"(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from <br />this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as <br />permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted from <br />this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP <br />amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area." <br />As discussed above, the proposed zoning for the property is consistent with the existing <br />comprehensive plan designations. The plan designation is Low Density Residential for the <br />majority of the property and Medium Density Residential for 15 acres of Tax Lot 1211. Thus, <br />OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a) is satisfied. <br />The City's acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is TransPlan. When TransPlan <br />was adopted in 2001, the subject property was designated Low Density Residential and <br />Medium Density Residential, and has remained unchanged.2 Thus, the proposed zoning is <br />consistent with the TSP, and OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a) is satisfied.3 <br />The subject property was not exempted from the TPR at the time of an urban growth <br />boundary agreement. Thus, OAR 660-012-0060(9)(c) is satisfied. Therefore, the proposed zone <br />change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR and <br />therefore complies with the TPR. <br />Other Challenges <br />Opponents raised a number of other issues that they argued should result in denial of the <br />proposed zone change. The opposition to the proposed change focused almost exclusively on the <br />15 acres of Tax Lot 1211 that are proposed to be rezoned to R-2 Medium-Density Residential. <br />Except as discussed above, the objections to the proposed zone change to R-2 Medium-Density <br />Residential do not specifically reference any of the approval criteria for a zone change. The <br />objections instead concern loss of green space, loss of the buffer of a golf course between other <br />uses, loss of the pastoral view and privacy provided by the golf course, and loss of property values. <br />Unfortunately for opponents, even if true those arguments do not provide a basis for denying the <br />proposed zone change. Opponents also argue that there will be adverse impacts upon traffic, <br />noise and pollution, stormwater, supply of apartments, and burdens on schools. The problem with <br />these arguments is that to the extent they have to be considered at all, they will be considered at <br />the development permit process for any future development of the property. While I sympathize <br />with the opponents' concerns, the genesis of those concerns is that there is Medium Density <br />Residential planned land adjoining their upscale Low Density Residential neighborhood. The <br />concerns they raise are inherent in plan and zone boundaries. Unfortunately for opponents, the <br />die was cast when the subject portion of the property was planned for Medium Density <br />