12/03/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inclusion within the UGB. Mr. Driscoll urged officials not to forget the - clear, strong reasons for including POlicy 21. He also said the LCC Basin had been moved in and out of the plan several times, adding that if the area was not to be included in the UGB, property owners would prefer that it be taken out altogether so that it would come only under the jurisdiction of the County, rather than of all three governments. He also said proposed studies might clarify the pOlicy. Mr. Driscoll said seven requests had been submitted regarding the LCC Basin as a potential high-tech industrial park with research and educational facili- ties. He said three requests also had been submitted regarding the process for citizen-initiated amendments, adding that he thought staff and planning commissions had greatly improved the process, but some difficulties still existed in trying to coordinate between the three jurisdictions. Mr. Driscoll said property owners urged adoption of the policies, but would prefer the original policy 21. He also said they commended planning commissions, staffs, and officials for their efforts. Mr. Driscoll said policy 21 had clearly specified that a plan was to be prepared for the basin prior to the next plan update. He said this plan had waited since 1982 for the Mid-Period Review, but he understood that MAPAC and MPC were considering a timeline for an alternative growth area study that would include the LCe Basin, to be initiated in January and possibly with some result in June. He urged officials to implement that process as well. Mr. Rust said he thought Mr. Driscoll should be commended for his involvement. e D. Close Public Hearing Hearing no further requests to speak, Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on the plan text and auxiliary map amendments. E. Discussion, Comments, Questions Ms. Larson opened the floor for discussion of public testimony on plan text and auxiliary map amendments. Mr. Holmer asked staff to respond to Mr. Silvermoon1s statement regarding the proposed energy policy addressing only electrical energy. Mr. Gordon said Mr. Silvermoon's statement was correct, and officials directed staff to review the existing policy in the plan and the Lane Electric Plan more carefully and to come back with a recommendation. Mr. Rust also suggested that staff review the wording of Goal 5 and clarify the language about the 30-day time limit, the preliminary judgment on the identified natural resource, and what would happen after that. Ms. Larson noted that only wording, not content, was to be changed. Mr. Ivey said he questioned the population figure of 293,000, and some members indicated that he was not alone in that feeling. Mr. DeFazio said he under- stood that when the T-2000 Plan was developed the population projections should continue to be used because statistics from the late 1970s were an e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 5