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

Home Browse Search

Documents Submitted into the Record of the Joint Elected Officials, June 22, 2004 Attachment 1: Letter from the Home Builders Association of Lane County, dated June 22, 2004 Attachment 2: Letter from' Bill Kloos, Attorney representing Home Builders Association of Lane County and the Home Builders Construction Company, dated June 22, 2004 Attachment 3: Memorandum from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for City of Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27, 2004 Attachment 4: City Council Agenda, City of Springfield, June 21, 2004 Attachment 5: Springfield's Motion to Dismiss an appeal filed by Home Builders Association of Lane County and Home Builders Construction Company to Land Use Board of Appeals concerning Springfield Council adoption of MWMC's Facilities Plan and 20-year project list Attachment 6: Page D2 of the June 22, 2004 Register Guard, Calendar, listing the joint elected officials meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting Room of Springfield City Hall. Responses to the Preceding documents Exhibit 1: Memorandum from Meg Kieran, City Attorney, dated May 6, 2004 (responds to Attachments #1 and #2) Exhibit 2: Published public hearing notices advertising the joint planning commissions and joint elected officials' hearings for these proposed amendments (responds to Attaclument #1) Exhibit 3: Memorandum from Meg Kieran, City Attorney, dated May 17, 2004 (responds to Attachment #1) Exhibit 4: Memorandum from Dave Jewett, Attorney for MWMC, Meg Kieran, Attorney for City of Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, Attorney for City of Eugene, dated May 27, 2004 (responds to question raised by the elected officials; responds to Attachment #1. Exhibit 4 and Attactuuent 3 are the same document) Conclusion As with the first time we responded [to this testimony] we do not believe a very strong case has been made that links the issues raised with the relevant criteria of approval for plan amendments found in the Metro Plan, the individual jurisdiction's codes, or the applicable administrative rules. Much of this testimony attempts to connect separate activities under the umbrella of one statute or administrative rule when the law expressly provides separate rules subject to separate appellate processes. This testimony did not persuade any members of the three planning commissions to vote against a recommendation of support for these amendments. The testimony submitted on June 22na is substantially the same information already in the record.