CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

b 18 The Clerk read the letter submitted by the Planning Commission regarding requirements in resubdivision of lots into less than five lots. Their letter read in part: Pursuant to the subdivision ordinance of the City of Redwood City, which ordinance is based on the State Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission of this city has required dedication or deeding of necessary easements for rights of way, utilities, street widening and slope easments, and the construction of water mains, sewer laterals, street improvements and other improvements, as a condition to subdivision of land other than where a final subdivision map ii'- filed, when, in its opinion, such has been ne oessary for future planning for the needs of the City of Redwood City. Attorney Woodman stated that the policy was sound and he agrees with the policy, however, he does not agree to the application. His client feels that they should not be forced to dedicate the 10.1 but rather that the City should purchase the easement. This was followed by a lengthy discussion after which Councilman Britschgi moved to turn this matter over to the Real Estate Committee to meet with Mr. Woodman and work out a vaulation, report back in one week, seconded by Councilman Spillers. Council- man Weiss read the following prepared statement: I wish to call attention to the fact that it was by formal action of this council taken on July 30, that this matter was referred to the planning commission for study and submission of recommendations with a view to the ultimate establishment of a policy by the council. According to the press, see Tribune article of August 29, the planning commission in effect has informed the public that they have set the policy which they will adhere to. To my mind that places this council in the peculiar position that a subordinate unit of government is usurping council prerogatives, leaving the council the decision as to whether it will bow to their will or accept and fulfill its responsibilities as the official legislative and policy making body. At our July 30 meeting I have made certain statements on the question, I consider them as valid today as I did then, and I find that they have not been refuted by any authority. The planning commission in support of their present and past actions cite the pro- visions of the subdivision ordinance as they apply to developments involving five or more building sites- let us not overlook the fact that there is no analogy between the two types - those of less than five and those of more than five - one involves, generally, already improved property that has ingress and egress to a dedicated street, it generally is provided with other facilities, whereas the other is generally larger parcels that VAN4 have not previously borne any development or assessment costs. The validity of my statement that the imposition of such demands on an applicant for dedication of lands as is contimplated in the instant case is confiscatory, is self evident by the fact that the property fronts on a fully developed and improved street, for which no doubt improvement cost were in some manner assessed against the property owner or developer. The resubdivision will not in any way affect the situation in that ,area, both lots, if divided, will have full access for ingress and egress and both can have by payment of proper fees as provided by la-,rs and regulations water and sanitary facilities without necessity of any easements. The fact that there exists the probability that at some time in the future it will be diesirable to widen the street at that point certainly does not aaise the question of dedication; instead it raises the question of plan lines to protect set backs or other encroachments. Manadatory dedication by fiat to obtain certain privileges provided and contemplated by law, is tantamount to confiscation without due process of law. This is a democracy, and the law of the land is that no-one shall be deprived of their property without such due process of law - Due process of law in such instances is either the purchase through mutual agreement and negotiation, or condemnation in eminent domain - in either case the property owner eventually receives just and proper compensation. I said previously that to require dedication to obtain consideration under the law is tantamount to blackmail and the obtaining of lands by means of blackjacking - that gentlemen i -s my simile for such arbitrary and discriminatory requirement as is vnvolved in the instant case. In all fairness and equity every citizen must be assured that he can obtain justice and fair consideration before every governmental agency of this community without fear that he will be deprived of his property without due process of law* Councilman Granger asked the maker of the motion why he wanted to refer this matter to the Real Estate Committee. Councilman Britschgi stated that he did not believe in taking the property away from the people by dedication methods, especially since this is for a traffic pattern. The motion carried. Councilman Granger asked the Clerk to refer back in the minutes to a previous motion wherein he requested a staement from the Planning Commission as to their policy setting up conditions in conneptions ip-