Planning Commission <br />April 20, 2016 <br />Page 3 <br />Attachment A <br />situations like this. On the one hand, a city risks violation of Goal 9 if it approves a comprehensive <br />plan amendment based on an expired commercial lands inventory. On the other hand, it risks <br />violating the moratorium statute if it denies the application because there is no useable <br />acknowledged inventory. The solution provided by LUBA was to allow the applicant to apply <br />concurrently to have the inventory updated. That solution is an option for the applicant in this <br />case; however, as explained below, the current Envision Eugene information would not support <br />approval of this request. That is, if the applicant were to attempt to seek to update the commercial <br />lands inventory concurrently with its application, removal of the 7 acres of commercially <br />designated land would likely violate Goal 9 because there is a deficit of commercial land. <br />Possible Actions <br />In reviewing a Metro Plan amendment, the Planning Commission only makes a <br />recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation must contain "findings and <br />conclusions on whether the proposal or a modified proposal meets the approval criteria." It is the <br />City Council that then must approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed amendment based <br />on the Planning Commission's recommendation. A recommendation of approval would require <br />findings that the proposal is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9, and a recommendation of <br />denial would require findings that the proposal is not consistent with Goal 9. <br />OPTION #1: Recommend approval of the application. Under the expired Commercial <br />Lands Study, there is a surplus of commercial land, and removal of the 7+ acres of commercially <br />designated land would not leave the City with a deficit. The risk in recommending approval on <br />this basis is that DLCD could appeal the approval as a violation of Goal 9 under the reasoning in <br />Lengkeek. <br />OPTION #2: Recommend denial of the application. The information provided by the <br />applicant is based on the Commercial Lands Study, which is expired. The studies conducted as <br />part of Envision Eugene demonstrate a deficit of both MDR and commercial lands. Accordingly, <br />if the studies were adopted as the acknowledged commercial lands inventory, the applicant would <br />not likely be able to demonstrate compliance with Goal 9; i. e., an applicant cannot remove 7 acres <br />of commercially designated land from an inventory that already has a deficit of such lands. <br />Further, the denial of this one application based on the expiration of the Commercial Lands Study <br />would not constitute a de facto moratorium. <br />OPTION #3: Delay action until the Envision Eugene inventory studies are adopted and <br />acknowledged. Mr. Moore proposes that the City delay action on the application. The City, <br />however, is not authorized to delay action against the applicant's wishes. That said, the applicant <br />could choose to put the application on hold pending the Envision Eugene adoption process. <br />ACD:abm <br />Attachments: Lengkeek cases <br />City of Eugene • 125 E. 8th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-8447 • 541-682-5414 Fax <br />www.eugene-or.gov <br />(00201461;11 <br />Exhibit 5 PC Agenda - Page 8 <br />