on items. i STATE?4ENT OF POSITION; OF, "GENOCHIO ESTATE" ON BROADWAY-MARSHALI,STREET IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL DEFERNENT It is our considered opinion that the project as a whole has by the turn of World Events been upe`sceead by more necessary considerations. ,The materials, and supplies that this work would require as p group projects .that well can wait theendof well as the expansion of credit involved lace it i the rou of the present crisis. The City of San Francisgo has lead the way in this. movement in deferring its subway and certainly Redwood City can not se arate'itself from the National war effort. Alike consideration is the fact that by action of the Federal government supplies .and materials are and will be restricted for some years to come- This will prevent actual development in the area and will affect the ability of the property so assessed to make the payments that are contemplated. Nor will the property owners be able to at anywhere nearreasonable value be able to "sell out" since the demand for property will be affected by this ban on building. II . PRImay OBJECTIONS It is our opinion that the bids taken on this project are and have been affected by the war and are higher than might be expected under more normal circumstances. The fact that one bidder may be - substantially under the others is no reason to believe that the bids are as a whole are "low". BRIDGE The assessment proposed for the "district" for the Marshall Street Bridge overlooks the fact that the main reason for pity interest in the project is to relieve the congestion on Broadway between Jefferson and Bain. It is our position, and apparently that of the other persons in the district, that the bridge is City-Vlide obligation and .that the property owners on, Marshall should bear no greater portion than they would if located elsewhere. LAND ACQUISITION The same argument applies to the cost of land acquisition. This is not anew"subdivision". The street, particularly between Jefferson and, Walnut, would be of no gregt benefit to the adjoining property since all of the lots face on Jeffersoh, Main or Walnut. Itis purely for the through traffic that the street in this area is being built,,,,, As between Walnut and Maple this street is being cut through a piece of property tivhose value in great measure is based on its size. By cutting through the "middle" you are in fact making the property less valuable- If any benefit is being secured, it is by the property ormers to the east of Maple. The so-called1175%rule" is unsound for the reasons cited above and it is our position that if the project goes ahead that either the city as a whole should bear the cost of land ac- quisition or that the cost should be spread over a much greater area which will benefit --including frontage on Broadway west of 17alnizt. . WATER MAINS Since the original hearings it has been discovered that the City will in any, event construct a water main for fire protection of the main business area from Chestnut to the area west of Main Street. No part of this cost should be born by the area for this fire main. Itis again pointed out that this is not a 11new subdivision", -'it has. been in Redwood City from the beginning and has had water service and has paid the same water rates as the rest of the City. The proposal that the area now pay for new mains is a violation of good, accounting procedure. Vie are now, and will in the future, Pay for the water mains throughout the existing system in our water bills, but we are asked as property comers to pay for water mains in this area. These extensions, if indeed required, should be a general^obli- gation of the water system and paid out of the over-all income of the system since this area has and will continue to pay the same rates as the rest of the system. SEM MAINS To the extent that the sanitary and storm sewers west of Maple are larger than are necessary for the immediate area west of Maple that cost should be spread over the area east of Maple. We are in fact pumping the water westward and there is 'no natural flow over the lands west of Maple that would warrant Placing the cost of the mains on this area. "Land Level" -Jain u: MAPLE STREET The proposed improvements on Maple Street north of Marshall serve no immediate purpose as it is "dead end" street into Bayshore Blvd. This work can be deferred indefinitely to be done at a later toile by the property owners or by a project as and when the adjoining property is developed. There appears no reason whey the improvement of this,part of Maple should be done at this time. SIDEI7ALY,S As Pointed out by the other objecting' parties there is no immediate or forseeable need for side- ' walk Marshall or Maple at this time and they would be an expense that might again have to be incurred as and when the property is developed. It is respectfully requested that the sidewalks proposed for ?3arshall, spring and Walnut be deferred indefinitely. 'Is can not make the same statement for the 158 feet of Broadway frontage since it is apparently being used by some foot traffic, however, we will abide with the decision of the other property owners on Broadway in this regard. LIGHTING There seems to be a universal agreement by the objecting parties that the plans for lighting in thisare-a are far in excess of any forseeable requirements - If indeed sidewalks, are deferred the lighting, save conduit at intersections can be left for future installation. It would appear that FG&E pole light - 'ng Will be adequate for many years to come in the Marshall Street area and the proposed plan is an ex- penditure that will not be considered wise. CORS IN PROCEEDI-NGS It has been admitted that a serious error in spreading the assessment has been made lntat all of the land acquisition costs on Marshall Street have been spread on the South side of the street. Thus assessment numbers 64 96 and 290 are far greater than should be b a "correct" spread of the assessment based on placing the land acquisition costs on the adjoining properties. As pointed out Paragraph titled Walnut "Lain as much as the property' nd Acquisition's this theory is not valid it ISI ' it ,.I �- I� I