CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0 1.85 COUNCILMAN WEISS REGARDING ISSUING OF BUILDING PERMIT TO DALE STUART. The Mayor announced that the City Attorney gage an opinion that Mr. Stuart be given a building permit. Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement: The Redwood City Tribune in all probability had good and sufficient reasons to have appraised as "Bluff" this councils action of May 14, and its reaffirmation on May 28th, on the question of zoning, etc. of Lot T, Block F, Woodside Acres. (See page 3, minutes of May 14, and page 1, minutes May 28th). I am on this council not as a politician, but as a representative of all the people, I do not act by bluff, and I am naive enough to believe that though this council may perform and create many odd situations, and act in curious ways, it does not perform its functions by "bluffing", especially when it acts by unanimous decision and upon advice of its legal counselor. The facts as I recall them are that a petition was presented at our May 14th meeting,. by residents of the area in question, i.e. the area where Mr. Dale Stuart proposes to build the apartments. The council heard both sides, and the evidence seemed to be that the rezoning from R-2 to R-3 was obtained from the Council contrary to the Planning Commissions recommendation on the tacit understanding that only a one story structure of some 18 units was to be constructed on the property involved; that the people in the neighborhood did not protest because of such a promise to them; That later it developed that Cllr. Stuart decided to build a 2 story structure of some 30 units; that when people became aware of the change they petitioned this council for redress.. Upon advice of our legal advisor, this council took action by unanimous vote to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for initiation of action to rezone the property back to R-2, and that Mr. Dale Stuart be so advised by letter. Subsequent to that action Mr. Stuart applied for a building permit and was denied same by the Building Inspector in view of the councils action of May 14: Mr. Stuart thru Attorney requested the council -at its meeting of May 28, to reverse its previous action of May 14, and order the building permit to issue: the council in view of additional or at least reaffirmation of previous information adhered to its decision of May 14. At no time up to this action did our legal advisor call our attention to the fact that we were on tenous ground — he could have asked to consult with us in executive session, had he so desired. In fact it was several days subsequent to the time of reaffirmation of council action in this matter, that I was informally told by the City Attorney that we were on very tender ground, that the Building Inspector should have, instead of refusing the building permit, accepted the application and forwarded the plans to Los Angeles for approval as is customary in many instances prior to issuring the permit. To me the whole thing speaks of a type of politics that.can only serve to discourage the average individual, it undoubtedly works to the disadvantage of the small people and to the PPOM advantage of those in the know, or who -have access to the right channels. I submit gentlemen, that a serious injustice is being done to the people who have placed irrr their trust in this council and all to the advantage of a single property owner. I realize that under the circumstances as they now stand or exist, Mr. Stuart can proceed with the construction of the 24 units for which he now has a building permit, but to avoid adding insult to injury, and to clearly establish the fact that this council was sincere in its previous action, was not bluffing, I strongly urge that we again reaffirm our action of May 14, to explore -the advisability of zoning this property back to R-2, not -withstanding that a non- conforming use will thus be created. As a last word - this should serve us as a clear warning of the hazards of spot zoning of individual pieces of property contrary to the general pattern of the Master Plan also it should point to the advisability of taking steps to have a more complete record or transcript (verbatim) of the councils proceedings, so we could more readily establish the exact intent of our actions when occasion demands. This last I say because many times it is not only the words of the legal document, but everything said leading to it, that can and must be weighed to clearly understand and interpret the true intent and meaning of any given peice of legislation. This last statement leads me to request that the city attorney should advise this council as to whether or not the provisions of Section 18, of this cities zoning ordinance no. 600, could be of application in the instant case, also whether or not in fact and since the original zoning to R-3 was obtained under the tacit understanding that only a one story structure of some 18 units would be erected on said property, the provisions of Sec. 22, would not or could not be invoked? Councilman Granger stated that he had voted the same as Councilman Weiss. He further stated that he called the Attorney's office and had been told that the City had been served with a court injunction and there was nothing more the City could do except issure the building permit. City Attorney Currie spoke on the subject and stated that the City did not have any legal stand as to why they could not issue the building permit. Mr. Currie resented Councilman Weiss's statement and did not think it was in order. Councilman Spillers stated that it will be a very great loss when the City Attorney resigns and a new man takes his place. This was followed by a very heated discussion between the City Attorney and Councilman Weiss. The people in the vicinity of this rezoning spoke on the subject. Councilman Weiss moved that the Council reaffirm their action of May 14th and have the Planning Commission consider the possibility of rezoning the property back to R-23 seconded by Councilman Stout. This was