07/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- The Committee cwd would meet the approval of the voters. recommended presentation of the revised proposal to the voters at the "soonest possible t,ime. " e to accept the recommend- COffim Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Hamel ations of the Joint Parks Committee and set a public hearing 7/21/76 for lIuCJust 9. Approve In answer to Mrs. Real's question on how the committee established pri.orities and in what order, Mr. Murray stated that the criteria developed was wi thin the framework of publi.c policy statements such as the 1990 plan, the South Hills study, etc. Mrs. Shirey added tha t the committee has dealt with the plan for two years. priorities have been suggest1?d but other factors will include availab.le dollars, what land is on the ma rket, etc. So after the plan qa.ins voter approval, she said, the Joint Committee would meet and decide which areas could be acqu.i.red wi th funds available. Parks Director Ed Smith commented that the priority setting for the programs was a long-range project. Some flexibili ty was built into the program ,s.ince land availability sometimes a1.ters the priori tir''<=;. Mrs. Beal, however, wanted to see some prior.ities l.i sted. Mrs. Shirey responded that for the last two years the Joint Committee had been attempting to address every major area. Their efforts have been constantly thwarted by the Counci 1 and the Budget Committee. The proposal developed was the best they could do, she said, given thc lack of lab tude. e It was recognized that acquisibon in the south ridgeline area - would be the first prior.i ty under this proposal. Mr. Keller said that because plans for that area had been held up the proposal should now ])0 takcn to the voters. Also, he is of the opinion that the oroposed allocah.on for the ridqeline acquisition should bc' uS(ld for tha t pur post'. Vote was taJ;en on the motion as stated. Madan carr.ied tlnani mousl y. N. Urban Development Proposal - Assistant Manager noted that, on July 19, the Planning Commission will be considering a process proposed by Lane County for creation of new urban development centers. It is a major policy issue that will impact on the city. A copy of the staff notes to the Planning Commission was distributed to Council members and they were advised that the discussion of the subject would be on the July 2l Committee of the Whole Agenda along with the Planning Commission's recommendation. CC1mm Lane County proposal Lor __~l!..ew l!!:y-(']opment_.._cenJ:~!~ - ,'viemo w~~. 7/14/76 dis-trj buted to Cuunci 1 71emhc.'Ts on July l4 stat lng the plannJ.ng dt~partmcnt staff concerns about the county's proposal for a pr.ocess for creat i.on of new development centers. Manager. noted that staff would like to express its concerns about the process outl.inc>d before the county adopts anyth i ng. e to authorize staff to Corom Mrs. lh 'a 1 moved second by NT. II a me!] 7/21/76 noti fy the Count~y Comm.issioncrs of the city's desire to Approve dj scuss .i ts concerns on this i tom before the county takes act.ion. Mot.ion carr.ied unanimously. 3511 7/26/76 - 19 .---"'- '..~