02/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. oW< he said, whether any of the State money could be used for development of an impact statemeny. An impact statement would not be a legal requirement if the project were not Federally funded and therefore not constructed to Federal specifications, so it would be question of whether there would be local requirement for environmental impact statement prior to submitting the project for voter decision. It was decided to ask LCOG to considercthe use of State money, part of the $12 million, for the Highway 126 project among other projects being considered. However, it appeared City or other local funds would have to be used to develop an impact statement if one was desired. . Manager further explained l,D. answer to questioI].s from Councilman Murray that money ,from the $12 million fund. would be for construction costs only.' Money for an impact statement would have to come from some other source, either City funds or with County help. The Council has not decided an impact statement must be developed although it had been as~umed there would have to be one if it was a Federally-funded project. However, the change in funding has changed that requirement. Councilman Murray indicated he would vote against referral to LCOG and hope the record would reflect the reasons for the referral as stated by Manager. Councilman Williams explained that the referral was not to ask funds for the extension, rather to consider the project along with others in terms of priorities in overall trans- portation planning for which the bond money would be spent;~ Counc~lman Wood added that he would support the referral since it was asking consideration of priorities only. He added that possibly money for' an, impact statemi:mt. 'couid come from the bond funds also. He didn't feel referral. in that contextwouid'be taking a supportive stand on this particular project. Mr. Murray felt a request for consideration prior to discussion was an implicit statement that priority was wanted. .. Mayor Anderson said no action was going to be taken until an impact statement was submitted. The intent was to keep the project alive for those who wished to see it achieved; it was not the intent to stifle it, unless that was the Council's wish. He said it seemed considera- tion should be pursued this far in view of public bodies' subscription to overall trans- portation ~lanning (ESATS). An~ ~ublic input m~ght be gained with proper background for consid~rat~on at the time a dec~s~on on the proJect was to. be made, and after' submission of an impact statement. Councilman Hershner noted that he had made the motion for referral to LCOG and it was not his intent,that his .,q.ffirma.tive position 0nc, the motion was to be interpreted that the project taketbppr1Q:0tty;::Rather there was some'question that if the motion was not made as e~- plained it would be interpreted as.anegative position of the Council. Manager noted the large number of projects propoBed-for funding from the $12 million bond funds, far exceeding the amount of money available. The intent of the motion, he said, was to ask that this project be added to the list of prpjects being considered for State monies because Federal funding was withdrawn. Councilman Murray said he was not opposed to submission of impact studies but his position was that it was inappropriate to spend money in any way towards freeway development. He thought this referral did ask consideration of that, and he preferred some alternate mode of transportation. 0900 .. H. -va'catI"ori-;easementnear-sOUfheast -corner"oIGn'Jiam-Roadan(rsaily-'Wa'y'-tCltyf-'--"'~ ''- Planning Commission on January 14, 1974 recommended vacation. It was understood public hearing would be called (March 25, 1974). Comm . 2/6/74 Approve .-..,...-'........., .''','-''-'' ....~'.." P 1\1'," -.. I.~eqUest for Moratorium on Mobile Home Parks in Bethe1-Danebo Area - Copies of letter were previously distributed to Council members f~om School District #52 requesting 'moratorium on additional construction of mobile home parks in the Bethel-Danebo area. )council members on tour viewed'some of the existing mobile home parks in that area. Manager explained that mobile home parks ~re a conditional use in appropriate zones . and permits are handled by the hearings official: He suggested acknowledgment of : receipt of the letter indicating the Planning Commission will be considering the : question of mobile home parks in conjunction with a study program being developed . by the Planning staff and will refer to the Council its findings. Planning Director t said that the study had not progressed sufficiently to determine whether temporary i control of IOC>bile home parks was warranted. He recogni zed the potential problem in \ that area and felt referral of the request to the Commission would be appropriate. i He added that an interim report might be available in three to six weeks. I i !Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the request to the Planning Commis- : sion and advise the School District of that action and the time element involved. I icomm 'J 2~6/74 Apifrove I .e " : Councilman Wood asked whether Lcoe Committee on Education was aware of the request 'and it was agreed they should be informed. Councilwoman Beal asked whether there were rough estimates of the number of children in an average mobile home development. Planning Director explained the inadequacy of the present mobile home ordinance because of rapidly changing situation in mobile home ownership. He added that Planning Commission discussion would include that facet. 4<<) Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 2/11/74 - 10