02/12/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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