02/12/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CouncUwnman Camph.e.ll note.dthat Countf' CQuun~ioner~, Ea~\Ul,rd and, Omlid are supporting S. B.IOQ"and asfce.d that tfi.eir :rtateme.nt-favortn-g' too' le-gis-lation' be'1Jlade a part of the re- cord. She. didn It agree tEat Eugenepeo!,le srloUld be 'concerned only tuth Eugetle prbbleJllS; llut should feel a re.~ons-.t5.tl:ttY' fer,' land use in all parts of thed State.' 'She felt not sup- rorting thfu bill would weaken the pesitionof toe councils of governments, since the bill 1i?rovides for local districts in wIiich she said there would be 'ample opportunity for local input. She sUbmitted copies of statement.from 'the League of Women Voters in support of the bill and objected to the procedure under which the' matter was brought to the Council's attention, saying information was not available and it was not discussed prior to the committee meeting. . Councilman Wood said he had reversed his position since the committee meeting and now favors passage of the bill. He thinks some amendments wou~d be in order and he supported the ?lan- ning Commission chairman's testimony to the legislative subcommittee for those amendments if presented in his own behalf and not as the City's position. Mr. Wood said he felt too that the bill provides ample opportunity for local citizen input through the councils of governments. In answer to Councilman, Keller, Mr. Brewster. gave a definitive review of provlslons of the bill and procedures to . be followed by local, planning groups under the bill's regulations. It was brought out that no local planners were involved in drafting the legiSlation, although Mrs. Campbell said she and Councilwoman Beal did attend the two-day Governor's conference on Land Use Planning. Councilman Hershner commented on the time element involved since the legislative committee hearing is simultaneous with Council discussion. He noted the inference, that the Planning Commission's position. is that it wants this legislation ,killed and said that is not so. The Planning Commission found a number of flaws in the bill, so many in fact that there may be some difficulty in enacting the legislation in this session. The Commission is in favor of land use planning, but is concerned with local participation in decisions and about keeping those governmental functions which can be kept close to home and not in Salem. He said a number ,of those people expressing support for the concept of the bill still commented that the bill needs a number of amendments. . Betty Niven, member of the Planning Commission, concurred and said that Mr. Pearson couldn't see how the bill as now drafted could accommodate amendments to recognize plans already in existence. The greatest concerns were that the time framework for preparing Statewide plans was totally unrealistic and that it does not provide for citizen participation. She compared it to the time and the number of people involved in preparation of Eugene's 1990 General Plan. Another consideration would be the question raised by Senator MacPherson as to whether the State Lane Commission should take priority over the Department of Environmental Quality in land use control. Councilman Williams read and asked that it be entered into the record the statement of the League of Oregon Cities being presented to the legislative committee on S.B.IOO. It stated the League's basic policy position that it could not support the bill in its present form. Basic flaws are that'the level of funding provided is inadequate (he compared the $500,000 spending for environmental impact statement on Highway 126 alone to the proposed $300,000 for total Statewide planning). Also procedural relationship between cities and State are es- tablished before the basic goals are established. Draft of a substitute bill is being sub- mitted by the League which would establish a commission to inventory present land uses, establish goals, develop criteria, and actually designate areas and procedure of co-ordination, all done in consultation with local governments with adequate opportunity for hearing and citizen input. . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize James Pearson, president of the Planning Commission, to present his objections to S.B.IOO as the opinion of the Eugene Planning Commission and request that he not express opposition to S.B.IOO but rather to encourage that the Oregon State Legislature adopt amendments to S.B.IOO that would cure the problems outlined by the Planning Commission testimony. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the item be tabled. Motion failed, Councilmen Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, McDonald, Hershner, and Keller voting no. Councilman Murray referred to the policy adopted by the Council that anyone testifying be- fore the Legislature have Council's permission if that testimony is to be given on behalf of the City. He" said that at no time was there support when he raised the question of autonomy of groups such as the Planning Commission as an alternative in presenting testimony on this bill. He said if the policy is set, then it should not be violated when there is conflict on an issue. Councilman Wood concurred and commented that if testimony is given as that of the Planning Commission then it would have to be considered given on behalf of the City. Councilman McDonald referred to committee action, saying it was clearly stated at that time that testimony could be given on behalf of the Planning Commission. Mrs.Beal also referred to the policy recently set that a member not be permitted to speak on behalf '."--:, , .- ~. ,~ -- Lt>> 2/12/73 - 4