02/12/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the major planning responsibility in the communities and is the opposite of the i Federal participation in planning which is to permit acti.ve use of local jurisdic- ;tions. He said moratorium at the State level would meet the crisis of transition I . lof ,ag;c:cultural lands to suburban areas. That problem would be better met through 1 local ,control. With regard to effect on smaller communities, he said the bill gives ! each' communi ty an opportuni ty to meet State gui delines. It that is not done the ,State makes the plan at the community's expense, funds being authorized from the ci ty , s share of State revenues. . In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Pearson said the position stated was with unanimous consent of those Planning Commission members present at the time it was discussed. There was concern at that time that opposition to the bill would make strange allies. Mrs. Campbell expressed concern that if this bill is defeated there would be nothing done in the area of Statewide planning. Mr. Murray wondered whether Mr';~ Pearson could be allowed to state opposition as the position of the Planning Commission rather than for the City itself. Or whether the timing was such that the matter could not be moved to another agenda. It was imderstood that hearing on the bill is scheduled at the same time formal action by the Council is scheduled on this request, and i tis plann:.~ to forward the Council's action to Mr. Pearson in Salem. Mr. Hershner asked if a substitute bill will be recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pearson said the Commission was informed that the League Board of Directors had recommended substitution of another bill. Commission action included that recom- mendation. ,Councilman Williams stated that City opposition to this bill does not mean opposi- 'tion to development of Statewide planning, nor does the League- oppose Statewide planning. However, they do oppose the approach taken by S.B.lOO. He said the bill does not provide for development of a Statewide plan by professional developers nor for extensive public hearings. The State agency would adopt its own plan.,_~Mr..--- ,Williams thinks that should be a function of the Legislature where elected offi.cials I can testify and vote on what is proposed. ! iMrs. Beal asked whether the Commission had ~y amendments to S.B.lOO which would . make it acceptable. Her concern was with urgency of need for some kind of land , use planning for the State. Mr. Pearson said the Commission feels strongly that :, the proposed bill is so misdirected that it would not be satisfactory unless com- : pletely rewritten. Planning staff input and assistance are needed to prepare the :proper kind of legislation. . Mrs. Campbell expressed concern that the City's being on record in opposition to S.B.IOO would imply that the City is opposed to the entire concept of State planning. Mr. Pearson said the Commission is not asking that legislation on State planning be killed, only that this bill be set aside and alternatives initiated in this session 'of the Legislature. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Pearson said one amendment which would make the bill more palatable to the commission would be to exclude Lane County from its provisions. . Manager said it might be helpful to understand, the effect of the bill as written if areas of concern were recogni zed - every waterway, every State hi ghway, every historical monument becomes a State concern. So the Willamette River inside the City becomes a State concern, the same is true of State highways inside Eugene, and there is no provision for local input into the decision process which would occur under this bill. Local control woul d be lost. Mrs. Beal di dn ' t want the ci ty of Eugene to be put on record as opposIng the 'concept of land use planning. Councilman Wood argued that the testimony presented wouId-notbe against the ,concept of land , use planning, rather it would be for more adequate planning for such legislation and calling attention to weaknesses in the proposed bill about which there is-great concern Mrs. Beal said she would like to see a statement of the main points to be bro,ught up in the commission's testimony to be sure the city is not opposing Statewide land use planning in principal. She did not wish to restrict the presentation but was concerned only with that part which is City policy. Mr. Pearson felt a structured outline of points without discussion would be ineffective. Manager said it seems ,the commission position is in favor of a good land use planning bill. Emphasis--in that manner would put Eugene on record as being favorable toward the concept but not toward the details of S.B.IOO. '\" . iMIS'. Beal felt the present climate is conducive to passage of this typtp legislation ;and that delay without offering substitute legislation would kill altogether any hope ,for Statewide planning. Mr. Pearson expressed concern for good Statewide plan- ning but on the basis that moving the responsibility from local agencies could bring 1." 2/l2/73 - 2