|
0
<br />of recommendation, seconded by Councilman Morgan and carriod. x
<br />351
<br />REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON SALE OF LOT IN MEZESVILLE — PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 10, RANGE E, on Samson
<br />r near Winslow« City Collector Perrin stated that the committee looked at this lot which Edo Lumber
<br />i
<br />Company wished to purchase at $311 and thought this waVtoo low. If sold legal "costs would have to
<br />4 be paid and the committee set the valuation at $550. It was a triangular piece 40x4OzlO at the rear,
<br />r
<br />f
<br />Councilman Morgan moved that bid be denied, seconded by Councilman Swift and carried. It was thought -
<br />' this piece should be reserved for possible City use such:as recreational area. Councilman Granger
<br />moved that the .property he taken off the market until such time as the Planning Commission should de—
<br />cide what use would be made of it, seconded by Councilman Morgan and carried.
<br />SWIMMING POOL COMMITTEE REPORT. Councilman Spillers, Chairman, reported progress and further report would
<br />' be made at next meeting.
<br />IE NOLT TRACT IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of publication, posting and mailing were ordered filed by the Mayor.
<br />PUBLIC HEARING LENOLT TRACT IMPROVEMENTS. A -written protest was received from Helen & Michael Counihan,
<br />802 Whipple Avenue, Lot 16,Block 14 Councilman Spillers moved thatprotest be overruled, seconded by
<br />t
<br />j Councilman Holmquist and carried.
<br />RESOLUTION 806-LENOLT TRACT IMPROVEMENTS, ORDERING 17ORK 0 BE DONE was offered and moved for adoption by
<br />Councilman Morgan, seconded by Councilman Holmquist and carried on roll call..
<br />s RE S GLUT I ON N0. 806
<br />RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS — LENOLT
<br />WHEREAS the Council of theCity of Redwood.City did, on October 31, 1949s, pass and adbpt Reso—
<br />lttion of Intention Nd. 799 (Lenolt) to order the hereinafter despribed work to be done and improve—
<br />ments to be made in said City of Redwood City; and
<br />WHEREAS notices of the passage of said. Resolution of Intention No. 799, -headed °NOTICE OF IM—
<br />PROVEMENT", were duly and regularly posted along the line of said "contemplated work and improvements
<br />' and in front of all the property liable to be assessed therefory and on all -of the streets in the
<br />district to be assesse� therefor, in the time, form, manner and number as required by law, as appears
<br />from the affidavits,ofl lenn M. Jain, Superintendent of Streets of the City of,Redwood City., on file
<br />in the office of the Clerk of said City; and
<br />WHEREAS it appears from the affidavit of R.S.Dodge, City Clerk of theCity of Redwood City, that
<br />notices of the adoption of the said resolution were mailed to all persons owing real property proposed
<br />to be assessed for said improvements, in the time,form, and manner as required by law, which affidavit
<br />is on file with..the Clerk of said City of RedwoodCity; and
<br />WHEREAS it appears from the affidavit of LuVerne H. Hamlin that said Resolution of Intention was
<br />duly and regularly published in thOtedwood City Tbibune, a newspaper, published, printed and circulated
<br />in the City of Redwood City; and `
<br />WHEREAS, in and by said Resolution of Intention No -799 and the notices of the passage thereof
<br />posted, published and mailed as aforesaid, said Council of the City of Redwood City fixed Monday,
<br />November 21, 1949, at the hour of 8:00 P.M. of said day, at the Council Chamber of theCouncil of the
<br />City'of Redwood City, in the City Hall on Middlefield Road in said City, as the day, hour and place
<br />when and where any and all persons having any objections to the proposed work and improvements des
<br />cribed in said Resolution of Intention No.799, or to the grades at which said work and improvements
<br />are to be done and made, or to the district to be assessed for said work and improvembnts, could appear
<br />{ before said Council and show cause why said proposed work and improvements should not be carried out
<br />and done in accordance with said Resolution of Intention N9.7991 or why said work and improve26uts
<br />should not be carried out and done at the grades as shown on the plans, profiles and detailed drawings
<br />referred to in said Resolution of Intention No. 799 and now on file in the office of.th9ftekk of the
<br />' City of Redwood City; and
<br />WHEREAS, Helen & Michael Counihan, owners of Lot 16,Block 14,,Lenolt filed written protest to
<br />said work and improvements, which protest was duly overruled on motion of Counpilmarrpillers and
<br />seconded by Councilman Holmquist and unanimously carried; and,
<br />WHEREAS, at the day, hour and place last above mentioned, all objections, oral and written, to
<br />said work and improvements described in said Resolution of Intention No. 7993 or to the extent of the
<br />district to be assessed therefor, were duly considered by said.Council;, and
<br />WHEREAS all said.objections were overruled and denied by said Council; and
<br />WHEREAS Said Council did determine that protests were not made by more than one—half (1/2) of
<br />the owners of the property proposed to be assessed for said work ancAmprovements; and
<br />WHEREAS said Council has acquired jurisdiction to order said work and improvements;
<br />t
<br />NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of.thoity of Redwood City that the public
<br />convenience and necessity require, and said Council hereby orders, all the work and improvements,
<br />i hereinafter described, to be performed.
<br />Said work and improvements are described as follows:
<br />r
<br />
|