with the applicant's and staff findings that the proposed zone change is consistent with those <br />WAP policies and adopt and incorporate the findings in the applicant's July 29, 2013 <br />Supplemental Narrative and pages 4-5 of the staff report.' <br />While most of the opponents' evidence and testimony was not directed at specific <br />provisions of the Metro Plan or WAP, there were some issues that could be construed to raise <br />WAP provisions. Opponents argued that more green space or open space should be required to <br />approve the proposed zone change. The staff report explains that the WAP designates the <br />subject property as Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, which is <br />consistent with the proposed zone change. The staff report also explains that the original <br />printed version of the WAP identifies the western portion of the property as having a Parks and <br />Open Space designation. The staff report further explains that the Parks and Open Space <br />designation was incorrectly applied as part of a housekeeping amendment package in 2004, <br />and that the property's designation was corrected back to Low Density Residential by a City <br />initiated plan amendment in 2009 that also specifically included an amendment to the WAP. In <br />other words, there is no Parks and Open Space Designation anywhere on the property, and the <br />absence of any proposed areas zoned for such uses does not violate any provision of the WAP. <br />Opponents also raised two provisions from the WAP that they argue are inconsistent <br />with the proposed zone change. The Willakenzie Planning Area Goals state a number of ways to <br />provide for compatibility between new and existing development. Opponents quote two of <br />those goals: "Protect and improve the existing residential quality of the Willakenzie area" and <br />"Ensure that new development is in scale and harmony with the existing neighborhood <br />character." At the public hearing, staff explained that these goals are not mandatory approval <br />criteria, but rather aspirational goals. The preamble to the Willakenzie Area Goals states: <br />"The purpose of the planning goals is to set an overall framework for planning in the <br />area and to provide a check against findings, policies, and proposed actions that will be <br />developed in later stages of the planning process." <br />The language of the preamble and the goals themselves provide aspirational language <br />that may have provided guidance to the larger planning for the Willakenzie area, in particular <br />decisions about what plan designations may be appropriate for various properties. I do not see <br />that the identified policies affect consideration of a zone change proposal. I agree with staff <br />that the planning goals identified by opponents do not provide applicable approval criteria and <br />do not render the proposed zone change inconsistent with the WAP. Therefore, I find that the <br />proposed zone change is consistent with the WAP and satisfies EC 9.8865(2). <br />EC 9.8865(3) <br />1 agree with staff that the Unincorporated Subarea policies are applicable to the application. The <br />applicant had earlier suggested that the annexation of the property rendered the Unincorporated Subarea <br />policies inapplicable. The applicant later addressed those issues, and those are the findings adopted and <br />incorporated by this decision. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 13-5) Page 4 <br />