Ordinance No. 18686 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

)9694 CHAPTER Iv PLAN REVIEW, AMENDMENT, REFINEMENT AND JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In order for the Metropolitan Area General Plan to serve as an effective policy device to guide change and development, it must be adaptable to the changing circumstances and needs of the community, Changes to the Metropolitan Area General Plan may occur (1) as the result of periodic review in between major five --year updates, and (2) amendments initiated by any one of the three governing bodies when such amendments are necessary to provide additional guidance. There are two boundaries described in the Plan which are pertinent to the process of Plan review, amendments, refinements, and - juri sdictional responsi- bility. These boundaries (defined in Glossary, Chapter v) are: - -Urban growth boundary -- Jurisdictional boundary A. P l a n Review Review and evaluation of the Plan should include an analysis of goals, objectives and policies to determine whether or not they are being attained and implemented and a review of the basic assumptions, data and findings to identify changes in circum- stances that may have occurred. The 1990 Plan recommended. annual reviews with major updates every five years. However, two reviews actually occurred prior to the first five year update. In retrospect, annual review of _the General Plan appears to have been overly ambitious. Because the General- Plan undergoes a major update every five years, a single review midway between updates would be more realistic and can be supported for ,the following reasons: - (l) time is needed to work with the Plan and develop potential areas for review; (2) the data to conduct a review must be readily available, and more frequent reviews do not allow time to gather necessary data; (3) a review is a major under- taking and, given other ongoing planning activities, it is ques- tionable if the local governing bodies can commit the financial and staff resources for more frequent reviews; (4) governing bodies do not have the time to consider plan reviews on such a frequent schedule and (5) there is another process available (amendments initiated by governing bodies or citizens) for carrying out needed changes to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Reviewing the Metropolitan Area General Plan midway between five- year updates leaves only a two --year period between major updates and review. With this level of periodic scrutiny, the Plan can remain current and consistent with the changing character and needs of the community, Iv -1