My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 12/12/06 Joint Public Hearing
>
Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:58:15 PM
Creation date
12/7/2006 11:34:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
12/12/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />DuPriest has asked that this be honored. <br /> <br />The City Council and County Board are allowed, however, to admit more evidence if they so <br />decide. This is especially true if the hearing is used to collect evidence for both the <br />Metro Plan amendment and the zone change. Legal counsel for both the City and County <br />concur-that it is acceptable for the elected bodies to keep the Metro Plan/Zoning hearings <br />together and to allow new evidence at this hearing. <br /> <br />Kurt <br /> <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: KELLY David S <br />Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:29 AM <br />To: YEITER Kurt M <br />Cc: KLEIN Glenn (Harrang)i MUIR Susan Li TAYLOR Dennis M; *Eugene Mayor and City Council; <br />JONES Angel L <br />Subject: confusing legalities re this Weds Delta Sand hearing <br /> <br />Kurt -- <br /> <br />(Note that I've cc'd Angel Jones because she's AlC city manager todaYi thank goodness she <br />doesn't have to deal with this issue in the <br />future... .) <br /> <br />OK, I'm confused. I'm reading the AIS for Wednesday's hearing. In the 2nd paragraph it <br />says that our hearing is based on the record formed by the planning commissions. If that's <br />the case, we wouldn't be taking any new testimony, right? <br /> <br />But the very same sentence says the hearing is "de novo" -- I thought that term meant that <br />you *do* accept new evidence. But that would contradict other words in the same sentence. <br /> <br />And to further complicate matters, we have the 10/25/06 letter from Doug DuPriest that <br />says the plan amendment decision must be based solely on the record created before the <br />planning commissions. (cites EC 9.740(4)}, and the plan amendment is the only part we <br />weigh in on. (According to the AIS, the zone change and variances are completely up to the <br />Board of <br />Commissioners.) <br /> <br />The AIS also seems to take a middle ground, saying "the decision markers can decide to <br />accept more evidence." This statement is made without citation to any Eugene Code or state <br />law. <br /> <br />The DuPriest letter also requests that we split the hearing into two pieces, and it would <br />seem the city council wouldn't need to participate in the 2nd piece. <br /> <br />Help! Can somebody disambiguate this stuff for us before Wednesday? <br /> <br />Thank you - <br />David <br /> <br />Messages to and from this email address may be available to the public under Oregon Public <br />Records Law. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.