My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/24/1975 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1975
>
11/24/1975 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2007 9:54:16 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:14:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/24/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> . <br /> strides are being made in the area of technological innovation. Passage <br /> e of any alternative would go far beyond the intended scope of merely <br /> accepting guidelines. <br /> Bill Carlton, 1091 West Broadway, supports mass transit and the efforts <br /> so far made in planning studies. He feels it is unfortunate that the <br /> planners to date have not gone deeper into the possibilities that mass <br /> transit will bring. The end product is to serve a person who is walking down <br /> the street. He for one would like to see a referendum. "Maybe we should <br /> just have it out", he said. He concluded that "most of my friends are <br /> people and I am not friendly with very many cars." <br /> B. Procedures for Amendment to 1990 General Plan <br /> Planning COmnUssion at its September 22, 1975, meeting recommended adoption <br /> (II-A-2) of the following procedures relative to the amendment of the 1990 General <br /> Plan: 1. Initiation of amendment by local jurisdiction, review and early <br /> coordination by staffs of other jurisdictions, public hearings conducted <br /> by the initiating jurisdiction, and optional establishment, by local <br /> jurisdictions, of additional procedures for citizen participation; 2. If <br /> all three governing bodies accept the identical amendment, the LCOG Board <br /> would ratify the amendment, with no further action required; 3. With consensus <br /> by all three jurisdictions on the identical amendment, the initiating jurisdiction <br /> would have the authority to adopt, amendment to become final in 30 days; <br /> 4. After action by a local jurisdiction on a proposed amendment, the other <br /> jurisdictions and MAPAC would have 30 days to respond - either by concurrence, <br /> silence or dissent. If no dissent, the amendment would be immediately forwarded <br /> to LCOG for ratification and inclusion in the metropolitan plan. In the <br /> e event of dissent, the following steps would be taken: (a) the objecting party <br /> would notify the body adopting the amendment within 30 days and schedule a <br /> meeting at the planning commission level, governing body level or both, <br /> depending upon circumstances. If the meeting results in resolution, the <br /> amendment would be forwarded to LCOG for ratification; if modifications are <br /> made, the local body would conduct new hearings and refer the modified amendment <br /> to the other jurisdictions and MAPAC; if no resolution, stage 2 would be <br /> implemented. (b) Second Stage. Refer to LCOG Board for resolution. <br /> (c) Third Stage. Appeal of LCOG decision by any local jurisdiction or MAPAC. <br /> The appeal would be made to the LCDC, appellant being required to demonstrate <br /> that the LCOG decision violated state goals and guidelines. The appeal would <br /> have to be submitted within 60 days following LCOG Board action. <br /> Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented. <br /> Resolution No. 2458 - Authorizing procedures for amendment to 1990 <br /> General Plan was read by number and title. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. <br /> Mr. Bradley wondered what action Springfield and Lane County were considering. <br /> Planning Director noted that the County is considering similar amendment <br /> procedures, and he understands that Springfield is generally in agreement <br /> as well. <br /> .e Mr. Bradley suggested that, if the amendment procedures are not adopted by <br /> either Springfield or Lane County, the matter should be brought back to Council. <br /> Mayor Anderson felt it was the intent of the commissioners and the city of <br /> Springfield to have unanimity on procedures, that it would automatically be <br /> brought back if that did not occur. <br /> Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. <br /> 620 11/24/75 - 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.