Laserfiche WebLink
Metro Area Planning Commissions <br /> April 20, 2004 <br /> Page 7 of 8 .. <br /> <br /> The minimum requirement for inclusion in the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles <br /> and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a project listing is required, not a <br /> description of categories of projects <br /> <br /> In summary, it appears that the proposed amendments conflict with the structure of the Metro <br /> Plan because they are for a d~fferent, longer time frame. As such, they can't be'demonstrated <br /> to consist of the projects needed to implement the land use designations in the plan. They <br /> implement something more than what the plan provides for. <br /> <br /> More significantlY, it appears that' the amendments are too skinny. The target for the <br /> amendments should be to provide, as a part of the PFSP and the Metro Plan the information <br /> that the LCDC Rules require be a part of any element of a public facilities plan. The essential <br /> information that is missing is baseline information on the existing irr~astmcture, its location, <br /> and its condition, and a listing of specific projects proposed, their location, their rough cost, <br /> and their approximate timing. <br /> <br /> As a starting point, the Planning Commissions might ask staffto analyze their proposed <br /> amendments in light of the requirements of the LCDC Rule. <br /> <br /> Thank you for your consideration. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br /> cc: Roxie Cuellar <br /> <br /> 2-12 <br /> <br /> <br />