Minutes 1946 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� 352 this matt�r,� r�ost of the Council being opposed to the location as requested by Mr. �dartin and also being reluct2.nt to rna'_ce a defirite decision at this � meeting. Councilman l'ierder iroved tha.t tl:e matter be referred to ti7e Traffic �g Study Cornmittee to be considered at the joint meeting �✓ith the Council and t� �.�w i,h&t some action be taken at tnis rneeting to relieve Mr, nRartin's situa,tion ��; until tne fina.l plan is outlined. Police Chief Collins expressed the opin- ion that he believed the Southern Facific Company Vrot:ld extend the time to , u allorr r.�r. DQartin to par:c his ousses at the present stop. Council�na.n '+Jerder incorporated in his motion tnai tne Cnief of Police endeavor to get the Souti�ern Facific Con�pany io extend the tirne limit oP a.1lorJing the trans- poration co�npany to park at its present location. The motion ti=ras seconded , oy �ouacilman Gra,nger and pa.Used unanimously. � City Clerk Dod�e reported that a sale of rea.l estate ha.d ceen held in the morn- ing. Eight parcels nad oeen advertised for sale. After the sale was over, tt�ere na,d aeen recei�ed oy messenger froin the San ?vlateo County Rea.lty Com- p a letter addressed io the Clerk lvhich contained a higher bid on Lot 7, Block 10, Lenolt Tract, than riad been received at the sale. Due to the • fact tha,t rHr. Vleiner of the San &lateo County Realty Company ha.d 'oeen present at the sale, had heard the bids a,nd then submitted a nigner bid, the Counoil aecided noi to accept his second bid, Councilrnan Axrnstrong rnoved, seconded by Councilman Plerder, that v�ith respect to Parcels 7, 6, and S, the highest bid for Parcel 6 being �1'75.00 and equallin,� the rninimum price set; the nighest bid for Parcel '7 being �450.00, being in excess of the �r:inimtun , price and for Pa,rcel 8 the highest oid being �2020.00, being in excess of J the minimum price, these Uids be accepted, Under the question, City Collec- tor N. L. Miramontes advised th�t �ith regard to Parcel 7, the lot in question was a tnirty foot lot which had "peen a.dvertiaed at the request of the adjacent owner who did not subrnit a bid. She advised tha.t the city has a tax deed to about 113 feet adjacent to this thirty feet. Councilman � Armstrong amended his motion to delete Parcel 7 from the acceptance, sec- onded by Councilman i��erder. �otion passed unanirnously. Councilman Vierder • moved, seconded by Councilm�.n Armstrong, that the bid on Parcel 7 be re- jected but that the rejection of the 'cid does not preclude a bid on tne part of the adjoining property owner. Motion passed unanimously, City �ana.ger Slorn advi�e� that tl�e pencil sketch submitted as a tenta,tive rnap of Poplar Subdivision No. 2 had been found and that it coincided vrith the , fina,l map as s�mitted. He said he would prefer that the other lots in the `—' area would ae included in the ma.o but that it was not possible to force this nroperty to join ttze subdivision. The area. as submitted in the final map is satisfactory and has been approved by the Pla,nning Comrnission. ' Councilman Armstrong offered resolution and rnoved its �,doption accepting � final map of resubdivision of Lot 51 of Reese Subdivision and Lots 10 to 14 inclusive in Block 1 of Redivood Oaks, known as Poplar 5ubdivision No. 2, R E 8 0 L U T I 0 N No. 325 ' ACCEPTING FINAL T.4AP OP R1+:SiJBDIVISION OF LOT 51 OF F.EESE SUBDIUISION AND LOTS 10 to 14 IiJCLUSIVE IiJ BLOCK 1 OF RED�VOOD OAKS, SU$DNIDED � AND DESIGTZATED AS POPLAR SUBDIVISION N0.2. I