Laserfiche WebLink
X32 <br />Berth Walk ways 3' 6°' wide, 3,700 lin. ft. @ $11.75 per foot $17$75.00 <br />Finger Walk ways 1' 61, wide, 11,200 lin. ft. ® $1.50 per foot 5,000.00 <br />rough estimate $58,925.00 <br />The above estimate does not include items for engineering or installation of water and electricity or <br />entrance roads. <br />Estimated revenues: <br />7' berths <br />® <br />$ 5.00 <br />per <br />month <br />$ 1115.00 <br />81 berths <br />® <br />10.00 <br />per <br />month <br />13090.00 <br />10' berths <br />® <br />12.00 <br />per <br />month. <br />228.00 <br />12' berths <br />0 <br />15.00 <br />per <br />month <br />235.00 <br />15' berths <br />® <br />17.50 <br />per <br />month <br />210.00 <br />Total berth rent per mo. <br />$ 1,908.00 . <br />Additional revenues are expected from small boat tie ups, launching on ramp, lockers, and dry boat <br />storage* <br />Councilman Britschgi stated that there was $10,000 left in the fund that was not spent. Out of the <br />berthing expenses they will have,a monthly income of $2,000. They will also have additional income from <br />samll boat tie ups, launching. on ramp, lockers, etc. He believes that they should continue on this matter <br />and the next step would be to have the City Engineer draw up the plans and specifications on the piling. <br />He also recommended that they work up plans and specifications on the ramp. He spoke further on the <br />financing and what the committee anicipated. <br />Councilman Britschgi moved that the City Engineer be asked todraw up the plans and specifications for the <br />piling to be put in place and also draw plans and specifications f or the ramp, seconded by Councilman <br />Spillers. Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement:. <br />Pertinent to this yacht harbor problem, I attended the San Mateo County Advisory <br />Planning Council meeting the evening of November 9th. At that meeting the County Master <br />Plan Project Staff made a presentation and report on the Samll Boat Harbor Section 'of <br />County wide Master Plan. It was stated that the small boat harbor section must be <br />readied, at least as a preliminary plan, and submitted to state authorities by not <br />later than December if the county and the incorporated communities within the county, <br />and which have small boat harbor projects under advisement, may receive consideration in the <br />allocation of state funds for such developments. It is my understanding that the state will. <br />have in the -very near future some $20,000,000 available for allocation, and that similar <br />sums will be available each year for the next four or five years and may be more. <br />Though we have been playing with and spending considerable funds on our Yacht Harbor <br />development, so far as I know we have never until this week had the semblance of a formal <br />plan submitted to us for approval. We have so far proceeded entirely on a piece meal, <br />.catch-asecatch can basis. <br />It was a considerable surprise to me, when at the meeting of the County Advisory <br />Planning Council it was indicated that Redwood City was one of the three or four communit- <br />ies that had submitted formal plans for a small boat harbor.f or inclusion in the county <br />master plan. It was also somewhat embarrasing since formal approval either by the <br />planning commission or Council is essential. It is my understanding that such a request <br />for approval is being sent to each community involved. <br />It was further indicated that time is fo the essence in connection with said County <br />proposal, and since I know not how presently our city can finance the proposal for berths, <br />etc* presented tonight, I am of the opinion that logic demands that we be cautions, yet <br />we must take certain definite steps to safeguard the cities interests and the investments <br />it has already made. Accordingly I suggest: <br />1. That the Chairman of the Yacht Harbor Committee be requested to reduce his report <br />to writing and submit same to this countil for acceptance and appropriate action. <br />2. That the committee be instructed to submit to this council with the aforementioned <br />report a copy of the r eport and plans and specifications that were furnished the county <br />authorities by said committee, with any additional comments and recommendations they <br />care to make; that such report, etc. be made and submitted at the November 19th meeting of <br />this council, if at all practicable. <br />3. That any action towards further development at city expense be held in abeyance <br />until we can explore the various facts of the program and its related problems, financial <br />and otherwise. <br />4. That we move as expeditiously as possible with proper planning and thus avoid <br />endangering our eligibility for inclusion in state allocations of funds for small boat <br />harbors. <br />This was followed by discussion with Councilman Britschgi attempting to answer Councilman Weiss's <br />