Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />5. All necessary sewage, drainage, water supply, power, telephone and gas services would <br />be located and sized. <br />6. Detailed estimates would be prepared for the complete development and broken down in <br />form so that the cost for building any portion of the area could be readily determined. <br />If approved by the City Council, it is understood that the total fee for the above work will be the <br />sum of $17500 payable as follows: One—half the above sum, or #875, to be paid when items 1 and 2 have <br />been completed. The balance to be paid when all above items have been completed to the satisfaction of <br />the City Engineer. <br />Payment is to be made from the recently created Stulsaft Park fund, as a result of cinnabar mining <br />: operations in this area. <br />79 <br />Councilman Britschgi moved approval of the report and recommendations, seconded by Councilman Spillers and <br />carried. .. <br />CITY MANAGER REPORT ON BLEACHER COVERING HAWES PARK N0. 1 AND SOFTBALL GROUNDS LIGHTS. .The City Manager asked <br />Q1 <br />k ' for additional time. Councilman Royer moved that the matter be carried on the agenda for one weeks -seconded <br />by Councilman Stout and carried. <br />REPORT ON INSPECTION OF PROPERTY AT 429 HONLAND STREET, LOT 9$ BLOCK 13,.RANGE D, MEZESVILLE. During a recent <br />inspection of the above structure and property, the following conditions were noted:. <br />1. Dwelling consists of three rooms and bath. <br />Exterior finish is T & G vertical siding* <br />Interior finish is plaster board. <br />2. Foundation is wood sills directly on ground with clearance of joist <br />less than minimum as required by the City of Redwood City Building Code. <br />3. Illegal roofed—over addition to attached garage interferring with proper <br />lights and ventilation of bathroom. , <br />4. Vents on wood burning kitchen range and water heater do no,gomply to the <br />City of Redwood City building Code. <br />5. Electrical service and wiring does not now damply to the City of Redwood <br />City Electrical Code. <br />6. Plumbing installation does not now meet existing City of Redwood City <br />Plumbing Code. <br />'S 7. On the front portion of the private property and including that area from <br />the building setback to the curb is now being used for miscellaneous <br />storage. A like condition exists on the rear portion of the private <br />property, creating a definite physical and fire hazard. <br />8. The occupant of 429 Howland Avenue is now using the adjacent City owned <br />.Lot No. 8 for further storage of miscellaneous object such as old <br />boxes, cartons, books, papers, old clothing, furniture, and junk of all <br />descriptions. <br />It is the combined opinion of the Housing Survey Group that the above conditions be <br />complied with and further that Lot No. 8 owned by the City of Redwood City and that public <br />property in front of 429 Howland Street be cleared. If legally possible, the required <br />sidewalks be installed thus preventing a further occurrence of the conditions that now <br />exist and itemized in the above. <br />There was a discussion as to whether or not the City owned Iot 8, when it was tax deeded -to the City, and <br />whether or not the City could legally enter and work on Lot 8. The matter of checking into the ownership <br />of lot 8 was turned over to the City Manager and City Attorney for a report next week. Councilman Granger <br />asked that they make a recommendation as to what the Council can do to obliterate the hazard. <br />CITY CLERK REPORT ON BID OPENING SALE OF LOT CORNER TOPAZ AND HARDING, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, JEFFERSON AVENUE ADDITION. <br />The Clerk reported that .only one bid had been received, however, the bidder had scratched out the second <br />paragraph of the bid and attached condition subject to streetwork and assessments being free and clear and <br />deed from City conveying title free and clear. The bidder also attached a letter in which thye stated they <br />submitted this bid subject to receiving a variance from the Planning Commission, which would allow a five foot <br />front setback and a two and one—half foot rear setback. This would be necessary in order to construct the <br />Proper building that they are contemplating. After discussion it was ruled that this bid was out of order <br />and Councilman Spillers moved that the bid be disqualified, seconded by Councilman Britschgi. This was <br />followed by discussion as to what type of building could be constructed on this lot. Building Inspector <br />Kreiss stated that the present seback plans would leave only room for an 11 foot building. Motion carried. <br />