02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Councilman Bradley then asked where and how the city policy evolved to provide public services to all residents in the city and to what extent that policy' bound future city councils. He also asked the intent of the council when adopt- ing the South Hills study - council intent he said, not staff interpretation - was it adopted with the idea that it would apply to property within the corporate limits of the city or to unincorporated property south of the subject property. Manager said it was a general assumption that all properties within the city were entitled to the full range of city services provided. Mr. Allen added that the city had operated under the authority of the Code and Charter provisions for building sewer systems within the city and explained the process through which they were petitioned or initiated. Manager read the applicable Code section. With regard to intent of council in adopting the South Hills study, Councilman Williams was not sure that issue was ever discussed. Mr. Keller said that during the hearing process heavy emphasis was placed on annexation, areas already within the city did not have the same emphasis. He noted the subject property was not only within the city, but also within the urban service boundary. Mrs. Beal's recollection was that the major discussion was with regard to protecting the ridge line and the city's ability to stop development only if property was within the city boundaries. Mr. Murray said some recognition was given in Joint Parks Committee hearings to a couple of areas within the city but sloping on the other side of the ridge line, but he was not sure that issue was ever resolved. e Councilwoman Beal asked how much land there was within the city limits that was on the other side of the ridge line. She felt permitting development to one property over the ridge line would more or less commit the Council to going over the ridge line in other areas. Mr. Saul described two areas where the corporate limits do go over the ridge line but he had no figures on the exact acreage or number of parcels. However, he said, with the exception of vacant properties in the Crest Drive area and extension of the Southridge property itself, there are no other areas to be developed south of the ridge line that are inside the city. Councilman Williams said with regard to intent of the Council in adopting the South Hills study that the initial appeal for development of Southridge properties initiated the study, and at that time the main concern was not so much whether development should be restricted to the ridge line as it was the density of the development or allowing any portion of it to occur. (2090) Mr. Gleaves 1n response to Sierra Club objections said that no portion of the ridge line park areas were to be used for active park purposes. He also pointed out that this appeal had to do only with Phase 2 of the Southridge development, that it did not concern nor should there be consideration of any other portion of that development. Mr. Gleaves wanted it understood that his presentation of written questions to Mr. Saul was at the suggestion of the city attorney only to shorten the public hearing time. He didn't want staff to be in the position of having members of the public thinking there was some collusion between staff and appellant. With regard to Councilman Bradley's questions, Mr. Gleaves agreed there was no express provision in the city code making it mandatory for the city to extend sewer service to any particular property. However, he said, evidence was shown as to what city policy had been and that the Council had the duty to apply that policy on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis. He said if services were provided they must be provided on an impartial basis. Requirements with regard to connection to the city's system could be made, he said, but to deny connection in this case would be arbitrary and an unreasonable act on the part of the Council. e (2146) Councilman Bradley asked Mr. Gleaves if he had raised the question at the Decem- ber 17 Planning Commission meeting about vonfusion surrounding the motion to pre- pare findings and continue the hearing. Mr. Gleaves said he had an explained the action as reflected in the Commission minutes. Mr. Bradley asked if 79 2/24/75 - 11