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

Browse Search

PIANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE PETITION OF WHITMORE, GERSMEIER, FEINBERG AND RAFFERTY TO REZONE LOTS 29, 319 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 432 45, 47, 49, 51, Sub. 21 WELLESLEY PARK (141 Wellesley Crescent) and 231 to 235 Arlington Road from R-1 District to R-3 District. It is the feeling of the planning Commission that this rezoning is not in the best interests of the area, and since it is contrary to the proposed Master Plan, recommends denial. Councilman Weymouth moved to setthismatter for public hearing on April 22nd, seconded by Councilman* Stout and carried. Councilman Spillers asked that the Councilmen each go out and take a look at this property. FURTHER CONSIDERATION, WATER CONNECTION CHARGES. Councilman Stout moved to carry this on the agenda for two weeks, seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried. ATTORNEY LEBSACK LETTER REGARDING HIGHLANDS TERRITORY NO. 1 ASSESSMENT AGAINST COUNTY OWNED LOTS 28 AND 29,9 BLOCK 998, HIGHLANDS OF EMERALD LAKE. The Clerk read the following letter: In August of 3.956 a letter was addressed to the City of Redwood City from the County of San Mateo which, affected assessments numbered 125 and 126, Highlands Territory No. 1 and in particular related'to lots 28 and 29 Block 908, Highlands of Emerald Lake No. 1. The County in that letter advised that the property had to be used Por recreational purposes and a further proviso that it could not be sold or transferred by the County of Dan Mateo. The County in the same letter stated that they would be willing to execute a long term lease for the lots to the City for recreational purposes if the City were interested in their development. They also advised that the property was not needed for County purposes. Inasmuch as the County has advised that they would be willing to transfer the property to the City and have further advised that they could not justify the payment of the assessments proposed to be levied under the property, some decision must be made by the City of Redwood City with regard to what action they desire to take with regard to these lots. In the event the lots remain in public ownership, it is doubtful that they can be assessed for the improvements presently being installed in Highlands Territory No. 1 assessment district. If the City is desirous of acquiring the property, of course, the City would probably be required to pay the assessments. In the event no determination has been made on this subject, it is my suggestion that some action be taken w ith regard to contacting the District Attorney's office of the County after a decision has been made by the City as to their wished in the matter. It is essential that this matter be completed prior to the completion of the assgssment work on Highlands Territory NO. 1 111 Yours very truly, Chester W. Lebsack The City Manager stated that these lots were at the intersection of Farm Hill Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue. The need for this property is to correct the intersection. If they had the lots, they could increase the radius and improve the street. If the City tales over the ownership or the lease, they would have to stand the cost of the water and sewer assessment. If nothing id one, theonly other alternative would be to assess the $2,400 to the rest of the property owners in the assessment district, thus raising the assessment on each parcel approximately $12.00. If these lots were later developed for recreational purposes, then the assessment would have been spread over the whole area and these same people would derive the benefits because the park would be in their neighborhood. Councilman Spillers stated that lots 26 and 29 would belong to the County and leased to the City. The Street assessment will probably be around x$3,000. Councilman Spillers felt that they should let G the County keep the property. The City Manager stated that some of the street improvement could be charged"to gas tax. This was followed by discussion in regard to whether or not the City could assess the County. The City Attorney recommended that this be referred to him and to attorney lebsack. Councilman Spillers moved to refer this matter to the attorneys for their findings, seconded by r Councilman Stout. Councilman Stout asked that they also check into the problem raised by the City Engineer in regard to the need of the property for future street widening. The motion carried. r PIANNING COMMISSION LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED WIDITH OF VALOTA ROAD AS REFLECTED IN KENTFIELD-PALL-VALOTR IMPROVEMENTS. In their letter, the Planning Commission stated that it was brought to their attention that the proposed Kentfield-Palm-Valota Improvement Project sets Valota Road as a 50' right-of-way with a 40' pavement. They called the Council's attention to the fact that the proposed Master Plan for Streets and Highways names Val.ota Road as a.Major City Street which, by state standars, should