EXHIBITS Page 181 <br />Criterion #2. "Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally <br />inconsistent." <br />Findings: <br />Finding #49. The Metro Plan Enabling Amendments make changes to every chapter of the Metro Plan <br />to some degree to enable the gradual transition from a shared metropolitan UGB with a single <br />comprehensive plan to a planning framework with two separate UGBs (the Eugene UGB and the <br />Springfield UGB). As the transition occurs, the Metro Plan will be amended several times to reflect the <br />evolving extent to which it continues to apply to each jurisdiction. <br />Finding #50. The revisions proposed throughout the Plan are limited to those that fit within at least <br />one of the following categories: <br />1. Revisions to ensure that each city can, independently of the other, establish city-specific plans and <br />establish that such plans supplant specific portions of the Metro Plan for that city; <br />2. Revisions to update and add explanations of the past, current and future status of the Metro Plan, <br />including an explanation of the stages of change anticipated as the cities conduct independent planning <br />for their separate populations' needs. <br />3. Revisions to change or remove text that can no longer be applied due to a change in the law and <br />that could not (even arguably) raise a policy concern. This includes the deletion of text relating to the <br />now defunct Lane County Boundary Commission. <br />Finding #51. The proposed amendments were prepared with the aid of a consulting attorney who is <br />familiar with the Metro Plan and with the mandate posed by the passage of ORS 197.304. The <br />amendments that were developed have been reviewed by staff and by attorneys for Eugene, Springfield <br />and Lane County. It is the opinion of staff and counsel that the proposed amendments leave the Metro <br />Plan internally consistent. <br />Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plan text amendments do not make the Metro Plan internally <br />inconsistent. <br />V. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff <br />Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Section 5.14-135 C of the Springfield <br />Development Code and EC 9.7730(3) Lane Code 12.225 (2) for approving a Metro Plan amendment; staff <br />find the proposed Metro Plan Enabling Amendments to be consistent with these criteria and <br />recommend approval of the amendment. <br />Metro Plan Enabling Amendments-Staff Findings <br />October 23, 2014 Page 13 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 744 <br />