02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ronal,d E. Eber, 500 East 18th Avenue, No.ll, chairman of the Sierra Club, sub- (1344) mitt~d copies of testimony presented by the Sierra Club on this issue before the Planning Commission. He said the development was clearly inconsistent with the South Hills study, particularly with regard to the ridge line because it 4It blocked trail routes. The study, he said, was intended specifically to protect areas above the 900-foot level and development was to be permitted only when it could be demonstrated consistent with the ridge line park section of the study. He s~id that most of the testimony was based on the visual impact, whereas impact on trails and open space should also be considered. Also, that the intent of the Joint Parks Committee was to approve development above the 900-foot level only when basic objectives of the study were satisfied. He mentioned the open space area required of the subject development and said the staff acknowledged that it was the most difficult element to be achieved because substantive physical separa- tion was required between urban and nonurban areas, not just a concept of separation. He argued that the property would not fit within the definition of urban service area because it extended beyond the ridge line. He also claimed it was not in- tended for property to be developed if public facilities had to be extended, that the facilities should already be available. He said his understanding from testimony in hearings was that even though property was already annexed, he had never' heard any expression that the urban service area was to extend beyond the ridge line, and there was no reason to consider this property an exception. Also, there' was nothing in the City Code to obligate the city to extend sewer services to the subject property just because it was within the city. Comparison with the Crest Drive area was not valid, he said, because that area had long been developed, this property was undeveloped. He questioned the impact this development would have on traffic, saying that had not been mentioned. And although he acknowledged the n~ed for housing, he questioned need for housing the cost range of the subject development. Development of housing on the fringe area of the urban service area, he said, would not be meeting the public need. He said construction of Phase 2 ... would set precedent - it was a foregone conlusion that approval of this phase ~ would lead to other very intensive development expanding clearly the need for review of traffic impact, bus services, etc. Mr. Eber doubted the denial of this development would constitute taking of property. There was possible the develop- ment 9f scenic easements on the property and other alternatives consistent with the South Hills study so that denial would not make the property valueless. He felt clarification of the study should not be accomplished by allowing this develop- ment to occur, rather the significance of this proposal should be considered in light of the total study. He summarized his arguments saying the Planning Commis- sion denial should be upheld by the Council. He cited the citizen participation in preparation ana support of the South Hills study and the view of those partici- pating that the ridge line was the urban service boundary, that property over that ridge line should be considered outside the service area. And, that development in that area, particularly this property, would be inconsistent with the goals and intent of the South Hills study. Manager noted the document presented by Mr. Eber was made a part of the record. Annabel Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, added the December 10, 1974 statement (1563) of the League of Women Voters to the testimony presented in support of the South Hills study. She said the development should not be approved unless conditions are met making it consistent with the South Hills study - pedestrian access across property, trails, etc. She said precedent was a concern in terms of interpretation with regard to the urban service boundary, whether it was the ridge line itself or included land already within the city even though it extended be- ... yong the ridge line. She said the property could be purchased and maintained ~ as open space or other options available in the study exercised. Or the property could ,be de-annexed. In any event, she said, the urban service boundary issue should he resolved. . 2/24/75 - 8 76