HomeMy WebLinkAboutNS-5.16 · ORDINANCE NS-5. 16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NS-5, THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA, RELATING
TO REJECTED OFFERS OF DEDICATION
The City CoUncil of the City of Saratoga does hereby
ordain as follows:
Section.l:Section 8.6 is hereby added to Part 2 of
Ordinance NS-5 of the City of Saratoga,
to read as follows:
offers of dedication of'easements shown thereon
are rejected, othe~ than streets, paths, alleys or storm drainage
easements which are already provided for under Section 11616 of the
Business and Professions Code of the State of California, the offers
of dedication not accepted shall not terminate, but shall remain
open and the City Council may b resolution at any later date,
and without any further action ~y the subdivider, rescind its
action and accept one or more of such offers of dedication of
easements for public use, which resolution shall be recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder of santa Clara County. Without
limitation the foregoihg is intended to apply to public service
easements, sanitary sewer easements, slope easements and reserve
stri~s~~ AnYsuch'loffer'of'dedication not~s~ a~Cepted/'shall
remain open until accepted or until abandoned by resolution of
the City Council.
Section 2: The above section is hereby founa and declared
to be declaratory of existing law in the
City of Saratoga, and any and all rejections, or failures to
acdept, offers of dedication of easements oh final subdivision
mmps in the City~of'Saratoga have not been intended to be, and
have not been, a revohation of any of said offers of dedication,
and said offers of dedication, unless abandoned by resolution of
this Council, shall be and remain open subject to acceptance at
a future date.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City Of
Saratoga hereby declares that it would-have passed this'ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsection,
sentences, clauses or phrases be he_!d invalid or unconstitutional.
The above and foregoing !Ordifiandenwas duly and regularly
passed and~adopt~ this 16th day of Au~st , 1967, by the
.. ~,'~. ~.~/ puoh-i.od ~ccc, ~n~aw.
/~/) ..... (City Cle~PutY C.ty C~e~k~ t~ate