Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Cotmcil Chamber <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />February 12, 1973 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br />Council President Wickes Beal in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 12, <br />1973 in the Cotmcil Chamber with the following other cotmcilmen present: Messrs. Williams, <br />McDonald, Hershner, Cotmcilwoman Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood. <br /> <br />I - S.B.100, Land Use Planning <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />S.B.IOO, Land Use Planning - Planning Commission asks for Council permission to <br />testify on behalf of the City on this pill. James Pearson, president oE.the Plan- <br />ning Commission, expressed the Commission's concerns and recognition that opposition <br />to the bill brings alignment wi th people and attitudes wi th which the Commission <br />: would not normally be compatible. The commission's concerns relate to the quality <br />of planning in this city and county and possibility that that quality may be diluted <br />! by the scope of this bill. Tradi tionally the State has not been in vol ved ~n local <br />. planning except through enabling legiSlation. This bill would establish five new <br />and separate entities above the local level. Mr. Pearson said the Commission is <br />: concerned with the bill's weakness in definition of these agencies.and their inter- <br />; relationship, and with respect to ensuring input; it makes no mention of citizen <br />participation in formulation of guidelines, objectives, and regulations. The time <br />set forth in the bill for formulation of the guidelines is unrealistic, tending to <br />promote a skimpy and superficial program, unresponsive to community attitudes. It <br />appears that amendments can be made on an interim basis without legislative approval, , <br />. and the commission feels the Legislature as a whole should be responsibile for that I <br />· activity. <br /> <br />The bill provides for issuance of permi ts through the councils of governments. The <br />Commission feels permits should be issued at the local level. The COGs are not <br />staffed to assume principal planning chores in the communi ty and permi ts required <br />are not in areas of State concern. Too, the local planning agencies can provide on- <br />I going supervision of permi ts after issuance. <br /> <br />\. <br /> <br />Mr. Pearson continued that the bill fails to recognize planning excellence in some <br />areas of the State. By rezroving local responsibility it will in effect downgrade <br />local planning. In view of very li ttle willingness on the part of some State com- <br />missions to be sensitive to local situations, the Commission is concerned about the <br />I <br />possibility that the proposed agency would be equally reluctant to follow any counsell <br />. but their own. He said this bill should be killed; legislation enacted should be <br />addressed to those areas wi th which the State should be concerned. The solution is <br />not' in taking away local level of authority, instead' it"i'~' i;; telling wh~t'-mtist be <br />done in those areas where local planning is not being done. The assumption is made <br />. that local public will not be responsible for good planning. The Commission believes! <br />,that moving responsibility to a higher level will weaken local planning. And there! <br />is the possibility that a State agency might trade off good planning for some other I' <br />: area of the State. I <br />I <br />'Mr. Pearson suggested that the Legislature instead authorize an interim conIDrittee or t <br />: planning department with staff and funding for intensive review of State involvement <br />in total planning processes and particularly of solutions to the problems with which <br />: the State is concerned. This al ternati ve will be recommended by the Directors of <br />: the League of Oregon Cities at the committee hearing on the bill. It is felt this <br />method will provide good solid answers to the concerns of the State without diluting <br />the local concerns wi th regard to good planning. <br /> <br />(', <br /> <br />Councilman Williams, a director of the League of Oregon Cities, verified that the <br />League is opposing the bill and is making the al ternati ve suggestion of an interim <br />commi ttee for intensive study of the issue. He added that boundaries set in the bill! <br />to which State regulations would apply are unrealistic, being strips adjacent to i <br />. highways, etc., and that finances proposed in the biJ-l will not do the job intended.. : <br />i . . .' , <br />. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the Planning. Commission position: <br />on S. B.IOO as stated by Mr. Pearson and authorizei ts ,presentatic:m at the legisla- ,. <br />: tive. committee hearing on the bill. ' <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/7/73 <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />· Councilwoman Campbell said it was her impression that areas of the state .such as <br />. Eugene and Lane County where there is good planning would not b.e affected~ Also <br />that there is' some urgency because of disappearance of prime agriCUltural land. <br />,She asked whether this bill pro vi des any compensation for small ci ties whi ch woul d <br />be directly affected. Mr. Pearson said one of the concerns with the bill is that 'it <br />. is poorly interpreted by its own propOnents. It provides that once State guidelines <br />are.set up all local planning efforts. must comply and that means they are sent to <br />the COG for approval. Th~.~implies that the councils of governm/fmtswill assume <br />-- -_.-~, -~ -. -'- -~'-_:--_.,---------- <br /> <br />2.S <br /> <br />2/12/73 -1 <br />