1931 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In Re Application S. J. Hales. In Re Application Everett A. McKinney. In Re Sidewalks S. Main St. In Re Traffic Direction. In Re Reso. No. ~3~2 Ordering Work Seventeenth St., etal. 423 posted for special use~ and hearing date December 7th, in accordance wit'h the application of W. Poston to con- duct a Used Car Market at 505 E. Fourth Street. On motion of Trustee Warner, seconded by HasenJaeger and carried, the application of S. J. Hales for permission to conduct a feed yard for cattle, etc., at 2415 W. Street, was referred to the Planning Con~nission. On motion of Trustee HasenJaeger, seconded by Warner and carried, the recommendation of the Planning Commission was accepted and the application of S. J. Hales granted. On motion of Trustee Witmer, seconded by Warner and car- tied, the property at the Northeast corner of Berkeley and MAin Streets was ordered posted for special uses and the hearing date set December 7th, 1931, in accordance with the application of Everett A. McKinney to erect a building to be used for battery and tire shop. On motion of Trustee Hasenjaeger, seconded by Witmer and carried, the report of the City Engineer was accepted advising that property owners will have sidewalks install~ on S. Main Street below Pomona Avenue during the month of January and the Clerk was instructed to advise peti- tioners for sidewalks relative to same. On motion of Trustee Witmer, seconded by Wa~ner and car- tied, the Chief of Police was authorized to direct traffi( at his own discretion in cases of emergency. ,, This being the time and place to.which the hearing was continued as set forth in Resolution No. 2316, to order the work and improvement made, of Seventeenth, Main, Broadway, Flower, Eucalyptus, Eighteenth, in on and along portions Durant, Ross, Greenleaf, Nineteenth Street and a certain alley, and the City Council being duly convened iR open session, proceeded to hear and pass upon all protests presented. No owner of property liable to be assessed for said work made written protest or any protest against the proposed work or against the extent of the district to be assessed therefor and ~o persons appearing to protest or object or show any cause wh~ t~he improvement should not be carried out in accordance with Res~t~tion of Intention No. 2316, the City Council deemed that it had acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed improvement.