CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

469 lots , because it would be unreasonable not to do so . If City has not extended its service in that way , then it could not be compelled to provide such connec - tions beyond the point now existing , particularly if it involves another juris - diction . City Attorney also felt that Council and Commission should be apprised of the fact that under provisions of the Business and Professions Code for sub - divisions , if an area is subdivided by the County , the City is now allowed later to undo that subdivision and would be obliged to accept such substandard lots in event of annexation . He felt this should be taken into consideration with respect to policy judgment , because prior to annexation City might wish to have those areas resubdivided , or in some other manner made subject to City ' s zoning requirements . He also noted that the Uninhabited Annexation Act has been held at this time to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals , with respect to majority protest aspects . Final conclusions are still pending . Scheduling of the Planning Commission public hearings was discussed briefly , and Planning Director advised that the County suggested City Planning Com- mission not go ahead on August 21st with its hearing , but rather have one joint hearing in September or later . Mayor Keckley felt that it should be recommended City Planning Commission go ahead with its public hearing as scheduled in August . City Manager emphasized that the matter of solving land use problems first was of the utmost importance , and then it would be possible to cooperate in solving sanitary sewer problems as they flow from the land use decision . He noted the City ' s willingness to work in concert with the County , as evidenced by holding off for three months , but that although the Supervisors had approved joint publication of the Plan , it has still not been published . He also reminded Council that it was at their discretion that annexations can take place or not , and also that the City has the discretionary power to enter into a required annexation agreement , setting forth conditions . Pat Barrentine , from the audience , noted that Redwood City ' s concern related to individual connections , whereas Belmont and San Carlos were speaking of additional subdivisions , and questioned how these are coordinated with respect to treatment plant capacity . Mayor Keckley responded that there had been a meeting between the Mayors and Managers of Belmont , San Carlos and Redwood City and additional meetings planned for discussion of mutual sewer problems . City Manager added that basically the fountainhead for the decisions for the four- city treatment plant is the adopted General Plans for the four areas , con- junctively . Commissioner Murphy referred to letter from Department of Public Health which mentioned septic discharge into ditches draining down into Redwood City and since the State has control over what is drained into the Bay , questioned whether City didn ' t have some control over what was discharged into the City . Adj . Reg . Mtg . 7 -17 -73