11/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. strides are being made in the area of technological innovation. Passage e of any alternative would go far beyond the intended scope of merely accepting guidelines. Bill Carlton, 1091 West Broadway, supports mass transit and the efforts so far made in planning studies. He feels it is unfortunate that the planners to date have not gone deeper into the possibilities that mass transit will bring. The end product is to serve a person who is walking down the street. He for one would like to see a referendum. "Maybe we should just have it out", he said. He concluded that "most of my friends are people and I am not friendly with very many cars." B. Procedures for Amendment to 1990 General Plan Planning COmnUssion at its September 22, 1975, meeting recommended adoption (II-A-2) of the following procedures relative to the amendment of the 1990 General Plan: 1. Initiation of amendment by local jurisdiction, review and early coordination by staffs of other jurisdictions, public hearings conducted by the initiating jurisdiction, and optional establishment, by local jurisdictions, of additional procedures for citizen participation; 2. If all three governing bodies accept the identical amendment, the LCOG Board would ratify the amendment, with no further action required; 3. With consensus by all three jurisdictions on the identical amendment, the initiating jurisdiction would have the authority to adopt, amendment to become final in 30 days; 4. After action by a local jurisdiction on a proposed amendment, the other jurisdictions and MAPAC would have 30 days to respond - either by concurrence, silence or dissent. If no dissent, the amendment would be immediately forwarded to LCOG for ratification and inclusion in the metropolitan plan. In the e event of dissent, the following steps would be taken: (a) the objecting party would notify the body adopting the amendment within 30 days and schedule a meeting at the planning commission level, governing body level or both, depending upon circumstances. If the meeting results in resolution, the amendment would be forwarded to LCOG for ratification; if modifications are made, the local body would conduct new hearings and refer the modified amendment to the other jurisdictions and MAPAC; if no resolution, stage 2 would be implemented. (b) Second Stage. Refer to LCOG Board for resolution. (c) Third Stage. Appeal of LCOG decision by any local jurisdiction or MAPAC. The appeal would be made to the LCDC, appellant being required to demonstrate that the LCOG decision violated state goals and guidelines. The appeal would have to be submitted within 60 days following LCOG Board action. Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2458 - Authorizing procedures for amendment to 1990 General Plan was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Mr. Bradley wondered what action Springfield and Lane County were considering. Planning Director noted that the County is considering similar amendment procedures, and he understands that Springfield is generally in agreement as well. .e Mr. Bradley suggested that, if the amendment procedures are not adopted by either Springfield or Lane County, the matter should be brought back to Council. Mayor Anderson felt it was the intent of the commissioners and the city of Springfield to have unanimity on procedures, that it would automatically be brought back if that did not occur. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 620 11/24/75 - 9