JANISCH Amy C <br />From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Monday, January 06, 2020 9:16 AM <br />To: WHITMILL Kelly E <br />Cc: HANSEN Alissa H; Ted Coopman; SEMPLE Emily <br />Subject: Re: ZVR 20-1 (CONTE) Additional application materials #3 <br />Attachments: Ord 18081 rezoning to MU Z 76-38-.pdf <br />[EXTERNAL 0] <br />Ordinance No. 18081 attached. Please confirm receipt and add to the application materials for ZVR 20-1 <br />Accredited Earth Advantage <br />Sustainable Homes Professional <br />On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: <br />Kelly, <br />Please confirm receipt of the four attached documents and include them as application materials for ZVR <br />20-1. <br />Because of size limitations, I will send Ordinance No. 18081 in a following e-mail. <br />As you'll see from the bullet list in the attached document, there are several City documents that I was <br />unable to locate. None of these are necessary for a legal finding that the C-2 zone doesn't conform with the <br />comprehensive plan; however, the legislative history does provide a better understanding of the issues. <br />For example, Ordinance No. 18081 really nails down the City Council's motivation and intent in <br />implementing a "generic" "MU Multiple Use District" and then applying it in 1977 by adopting the "Downtown <br />Westside Multiple Use District" and rezoning much of the Westside area covered by the Metro Plan's "Mixed <br />Use Areas" overlay. <br />I will be submitting another "Application Material" document that fully covers the requirements imposed by <br />the comprehensive plan designations and policies restricting the "Eastern Residential /Mixed Use Area" to <br />either "Residential" or "Mixed Uses," as covered in the attached document. <br />I think it would be constructive to have a discussion regarding this issue prior to completing findings and a <br />decision. County staff had stated to the Lane County Board of Commissioners in a formal document that the <br />City "agrees" that the proposed MAT clinic is a permitted use. However, comments by their consultant, <br />Colin McArthur, were seriously misinformed about the actual polices, code and case law. <br />As the next document will explain, an erroneous interpretation of the statutes, plan and land use code <br />would have extereme implications for all areas with a "Residential" designation (except where protected by <br />CCBtRs, of course). <br />Let me know if staff is amenable to having a similar conversation as was apparentlty provided to the <br />County staff. <br />Thank you, <br />