Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

.,' (}fj." \;fV. r:.:'i:!:'AZC 'W~ ORD SCHULZ Stephanie E Subject: PIERCY Kitty [Kitty.PIERCY@cLeugene.or.us] exhibit No. Monday, October 30, 2006 9:56 AM YEITER Kurt M; KELLY David S KLEIN Glenn; MUIR Susan L; TAYLOR Dennis M; *Eugene Mayor and City Council; JONES Angel L; GARDNER Lisa A; JEROME Emily N; SCHULZ Stephanie E RE: confusing legalities re this Weds Delta Sand hearing From: Sent: To: Cc: That's the conclusion we came to at the planning meeting. Thanks Kurt. Kitty -----Original Message----- From: YEITER Kurt M Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:47 AM To: KELLY David S Cc: KLEIN Glenn (Harrang); MUIR Susan L; TAYLOR Dennis M; *Eugene Mayor and City Council; JONES Angel L; GARDNER Lisa A; JEROME Emily (Harrang); SCHULZ Stephanie E Subject: RE: confusing legalities re this Weds Delta Sand hearing Part of the confusion is mine, and incorrect use of "de novo." City and County Metro Plan amendment code says that a Metro Plan hearing will be based on the record formed at the Planning Commission. Mr. DuPriest has asked that this be honored. The City Council and County Board are allowed, however, to admit more evidence if they so decide. This is especially true if the hearing is used to collect evidence for both the Metro Plan amendment and the zone change. Legal counsel for both the City and County concur that it is acceptable for the elected bodies to keep the Metro Plan/Zoning hearings together and to allow new evidence at this hearing. Kurt -----Original Message----- From: KELLY David S Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:29 AM To: YEITER Kurt M Cc: KLEIN Glenn (Harrang); MUIR Susan L; TAYLOR Dennis M; *Eugene Mayor and City Council; JONES Angel L Subject: confusing legalities re this Weds Delta Sand hearing Kurt -- (Note that I've cc'd Angel Jones because she's AlC city manager today; thank goodness she doesn't have to deal with this issue in the future....) OK, I'm confused. I'm reading the AIS for Wednesday's hearing. In the 2nd paragraph it says that our hearing is ba'sed on the record formed by the planning commissions. If that's the case, we wouldn't be taking any new testimony, right? But the very same sentence says the hearing is "de novo" -- I thought that term meant that you *do* accept new evidence. But that would contradict other words in the same sentence. And to further complicate matters, we have the 10/25/06 letter from Doug DuPriest that says the plan amendment decision must be based solely on the record created before the planning commissions. (cites EC 9.740(4)), and the plan amendment is the only part we weigh in on. {According to the AIS, the zone change and variances are completely up to the Board of Commissioners.} The AIS also seems to take a middle ground, saying "the decision markers can decide to accept more evidence." This statement is made without citation to any Eugene Code or state. law. 1