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

Home Browse Search

s. Eugene Mayor and City Council October 25, 2006 Page 2 Following the combined decision on the plan amendment, a second "de novo" hearing could then be held to address the rezoning application. This approach would permit the City and County to give effect to all relevant provisions of th€ir Codes. It would also eliminate the risk that the County or City would improperly rely on new evidence to render a decision on the plan amendmen~. Given the complexity of this case, the Council is.urilikely to resolve this matter with only one hearing. Since multiple hearings are likely, following the sequence specified by the Code may pot result in "more hearings." Moreover, a bifurcated hearing could provide for a speedier and more economical resolution of the case, as a decision denying the plan amendment at the first hearing could elimi.nate the need for a. second hearing. / Heretofore, applicants have had a consolidated review pr~)Cess on their applkations. However, as a practical matter, the planning commissions for the City and County have performed this consolidated review in a series of hearings due to the number of issues in the application. Bifurcating the hearing, at this time, to conform to the City and County codes would not fund amen tall y alter how the applications are reviewed. Instead, it would provide a different way of organizing these multiple hearings before the final decision-makers, and one that would take into account all of the prior work done by the planning commISSIons. For all the foregoing reasons, we request that the hearing on the plan amendment and zone change be bifurcated into. two separate proceedings. Very trllly yours, HUTCHINSON, COX, COONS, DuPRIEST, ORR & SHERLOCK, P.C. QQVfV, [?r(C Douglat M. DuPnest Zack P. Mittge Enclosure (copy of letter to Lane County Board of Commissioners) cc: Clients Lane County Board of Commissioners Stephen V orhes Emily Jerome Steven Cornacchia