BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

i 272 would materially imLair the property without.due process of.law._ .He.reiter- ated Mr. Morrissey's argument in regard to the ownership of Winklebleck Street by -the Southern Pacific Company and to the plans which the railroad company has for the contemplated additional facilities to be installed in Redwood City. He also stated that if the Southern Pacific should move its eetation, the need for the setback to alleviate traffic would not be necessary. He also questioned whether a suit of condemnation could be filed against the Southern Pacific to gain title to this street inasmuch as a municipality cannot file a condemnation suit against another utility. Mr. Milton Hinds appeared and explained that his understanding of the ori- ginal plan did not include changing or establishing setback lines on Winklebleck Street but only on California and James. He believed that a ten foot setback should be established on James Avenue and California Street to allow the street to open ug for future business and to relieve the traffic on Broadway. It was his opinion that Miss Reid should be compensated for any detriment to her property.and asked that the Council come to a definite decision in the matter. , Councilman Armstrong asked what loss Miss Reid would sustain by establish - Ing the proposed setback line. City Attorney McCarthy replied that he did not believe there was a detriment to Miss Reid inasmuch as she does not have plans for the immediate construction of a building and no plans.to use the property. He said the city could take the whole of her lot at a fair price or compensate her for the area taken. He said it might be more expedient to take the whole lot inasmuch as there is to be ten feet taken on both sides of the lot. Mr. O'Keefe again objected on the grounds that it would be taking property without due process of law. Councilman Britschgi moved that the.recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the setbsok lines on James Avenue, Winklebleck Street and California Street be denied, seconded by Councilman Armstrong. Under the question, Councilman Anderson said he would vote against this motion but would vote in favor of one for further study of the matter. Councilman Britschgi explained it was his in- tention that the Planning Commission give the matter further study. Motion passed unanimously. Councilman Granger moved, seconded by Councilman Anderson, that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study and they be supplied with the portion of the minutes in re- gard to this subject. Under the question, Councilman McNulty asked if this matter could not be held over until the master plan was submitted. This was not believed to be wise, however, as most of the councilmen were of the opinion that some change should be made in the setback on James Avenue as soon as possible. Councilman Britschgi believed the Southern Pacific Oompa ny should be contacted in regard to their future plans for installing new tracks moving of the station, etc. Motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCarthy asked if the Council desired a recommendation to be -reached in re- gard to the setback lines on California and James Avenue and that the north side of Winklebleck Street was not to be changed. Mayor Hilton advised this was correct. 4 11 FILLn E 1