Laserfiche WebLink
207 <br />Reconstruction of sidewalks in this subdivision has now been completed by the L. C. -Smith <br />Company to our satisfaction. <br />e <br />This reconstruction was condition of the acceptance of these improvements when the rest <br />of the work was completed in 19532 but due to litigation between the Land Development <br />and Investment Company and the L. C. Smith Company the reconstruction was not completed <br />heretofore. <br />It is further recommended that the Land Development and Investment Company and L. C. Smith <br />Company be formally advised of action by the City Council. <br />' Councilman Spillers moved approval of the City Engineer's recommendations, seconded by Councilman Herkner. <br />City Engineer Jain stated that this should be subject to payment by the subdivider. This was included in <br />the motion which carried. <br />ATTORNEY WOODMAN REGARDING APPEAL OF MRS. BERGANTON ON PLANNING CO3MMISSION CONDITION TO RESUBDIVISION OF LOT <br />' 7, BLOCK 6, OAK KNOLL MANOR (CORNER HOPKINS AVENUE AND OPAL). Mr. Woodman asked the Council if it would <br />be possible to set the hearing on the a bove-mentioned matter at no date earlier than July 30th, City <br />Attorney Currie stated that the applicant and the Planning Commission should be notified of the time of the <br />hearing. Councilman Granger moved that the public hearing be set for July 30th, seconded by Councilman <br />Stout and carried. <br />DIVISION OF HIGBTAYS REGARDING PROPOSED MAPLE STREET OVERCROSSING. The Clerk read the following communication <br />received from the Division of Highways: <br />Reference is made to your letter of June 14, 1956, concerning the meeting held on June <br />13.t. 1956.j by the Redwood City Couricil and various property owners, regarding the proposed Maple <br />Street Overcrossing and to the questions raised at this meeting. <br />The information requested by the City Council, as set forth in questions 1, 2, and 31 <br />is submitted herewith: <br />1. From an engineering viewpoint, the Maple Street Overcrossing structure <br />can be constructed to provide for the reailroad spur and a frontage <br />road with the same maximum grades as now proposed. This would, however, <br />raise the profile of the Maple Street extension and increase the length <br />' of the overcrossing structure. <br />I <br />2. The approach ramps for such a revised structure could not be constructed <br />within the presently proposed right of way. <br />3. The additional right of way for the revised ramps and structure would <br />require an area of approximately 8,000 square feet if the profile were <br />raised; however, this figure doe? not include any a dditional right of way <br />for the railroad spur or the frontage road. <br />i . <br />It is our understanding that agreement was - reached on June 15, 1956, during an <br />informal meeting held in Redwood City and attended by the Redwood City Council, City <br />Manager, City Engineer, and State Division of Highways representatives that no <br />changes are to be made in the plans for this project. It was generally agreed at this <br />meeting that there are other ways that property owners in -the area can get railroad <br />access. <br />The plans for this project have been completed in accordance with the Freeway <br />Agreement and subsequent agreements with the City Council, and it is anticipated that <br />it will be advertised at an early date. <br />Very truly yours, <br />B. VT. Booker <br />Assistant State Highway Engineer <br />i <br />Councilman Stout asked what alternatives were open for a different railroad line. Mayor Royer stated that <br />it is the feeling of the Council that they did not want to delay the whole project and there seemed to be <br />other possible solutions. Councilman Spillers moved that the letter be filed, seconded by Councilman Weiss <br />and carried. <br />APPLICATION FCR USED AUTO PERMIT, B & E AUTO LIQUIDATION, 1180 MAIN STREET (RUBS DENNY GARAGE). Councilman <br />' Spillers moved that the City Clerk be authorized toadvertise for a public hearing to be held in four weeks, <br />seconded by Councilman Stout. Councilman Granger raised the question of the possibility of them bringing <br />in some outside used cars. Councilman Weiss raised the question of the -name liquidation sale. This is <br />not to be a liquidation sale, but is -only the name selected by the operators of the Used Car Lot. City <br />Attorney Currie stated that this did not require any Council action. Councilman Stout withdrew his motion. <br />Councilman Granger again raised the question of the title of the business. <br />0 <br />