Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT D <br /> RECEIVED <br /> <br />November 29, 2004 <br /> NOV 2 9 2O04 <br />R : RA 04-1 (Laurel Hill Plan Amendment) <br /> <br /> CITY' OF EUGENE <br /> PL,A Nf,~l!qG DE!;ArVi'~ENT <br /> Eugene Mayor and City Councilors: <br /> <br /> We have received a copy of the memorandum from Patricia Thomas dated <br /> November 22, 2004 and have the following comment. In the event that Council <br /> directs Planning staff to initiate an amendment process to the Laurel Hill Plan <br /> in lieu of granting RA 04-1, we recommend that the scope of the task be defined <br /> as re-examining the geographic area included in the commercial node in the <br /> East Laurel Hill area in light of changed circumstances since the creation of the <br /> node. We believe that the public process should include a dialog among <br /> affected property owners in East Laurel Hill, the leadership of the neighborhood <br /> association and Planning staff, as well as a comment opportunity for members <br /> of the public. <br /> <br />We have received a copy of the memorandum from the City Attorney dated <br /> November 24, 2004 and have no comments on his answers to questions from <br /> Council. <br /> <br />At last inquiry, there were no additional materials from the applicant for us to <br />comment on. <br /> <br />Our position remains that RA 04-1 should be denied because it does not meet <br />EC 9.8424( 1)(c} which requires consistency with the remaining portions of the <br />refinement plan. The portion of the Laurel Hill Plan with which the application <br />is not consistent is Policy 5 for the East Laurel Hill area that states <br /> <br /> No additional sector of East Laurel Hill shall be designated for commercial <br /> purposes until a public need can be demonstrated. <br /> (Laurel Hill Plan, p 15} <br /> <br />It is our position that none of the three proposed findings on the matter of <br />public need rise to the level of an authentic public need. Rather than restate <br />the reasons for this position, I refer you to previous oral and written testimony <br />from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens. <br /> <br />It remains our believe that the overriding public need in this case is the <br />preservation of the integrity of our neighborhOod refinement plan, and the <br />certainty that this brings to property owners who have abided by its policies <br />and goals as they seek to develop their properties. <br /> <br /> Sincerely, <br /> <br /> Wostmann <br /> Chair, Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br /> <br /> <br />