CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SENT BY:PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN 4-21-33 3:03AM ;PETERSON FRAM BERGMA~ 6126337833;# 31 4 5/7 April 21, 1999 Page 2 C. Eminent Domain. The City always has the authority to exercise its power of eminent domain in order to acquire a public right-ot-way. This proceeding is as cumbersome as an action to quiet title and is more expensive. However, the City could obtain the right to occupy the property for improvement purposes within 90 to 120 days of filing the petition for condemnation. 2. Bachman Access. This is a private matter between the developer and the owners of the Bachman property. It would have to be resolved before the City could issue building permits for Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 of the proposed subdivision. 3. Escrow For Future Imorovements. In my opinion, the City has the authority to require escrow for future improvements as a condition of subdivision appfoval. The appropfiate language would need to be added to the development contract between the City and the developer. The escrow would need to be placed in a restricted fund and the City would not be able to levy assessments for road improvement costs in the future 4. Size of Escrow. Extending the cul-de-sac to the developer's north property line would embroil the City in the Bachman access issue. Why not extend the cul- de-sac northerly to a point just south of the point where the Bachman access crosses the proposed right-of-way and require a smaller escrow? As part of its review of this development, the City should require the developer to provide title information in the form of a currently certified abstract of title or title insurance commitment. Either of these documents should contain information indicating the origin of the Bachman access easement. e e e