BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

212. Commission advising them that the Yacht Harbor property is under the juris- diction of the Port Commission who is unwilling to release it and that the Council is unwilling to spend large capital expenditures until a permanent location is assured. Under the question, Councilman Britschgi expressed the opinion that some improvements should be made at the Yacht Harbor for the enjoyment of the people using it. He believed some improvement program should be taken up with the Port Commission who has indicated that if the city made certain improvements the Commission would agree in the event it was necessary to move the Yacht Harbor soon to pay the cost of replacing those improvements in some other place. It was the general consensus of the -Council that a meeting should be held with the Port Commission in regard to this matter. Motion passed unanimously. Councilman Granger moved, seconded by Councilman McNulty, that when the City Manager meets with The Port Commission for the purpose of ascertaining what the city can expect if any money is expended at the present location of the Yacht Harbor. Motion passed unanimously. Communication was received from the.Planning Commission favorably recommending acceptance of a map -for the subdivision of Lot 55 and a portion of Lot 54 of the Reese Subdivision, Wooster, Whitton and Montgomery Subdivision. The map is not in conformance with the Subdivision Resolution and Ordinance in that the depths of many of the -los are more than 2-1/2 times the front- age, and the frontage of lots facing on Poplar Avenue is less than 50 feet, however, the area of every lot is over five thousand square feet. The Commission recommended approval of the map because of the low value of surrounding property and the relatively high cost of public improvements at this time and because the exceptions with respect to the depth of the lots is unavoidable and the exception with respect to the width of the lots is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the. petitioners. It was believed that the granting of the exceptions would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property adjacent thereto. Affidavit of David Holder was presented setting forth the necessity of subdividing the lots as shown on the map. Councilman Fletcher moved, seconded by Councilman Granger, acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Under the question, Councilman Britschgi expressed his unwillingness to allow a lot under 50 feet frontage in Red- wood City. City Manager Blom explained that the adjoining area was gen- erally divided into 25 foot lots before that property was annexed to the city. After some discussion, it was decided that it would improve that area by adopting the map as presented and Councilman Britschgi withdrew his objection. Acting City Engineer Randlett advised the Council that this is a tentative map and that improvements will be shown on the final map. The motion passed unanimously. Communication was received from Greene Bros., San Bruno, California, asking to be relieved of furnishing the city with a bond in the amount of $8000 to insure the improvements being.put in subdivision at Roosevelt and Icing Streets. The premium for such a bond is $250.00 which they considered too ■ r