Item 4 - Ord./Metro Plan Amend. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT C To: Elected 0fficials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield ~ Date: 7-1-04 Response to testimony entered into the record of the June 22, 2004 Joint Elected Officials Subject: Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services, Chapter V Glossary; and to proposed amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Plan. Issue Two people testified at the June 22"d joint elected officials' public hearing: Mike Hudson, Administrator of the City of Coburg, and Roxie Cuellar, Director of Government Affairs for the Home Builders Association of Lane County. This memorandum responds to that testimony. Discussion Mr. Hudson's remarks were unrelated to the proposed amendments, and instead focused on the possibility of extending sanitary sewer service to the City of Coburg.I Ms. Cuellar addressed the proposed amendments by oral testimony and with several documents she placed into the record. After the public hearing closed, the elected officials discussed the hearing testimony and asked staff to respond to the following question: why weren't the Metro Plan and PFSP amendments combined with the MWMC Facilities Plan into a single land use application and processed as comprehensive plan amendments? In addition to the single-issue response requested above, written material submitted by the Home Builders and Bill Kloos, attorney-at-law representing the Home Builders, raise the same questions about process, and additional questions about land use planning, statutory requirements for content of public facilities plans, and the appellate process. Response These same issues were raised by the same representatives at the joint planning commission hearing on these amendments. Staff responded to this testimony and entered these responses into the record of that hearing (6-22-04 JEO packet, Attachment #3 Table of Contents, Documents #1 and #22; and Attachment g4). In addition, Ms. Cuellar submitted a memorandum dated May 27, 2004, prepared by legal counsel for MWMC, City of Springfield and City of Eugene. Though this May 27th memorandum is directly related to these proceedings, it was not part of the record until Ms. Cuellar submitted it on June 22nd. As it happens, this memorandun~ is very much on point to the single issue request made by the elected officials after the close of the record on June 22na (see last two lines of the first paragraph under Discussion above). Our review and comparison of the documents submitted to the joint elected officials and those submitted to the joint planning commissions confirms that this testimony has changed very little (i.e., note the Header on pages 2 through 7 of Mr. Kloos' testimony). Rather than preparing new responses that would simply repeat what is already included in the record, we will append to this memorandum our earlier responses but provide them with new cataloging. The elected officials did discuss the question of sewer extension to the Town of Coburg and asked their administrators to prepare a response to the procedural issues and policy implications of such a request. This issue, in terms of content and any response that may be provided regarding process, is not related to the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP and therefore will not be addressed in this memorandum.