02/12/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the possibility of commercial land development being decided at the legislative level without sympathy for local concerns. Councilman williams said the poli tical climate appears to be turning toward the planning concept, not away from it, so that delay would not appear likely to do away entirely with land use planning legislation. He added that adoption of weak legislation on the basis that the ob- jective is sound is not the right approach. What is suggested in the Commission's position is an approach directed toward accomplishing the long-range objective of an intelligent Statewide planning document. With regard to a substitute bill, it is a major undertaking and his understanding that work is proceeding toward draft- ,ing legislation through the League of Oregon ci ties. . Answering Mrs. Campbell, Manager said the recently adopted Council resolution would not allow Mr. Pearson to testify on behalf of the commission without Council approval. He could as a member of the Commission, but not on its behalf. Comm . 2/7 /73 Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried. - - '. ..-." Council President Beal opened the issue to public hearing and called on those favoring the Planning Commission stand in opposition to the bil1~ . Ralph Fulbright, member of the Lane County Planning Commission; Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street; and Jim Hosey, architect and planner, urged Council endorsement of the Planning Commission stand against S.B.IOO. Mr. Fulbright read a summary of the MacPherson bill which he said contained a number of things which destroy the process of public hearing and do not provide for citizen input. He said there is planning, either professional or on contractual basis with consultants, in most areas of the State at this time and sufficient control under present enabling laws over land use planning. All expressed the opinion that the bill. as written would remove local control of planning and especially with regard to lands adjacent to the Willamette River, State highways, etc., inside the city of Eugene. Joseph Holaday, 242 South Garden Way, expressed concern about land uses in Lane County out- side the city of Eugene and the rest of the State. He cited the extension of water services to the Goshen area by EWEB as an example of need for land use control over and above that in existence. He felt the Planning Commission should prepare amendments which would make the bill meet, their objections. He asked that the Council's tentative approval of the Planning Commission's stand be rescinded. Grant Seder, 2385 McLean Boulevard, and Gerald Brewster, president of the Beaverton Planning Commission, both members of the Oregon Association of Architects, were in favor of S.B.100. They felt it would bring co-ordination of planning activities throughout the State and that it would not usurp the power of local planning authorities. They said that in areas of non- critical concern, such as Eugene, the bill provides only that certain criteria of planning be considered. - Others favoring passage of the bill were 'Mary Briscoe, speaking for the League of Wom~n Voters, and Stanton Cook, 1832 Longview Avenue. They saw it as a device for improving State and local land use planning, and as carrying Eugene's planning standards to the rest of the State rather than downgrading it. Councilman McDonald asked if terms of the bill would remove control whiCh the Eugene Planning Commission and Council have with regard to land use. Mr. Morgan said his under- standing is that if criteria established by local planning commissions do not meet that of the State agency then the City cannot function. The bill denies citizen input from the local level. Mr. Brewster argued that decision making if based on sound data would be left in the City's charge. The bill offers co-ordination of planning activities, allowing the State agency to'establish guidelines and regulations. Mr. Fulbright read Section 24 of the proposed bill which provides that local planning will be approved by the State if it is consistent with provisions contained in the bill. Maradel Gale, 2232 McMillan Street, said the State would set minimum standards. If local planning falls below those standards, then the State's regulation would apply. She said Eugene exceeds them now, but many parts of the State do not. .' Councilman Murray asked Mr. Morgan where he felt conflict with State regulations would arise if Eugene's planning is considered superior. Mr. Morgan replied that it would be in judgments involved in areas of planning. This bill does not provide for citizen partici- pation in establishing criteria, and he feels Eugene planners should have a voice. He said the Council's responsibility is not to the State or other parts of Oregon but to the city of Eugene and its interests. A series of guidelines have been adopted in Eugene which work, those which the State may adopt are unknown. 'He said that he was not implying that Eugene would be required to lower its planning standards, but he felt that witho~t the opportunity for local people to make modifications in established criteria, commissioners at the State level would not have concern specifically for Eugene's best interests. 1-7 2/12/73 - 3