09/23/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i Councilman Murray felt the Mayor's suggestion more specific than the resolution , ! presented by himself and Mrs. Beal. He could see no disadvantage in beginning the ; study as they suggested. Once the commi ttee caLled for in the resolution was es- . tablished, he said, a more elaborate definition of their task could be developed including perhaps refinement through suggestions from other governmental units or 'LCOG itself. He felt there was a common goal. ~rhe language of his and Mrs. Beal's resolution, he said, was taken from the Community Goals proposal so it did cover . broad general areas of concern and still gave some direction. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to amend the motion to provide that the Council through the Manager direct a letter to LCOG stating I that the Council sought to implement a proposal contained in the 1974 I Communi ty Goals document as it rela ted to df:lveloping a study of growth, that the Council was considering adoption of ,this revised resolution (Murray/Beal original resolution revised as suggested by Murray to retain jointly-appointed citizens committee but deleting reference to MAPAC), , f and would appreciate input from the LCOG Board, before adoption of the i i revised resolution, on any wording changes or other considerations they i deemed appropriate for Council consideration. !Mr. Wood suggested that LCOG might also be asked to comment on demands on staff and :costs involved in implementing the study. Mayor Anderson was supportive of the pro- iposed action. ! e 'Councilwoman Campbell asked if there would be any connection between this proposal iand the special advisory committee suggested by the Land Use Commission under the new State land use law. She thought the suggested study would be a definite asset in the State's process. John Porter, planning director, answered that any growth , s'tudy would be a key element in State land use p,lanning but that the State under , the new law had not progressed to a point yet where there would be any conflict in ,this area. He added that he thought LCOG was the body that should consider the question as quickly as possible, that he would tend to favor the Mayor's suggestion Jor a more definitive statement of areas to be covered by the study. Councilman Murray did not oppose the proposed amendment although he felt it unneces- sary and that it did not make it clear that the Council was definitely in favor of 'such a study. Councilwoman Campbell wondered whether this study would pre-empt priorities of ,the General Plan refinement studies in progress. Mayor Anderson thought priorities would be a question mark in view of the monumental undertaking of a growth study, some he knew of having taken as much as four or five years to complete. Councilman Wood thought if an effort was to be made for co-operation with other governmentaL uni ts in, the_ study considerat_ion would have to be~i~~~ .t~ thei~_ priC!rities also. " Intent of the amending motion was restated - to direct a letter to LCOG--: i Board stating that the city in attempting to implement a Community Goals \ - ! proposal on growth study was consideri~g'adoption of a resolution, and , I recognizing the unique capabilities of LCOG's operation in this area the : Council would appreciate review and comment upon the resolution and sug- , I gestions for revision prior to formal consideration. ' i i ! I Vote was taken on the amending motion. It carri~d, .council Comm i members Williams, Hershner, Keller, and Wood vot~ng aye; ~ Council members M~ald, Campbell, and Murray voting no. 9/J/8/74 I::::::~'~-;he :~::oti~:-:;;<O~sta~d~-'to- ;;;:~e ;fu;proposed Approve i resolution (presented by Council members Beal and Murray) revised \ to delete reference to MAPAC but calling for a jointly~appointed i citizens conmlittee to conduct a' growth study, and to send the I resolution to LCOG Board for consideration and comment. .. , \ Vote was taken on the main motion as amended, which carried " unanimously, all Council members present voting aye. , . ..- .. - ....- . ,..-.-_. . - - - .-". -_.... - _..-. .- - -- -. ,- --- - -." __on r+ .._~... . _"'_ Councilwoman Beal stated she was satisfied with the disposition of the resolution proposed by herself and Councilman Murray calling for a study of costs of metropolitan area growth. '.: However, she hoped a greater sense of urgency would be transmitted to LCOG in view of the recent ain pollution alert - the second this summer. She felt utmost care should be taken in planning wi~h regard to disposition of the types of industry and jobs or any- thing, having a bearing on the amount of pollution going into the air. Councilman Wood said that as a member of the LCOG Board he would convey the Council's interests and the sense of urgency spoken to by Mrs. Beal. Councilman Williams said that the Chairman of the LCOG Board had indicated the Board's great interest in this resolution, its dis- position, and its concerns. Mr. Williams was sure the Board would pursue making a rational response to the resolution as soon as possible. ",!>~e, 9/23/74 - 3