Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />7 <br />I� <br />449 <br />Councilman Jones moved ad.jourment,»seconded. by Councilman.Britschgi and carried. <br />Adjourned, 10:50 p.m. <br />R. S. DOD <br />City Cle <br />Minutes of Regular Meeting <br />Redwood City Council <br />October 3, 1955, 8:00 P.M. <br />Devotional was lead by Reverend John Fast, Minister, Free Methodist Church. <br />ON ROLL CALL the following were noted present: douncilmen Carl A. Britschgi, Floyd D. <br />Granger, Paul Jones, William H. Royer, Robert V. Spillers, Hiram S. Stout, Mayor Sidney <br />D. Herkner and City Clerk R. S. Dodge. Also present were City Attorney C. B. Currie, <br />City )angineer Glenn M. Jain, Police Chief Stanley D. Wood, Senior Civil Engineer Melvin <br />Moen, Associate Engineer Arthur U. Eskelin, Administrative Assistant Orrin Wendling, <br />Assistant Building Inspector Douglas Leith, Assessor -Auditor John J. Brophy and Police <br />Captain William Faulstich. <br />Councilman Britschgi moved that the minutes of September 6th, 12th and 26th be approved <br />as read. <br />PUBLIC HEARING, HIGHLANDS TERRITORY NO. 2 SERER AND WATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Affidavits <br />of publication, mailing and posting were ordered filed. There were two written protests. <br />Howard E. Durham, 718 Canyon Road, Assessment No. 53, in his letter protested against <br />the method being used to allocate costs of the improvements. Mr. Bertram Quadt, 3106' <br />Oak Knoll Drive, Assessment Nos. 27 and 28, protested the present plan of ending the <br />sewer line in the middle of their property and recommended having the sewer trunk <br />extended 20 feet more than the present plan provides. <br />City Engineer Jain explained the method used in figuring the proposed assessment spread. <br />He stated that this was one of the most difficult assessments they have ever had as far <br />as spreading the assessment. They used the figure of 12,000 square feet as the basis of <br />spreading the assessment. He further explained that two sewers were being used, the <br />upper and the lower sewer lines, because of the difference in price which would occur <br />if the upper sewer were .dug deep enough to carry the load of the lower sewer. This was <br />followed by discussion. <br />Mr. Ernest Norback, attorney for Mr, Durham, stated that his client was not protesting <br />the project but he was protesting the method of allocation. His clients property is <br />bisected by a creek, with a large portion having access to Glenwood Avenue rather than <br />Canyon Road. A sewer located 'along Canyon Road would not be accessible to that portion <br />of the property, particularyly if the area is ever subdivided. Without subdivision the <br />sewer would serve no useful purpose to that section. City Engineer Jain stated that <br />this property could be sewered from Glenwood, Breeze Place, as well as Canyon Road. <br />City Attorney Currie stated that this wasn't the time for a public hearing on this type <br />of protest. <br />There was a discussion in regard to Mr. Quadt's request, but the fact was brogght out <br />that the proceedings would have to be amended and the whole procedure started over <br />again if the line was to be extended another 20 feet. The City and Mr. Quadt could get <br />together and see if there was some method which could be arranged with the contractor <br />and Mr. Quadt, Mr. Quadt to pay the cost of the extension of the sewer. <br />Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Jones <br />