Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br />filed September 18,.1863 in Book °E° of Maps at page 77, in the County Recorder's <br />office of.San Mateo County, California; thence from said point of beginning along <br />said dividing line N. 860 301 E. 185.00 feet; thence across said Lot 8, S. 30 301 <br />3, 20.00 -feet and S. 960'301 W. 185 feet to said easterly line of Jefferson Avenue; <br />thence along said easterly line N. 30 301 W- 0.00 feet to the point of beginning. <br />BEING a portion of said Lot 8 in Block 1 of Mapco the Property in Villa Lots <br />of J. V. Diller hereinabove mentioned, be and the same is hereby dedicated to public <br />use as an alley. <br />And be it further resolved that the Clerk of the City of Redwood City -be and is <br />hereby ordered and directed to record in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County, <br />State of California, a certified copy of this resolution. <br />Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Redwood City at a regular meeting <br />thereof held on the 3d day of April, 1933, by the following vote: <br />Ayes and in favor of the passage of the foregoing resolution. <br />Councilmen: H. A. Beeger, C. J. Hildebrant, R. N. Jones, C. G. Lambert, G. W. <br />McNulty, W. J. Dusel. <br />Noes and against the passage of the foregoing resolution. <br />Councilmen: None <br />Absent: P. A. McCarthy. <br />WILLIAM J. DUSEL <br />Mayor of the City of Redwood City <br />Attest: <br />B. E. MYERS I <br />Clerk of the City of Redwood City <br />I hereby approve the foregoing resolution this 3d day of April, 1933• <br />WILLIAM J, ZUSEL <br />Mayor of the City of Redwood City <br />Beryl Welch, a representative of Foster & Kleiser, asked permission to erect a posting panel <br />101 x 25' on the Cook property at the corner of Broadway and Main Streets. On motion of <br />Councilman Beeger, seconded by Councilman Hildebrant, the request was granted. <br />Julius Smith appeared before the Board concerning the alleged aAnoyance caused by the City's require— <br />ment of a $100 deposit before new merchants could start business. The matter was referred to <br />a. the City Manager and Attorney. <br />The City Attorney explained that in consideration of the action of the Federal Congress in its beer <br />legislation, it would seem advisable for the City to repeal its Ordinance No. 221 pertaining to <br />the alcoholic content of beer. The Attorney stated that very likely the state would take over <br />the control and regulation of the sale of beer and thought it best to wait until the state legis— <br />lation had been put through. Accordingly, on motion of Councilman Beeger, seconded by Councilman <br />Hildebrant, the Ordinance was introduced. (No. 342) <br />Following the election of March 28, the canvass of votes cast was publicly made at this meeting after <br />affidavits of posting and publication had been presented and filed. The results, according to <br />the various precincts were as follows: <br />Ali <br />