EXHIBIT R Page 25 <br />met to the sage degree in every instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a balancing of its <br />various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and <br />policies most pertinent to the issue at hand. <br />The policies whieh fallew in the Metro Plan vary in their scope and implications. Some call for <br />immediate action; others call for lengthy study aimed at developing more specific policies later <br />on; and still others suggest or take the form of policy statements. The common theme of all the <br />policies is acceptance of them as suitable approaches toward problem-solving and goal <br />realization. Other valid approaches may exist and may at any time be incl-ceded in_p~tt irate the <br />Metro Plan throughplan_amendment procedures. Adoption of the Metro Plan does not <br />necessarily commit the jurisdictions to immediately carry out each policy to the letter, but does <br />put them on record as having recognized the validity of the policies and the decisions or actions <br />they imply. The jurisdictions can then begin to carry out the policies to the best of their ability, <br />given sufficient time and resources. <br />In addition, it is important to recognize that the written text of the Metro Plan takes precedence <br />over the Metro Plan Diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. The Metro Plan <br />Diagram is a generalized map which is intended to graphically reflect the broad goals, objectives, <br />and policies. As such, it cannot be used independently from or take precedence over the written <br />portion of the Metro Plan. <br />The degree to which the Metro Plan provides sufficient detail to meet the needs of each <br />jurisdiction will have to be determined by the respective jurisdictions; and where conflicts exist <br />among the Metro Plan, refinement plans, and existing zoning, each jurisdiction will have to <br />establish its own schedule for bringing the zoning and refinement plans into conformance with <br />the Metro Plan. <br />It is recognized that the needs, priorities, and resources vary with each jurisdiction and that the <br />methods and timing used to implement the Metro Plan will also vary. <br />Relationship to Other Plans,-and-Policies and Reuorts <br />Where-t_The Metro Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document and-but it is not the only <br />such document. As indicated in the Purpose section, above, the Metro Plan is a framework plan, <br />and it is important that it be supplemented by more detailed refinement plans, programs, and <br />policies. Due to budget limits and other responsibilities, all such plans, programs, and policies <br />cannot be pursued simultaneously. Normally, however, those of a metropolitan-wide scale <br />should receive priority status. <br />Refinements to the Metro Plan can include: (a) city-wide comprehensive policy documents, <br />such as the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies; (b) functional plans and policies <br />addressing single subjects throughout the area, such as the 2001 Eugene-Springrield Public <br />Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan) and 2001 TransPlanwater; <br />sewer; or-transportation-plans; and (c) neighborhood plans or special area studies that address <br />those issues that are unique to a specific geographical area. In all cases, the Metro Plan is the <br />guiding document, and refinement plans and policies must be consistent with the Metro Plan. <br />I-5 23 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 344 <br />