12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Proposed by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1975. Manager noted the LCDC requirement for evaluation of the planning process for compliance with criteria for citizen involvement. After the process for citizen involvement is evaluated, then other criteria set by the LCDC would be reviewed and would include this e process. Randi Reinhard, planning department, referred to the report previously distributed to Council members and noted there were six categories included to determine whether there was adequate citizen involvement in the planning process. She read the report. Ms. Reinhard explained the proposal was to be rejected, accepted, amended, etc., for submission to LCDC by January 1, 1976. However, LCDC had provided a 60-day extension, upon application, for those needing additional time to address Plan evaluation requirements. She asked for authorization to file an application for that 60-day extension to give ample opportunity to thoroughly review evaluation of General Plan compliance with neighborhood groups and other citizens. Public hearing was opened. Pat Clausenius, 1551 West 25th Avenue, read a letter sent by Jean Reeder, president of the Fairmount Neighbors, stating reservations about the proposed procedure. Ms. Reirihard said she had talked to Ms. Reeder about the concerns expressed, and that material from other communities with regard to citizen involvement had been forwarded to the neighborhood group. She said the advisory relationship of the neighborhood group, set, out in the association's charter, had not changed. But staff has stated before, she said, that the Planning Commission is responsible for co-ordinating citizen involvement. She said the evaluation process had not yet been decided; it probably would involve two representatives from each neighbor- hood group with the end evaluation being submitted for consideration of each entire group. With regard to concern about method of choosing Planning Commission members, expressed by the group, she said that notice of vacancies had not been forwarded e to the groups prior to this time because over half of the existing groups have come into existence since the last Commission vacancy. Ms. Reinhard continued that LCDC requirements for citizen involvement appear to be aimed primarily at those areas of the state that have not adopted general plans. In cities like Eugene, citizen involvement comes into play more in changing an existing ,plan and there is a great deal of exposure because of the existing neigh- borhood groups. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Murray asked if LCDC requirements for some kind of regional involvement would mean permanent reliance on MAPAC. He wondered what would happen if MAPAC should dissolve or if funding is withdrawn, how that would affect meeting LCDC's criteria. Ms. Reinhard said involvement of all levels of government is required, that MAPAC would be useful, as in the past, in referring information to neighbor- hood groups. If that body was dissolved, amendment to the citizen involvement plan would probably be necessary. She added that it is anticipated MAPAC will be filling more of a planning policy function in the future, so funding may not be crucial. In response to Mr. Murray, she said MAPAC may not be involved in such things as the General Plan update although discussion in that regard had not yet resolved the primary role. Counclman Haws asked if it was staff intent to make a real distinction between chartered and unchartered neighborhood groups. Ms. Reinhard said there was a need '411 to somehow indicate groups which were chartered or working toward getting a charter " as distinct from unchartered groups not speaking for a neighborhood. She said tbis. was partly because,oi; historical_ prol?lems wher~ certain ,grqups CQuld not m,eet .. , , 12~/T5 -'4 .b35' _.......~.-....