08/31/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for coordinating citizen involvement from the Planning Commission - and vesting it, instead, in a Citizen's Advisory Committee which is to be created and which would report directly to the City Council. The Planning Commission decided that it, as the body responsible to the City Council for land-use planning, should retain responsibility for coordinating citizen involvement in the land-use planning process. The citizens advisory committee was proposed with a membership of three persons from the neighborhood organizations, three citizens at large, one Planning Commissioner, and one person from MAPAC. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the committee would advise the Planning Commisison on problems and opportunities for citizen involve- ment. The issues of concern were: 1) whether the committee should report directly to the City Council as opposed to reporting to the Planning Commission; and 2) the composition of the committee. Randi Bjornstad, Planning Department, gave a background of the program development in reaching the proposed Citizen Advisory Commit- tee. She said the substantive change was in the Coordination section (page 3). The evaluation committee had recommended the responsibility and coordination of citizen involvement be removed from the Planning Commission and be given to the Citizen Advisory Committee. However, as noted above, the Planning Commission had decided to retain the responsibilities. Staff recommended Council approval of the plan as presented. She said it would be entirely appropriate if Council wished to amend the plan as proposed and to hold the item for a Monday night public hearing. e Mr. Lieuallen commented it seemed there had not been much discussion by many people and he felt this was a very broad and important issue. He was not satisfied with staff's proposal and suggested a public hearing might be a good thing. Manager noted Council could choose that as an alternative, and staff did not feel this to be an over- powering issue of LCDC program review; so it could be held over for further discussion. Jim Bernhard noted the Planning Commission had held several public hearings, and had considered the issue at several meetings. The Planning Commission was proposing Alternate no. 2 after much discus- sion of the issue. Mr. Haws noted the vote of 4-3 by the Planning Commission, and asked for clarification on which issue. Mr. Saul and Mr. Bernhard re- plied the 4-3 vote was on the makeup of the committee, whether there should be three or four representatives from the neighbor- hood groups. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern regarding the land-use decision- making body evaluating and monitoring its own work. Ms. Lannom agreed with Mr. Lieuallen and said she would prefer to see an independent type of evaluation. Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether that was LCDC's original intention, to which Ms. Bjornstad replied LCDC left that as an option--the evaluation could be done by e the Planning Commission or it could be delegated to an independent 8/31/77--4 ~55