Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />.. <br /> <br />.<fII <br /> <br /> <br />Attorneys and <br />Counselors at Law <br />Established 1970 <br /> <br />I.:'XI'( ''';('/lc<,'' . , d,'ice <br />ill l/ ( 'II/tlp/('X "il/iJ.. 1M <br /> <br />200 FOFt;UM BUILDING <br /> <br />777 High Street <br /> <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />97401-2782 <br /> <br />PHONE <br />541 686-9160 <br /> <br />FAX <br />541 343-8693 <br /> <br />.\"'\V"I,e~gene.lavv .com <br /> <br />James K. Coons <br /> <br />John G. Cox <br /> <br />Douglas'M. DuPriest <br /> <br />Frank C. Gibson <br /> <br />Stephen A. Hutchinson <br /> <br />Thomas M. Orr <br /> <br />William H. Sherlock <br /> <br />E. Bradley Litchfield <br /> <br />Zack P. Mittge <br /> <br />Patrick L. Stevens <br /> <br />October 25, 2006 <br /> <br />By c~tc~/Vf2D <br />OCT .2~A.IVA.G~f:1 <br />;U06 <br /> <br />Eugene Mayor and City Council <br />City of Eugene . . <br />777 Pearl Street, Room 105 <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br /> <br />PAZC OS - ~ \~ j <br />ORD PA \~~ <br />Date -11, ~, -0 ~ <br />Exhibit No. _ a'~ , <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />Formal Request to Bifurcate <br />November 1st Hearing <br />Our Clients: Joel & Therese Nar\"a <br />Our File Nq. 6274/9064A <br /> <br />Dear City Council Members: <br /> <br />This letter is to address the separate procedures for planamendments <br />and rezoning specified in the Eugene Code in advance of the hearing <br />presently set for November 1. <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />As we have previously pointed out to the City attorney, the Eugene <br />Code provides that for a Type II - Plan Amendment Approval Process <br />involving two jurisdictions (like that at the upcoming hearing): <br /> <br />"The governing bodies' decisions shall be based solely on the <br />evidentiary record created before the planning commissions. No <br />new evidence shall be allowed at the governing body joint <br />hearing." EC 9.7740(4) <br /> <br />The Lane Code integrates the same language for two-jurisdiction plan <br />amendments. LC 12.235(4). This language is clear, mandatory and should <br />be followed. <br /> <br />While both County and City codes require on the record hearings <br />for plan amendments (where no new evidence is submitted), zone <br />changes may be treated differently. The Eugene Code appears to provide <br />for a "de novo" standard of review for hearings on rezoning. EC 9.7445. <br /> <br />Accordingly, we formally request that both jurisdictions hereby <br />bifurcate the upcoming hearing. The first hearing would be an "on the <br />record" hearing for the plan amendment component of the application. <br />This would conform to the requirements of LC 12.235(4) and EC 9.7740(4) <br />by ensuring that any decision by yourselves or the Board of <br />Commissioners on the plan amendment would be based "solely on the <br />evidentiary record created before the planning commissions" and that <br />"[n]o new evidence" would taint this decision. <br />