BOOK 26_1955-11-28 to 1957-06-17

Browse Search

286 r Also present were City Manager E. A. Rolison, City Attorney C. B. Currie, Water Superintendent H. L. Winter, Police Chief William Faulstich, Assistant Water Superintendent Warren Mitchell, City Collector Paul E. Perrin, Assessor -Auditor John J. Bropby, Fire Chief J. L. Lodi, Civil Engineering Associate Arthur U. Eskelin, Building Inspector S. H. Kreiss, Senior Civil Engineer Melvin E. Moen, Account - Clerk Vivian Holmquist, and Assistant to City Manager L. A. Kimball. Mr. J. C. Spencer, California Automobile Association, presented to Redwood City,.through the Council$ and Honorable Mention award which it won in the American Automobile Association's annual nationwide n� Pedestrian Protection Contest, sponsored in northern and central California by the :California State Automobile Association, Redwood City's improvement in its Pedestrian Program spearheaded by its traffic engineering studies and excellent maintenance of accident records, were the main reasons for its winning the award. Redwood City previously won a Special Citation in. the contest in 1948 and a No Death Certificate award in 1951. Police Chief Faulstich accepted the award for the City. PUBLIC HEARING, BID OPENING, MANZANITA-LAUREL-HILTON IMPROVEMENT$. The following bids were received: Oscar,C. Holmes 35,246.55 C. J. Wood, Inc. 33,176.78 Douglass & Woodhouse 29,481.39 Bauman Bros. 30041.50 The engineer's estimate was $30089.24. The bids were referred to Engineer Moen to check and report back later in the meeting. Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried. Councilman Stout offered RESOLUTION 2070 ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS MANZANITA-LAUREL-HILTON STREETS and moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried on roll call. PUBLIC HEARING, HILLTOP DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS. HEARING ON PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. ADOPTION OF FIVE RESOLUTIONS. Mr, Robert Webber stated that there were several people present who wished to offer _ protests. This was continued until such time as the engineer returned. t. PUBLIC HEARING, AUTO LIQUIDATORS INC. APPLICATION FOR USED CAR DEALERS PERMIT. Affidavit of publication was ordered filed. There being no protests, written or oral, Councilman Spillers moved that the public hearing be closed, sedonded by Councilman Britschgi and carried. Councilman Spillers moved that the permit be approved, seconded by Councilman Britschgi and carried. PUBLIC HEARING, ATTORNEY WOODMAN REPRESENTING V. BERGANTAN TO APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION TO RESUBDIVIDE THE CORNER LOT AT OPAL AND HOPKINS, NAMELY DEDICATION OF FRONT 10' FOR WIDENING. Attorney Woodman Spoke at some length and the main objection was the fact that his client would be dedicating a 10' strip for widening and at a later date be required to pay acquisition cost when the street is widened. The clerk read the letter from the Planning Commission regarding this appeal of Mrs. Bergantan which reads as follows: In reference to the application of V. Bergantan for a resubdivision upon the condition that 10 feet be deeded along Hopkins for street widening. The matter was appealed to. the Planning Commission on the basis that the 10 feet should be purchased. The Planning Commission upheld the subdivision committee and found that the condition attached was reasonable and consistent with past action. This was followed by a lengthy discussion in regard to purchasing, dedicating or allowing credit on the 10 feet required for possible street widening. Also under discussion was the possibility of establishing an additional 10' set back on this property rather than purchasing or deeding of the 10' r strip at this time. Councilman Spillers was of the opinion that they should wait for the Traffic Engineer's overal study before taking any action. Councilman Weiss read the following statement: The imposition of conditions in this.manner on applicants for resubdivision, use permits and variances has perturbed me, for some time. I have observed that such exactions are not uniformly applied, nqr equally to all people. Further it is my belief that benefits from such actions are likewise not of equal benefit or applications, and must therefor be considered as a discriminatory levy on special occasions, in fact it is nothing but blackmail or the use of black jack on some people to enable them to obtain proper consideration under the laws of the community.