Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-' <br /> <br /> <br />Attorneys and <br />Counselors at Law <br />Established /970 <br /> <br />JJ;; ::"~::~,~ ~'J:~~~ J1(:;;;:; "4 <br /> <br />00 FORUM BUILDING <br /> <br />777 High Street <br /> <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />97401-2782 <br /> <br /> <br />PHONE <br />541 686-9160 <br /> <br />FAX <br />541 343..8693 <br /> <br />www.eugene-Iaw.com <br /> <br />James K. Coons <br /> <br />John G. Cox <br /> <br />Douglas M. DuPriest <br /> <br />Frank C. Gibson <br /> <br />.tephen 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 />Nav 1 4 2006 <br /> <br />~(Q)[Plf <br /> <br />PAZC n~ -.G~ <br />ORD Y.A J ~ '6. <br />NQyember 10,2006 Date--LJ - ~;:1- Db <br />Exhibit No. ~~ <br /> <br /> <br />Elnily N. Jerome, sq. <br />Harrang LOll ary Rudllick P.C. <br />360 East 1 at! , Stli te 300 <br />Ellgel1.e R 97401 <br /> <br />Via Hand Delivery <br /> <br /> <br />Lilnits 011 Discretiol1 al1d Scope of Review <br />Delta Sand and Gravel Plan Amendmellt/ Rezone <br /> <br />Our Cliellts: Joel and Therese N arva <br />Our File No. 9064A <br /> <br />Dear Emily: <br /> <br />This follows from the recent City Council meeting on this matter. <br />After substalltial discussion, the council tied on whether to follow the City <br />Code requiremellt that its review of the plan amendment be limited to the <br />record. Apparel1t1y believing that al1.Y error would be procedural and could <br />be cured by providillg an opportunity to respond, the Mayor broke the tie in <br />favor of allowing new evidence. Should the City Council open the record and <br />accept 1l.eW evidell.Ce 011 tll.e plaIl amendmellt, it would commit reversible <br />error. <br /> <br />First, we 110te that the City has no role in deciding whether to approve <br />allY ZOlle challge that might follow approval of a comprehensive plan <br />amendment. Legal counsel for Lane County apparently believes the <br />proCedtlres for tlle possible reZOl1e weigh in favor of ignoring the County's <br />express code requirement that the Board proceeding on the plaIl amendmel1t <br />be limited to the record. While we dispute the County's authority to <br />disregard its adopted procedures, how the County decides to handle this <br />issue is irrelevant to what the City Code requires the City to do. While we <br />can understalld the . desire for comity betweell the City and COUllty, a desire <br />to cooperate call1lot trump the requirement that the City comply with its own <br />Code. <br /> <br />Second, the City confined its discretion when it adopted EC 9.7740(4): <br />