Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Attorneys and <br />Counselors at Law <br />Established jglO <br /> <br />j:~.> j.f..c'j i~ 'l;; (.,. d. ..j :.11 >;'~:.~'.~:;' <br />;:'11" '::~ i!.....~.IUI;',/{/.\: "'t.;k fiP" 1;'=.", <br /> <br />200 FORUM BUILDING <br /> <br />777 High Street <br /> <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />97401..2782 <br /> <br />PHONE <br />541686-9160 <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 />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 />NOV 1 4 2006 <br /> <br />C~[P)lf <br /> <br />PAZC n6 - ~ hS..J <br />ORDYAJ~~ <br />Date l t - :J..~ - (2.G <br />Nqvember 10, 2006 --J.-.I <br />Exhibit No. ~~ <br /> <br /> <br />Via Hand Delivery <br /> <br />Elnily N. Jerome, sq. <br />Harrang Lon ary Rud11ick P.C. <br />360 East lOt , Slli te300 <br />Ellge11e R 97401 <br /> <br /> <br />Lilnits 011 Discretio11 and 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 substantial discussion, the council tied on whether to follow the City <br />Code requirement that its review of the plan amendment be limited to the <br />record. Apparently believing that al1Y error would be procedural and could <br />be cured by providing 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 new evidence on the plan amendme11t, it would commit reversible <br />error. <br /> <br />First, we note that the City has no role in deciding whether to approve <br />al1Y zone chal1ge that might follow approval of a comprehensive plan <br />amendmel1t. Legal counsel for Lane County apparently believes the <br />procedures for the possible rezone weigh in favor of ignoring the County's <br />express code requirement that the Board proceeding on the plan amendment <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 understand the desire for comity between the City and County, a desire <br />to cooperate Cal1not 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 />