08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Councilman Bradley asked if the August 25 hearing on the Plan amendment was required and whether an amendment-would be by way of ordinance or _resolution. Assistant Manager answered that public hearing was required. The Council in adopting the General Plan provided that the Plan could be amended after public testimony was taken. e John Porter added that-state law requires public hearing. The Planning Commission has always conducted public hearings, he said, although that is not spelled out in its procedures. Assistant Manager added that that public hearing requirement on this issue may have been met in Commission hearings. He said that if Plan amendment was authorized it would be accomplished by resolution. He referred to action at the July 28 Council meeting amending the General Plan as it related to the Whiteaker area. He also stressed the August 15 deadline for submittal of written material for the August 25 hearing. Items 4, 5, and 6 of the letter requested public hearing on the Livingston & Blayney recommendation relating to site selection and timing considerations for a third regional shopping center, completion of that public hearing and public hearing on each of the other Livingston & Blayney recommendations prior to final adoption of any of them, and inclusion in that series of public hearings a review of L&B recom- mendations already adopted by the Council. Jim Saul, planner, asked for consolidation of these three requests since they dealt with essentially the same thing. He acknowledged that treatment of any part of the commercial study was the Council's choice and that he would attempt only to give staff's evaluation of the items requested in Mr. Cleveland's letter. He said that the three requests ignore the previous history of public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Council on all of the items. They also ignore the essen- tial nature of recommendations of the commercial study, he said, citing as an example the recommendation with regard to detailed development plan for the area to the west of downtown. He said the Commission has indicated that is a process which "lill have - to occur and that it would occur through the housing and community development process. He thought it made little sense to consider~nother public hearing when h9arings had already been held before both the Commission and tbe Council, and further hearings .would be held before the process was completed. Another hearing -:...' .: :-.n.LS f:.7 {tit? r;.';.'Jd2 ~:7 '-;J?; 7~' (1 e 1 Cl.y i~h,.l-'; p.>' :...:r::f.::!~:;S 4 l-{:-. a 2.50 nD ::-::-:'(? t.h -1 L ,::he J~S:.~'" ~-';'CC):-::.-:.-:::_-:.-?~-. .~.iDI1 ~.,;~~. :":}1 reg.;J2.~d to ';1.1:-"J"':) t}_"(]n:; it US'Cl.'f/.f..;! sr'J.:t Is h-irl bcJA:1 ilctc.d u",oon ::.li;,d a ~:/;'~O'::-:!S:::;.. identiFied [inclusion in the ESAT5 update) which tvould in vol ve further public hear- ings before implementation. So a public hearing as requested at this time would appear futile. Mr. Saul continued that Items 4, 5, and 6 also ignore the separability of the com- mercial study recommendations. He aeknowledged the central overall direction of the study [to protect the central business district] but that, he said, didn't mean the recommendations could not be separately considered, and that factor was stressed in the status report recently given to and accepted by 'the Council. He said also that these three items would have the effect of substantially delaying the process on other recommendations. The Commission has not yet finished its consideration of recommendations concerning criteria for regional shopping centers and alternative uses for existing commercially zoned land, and to delay consideration of the General Plan amendment with regard to Goodpasture Island until Commission and Council hearings are held on the other recommendations appeared to have no merit, especially in view of the heavily loaded hearing schedule now facing the Commission. Mr. Saul said that even if the Council decided to conduct public hearings again on the other L&B recommendations prior to or with the recommendations on annexation e and zoning of the Goodpasture Island area, one cannot ignore ~the whole thrust of the commercial study, particularly as it applies to the recommendation on selection of a site for a third regional shopping center - the thrust of the study was that the Goodpasture Island area should not be one of those sites. 8/11/75 - 24 4-(0 , ~