SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS (8-22-17)

Capital Hill PUD Page 23 of 67 Planned Unit Development Application - Tentative Stage - Written Statement March 3, 2017 (Revised:June 19, 2017, August 22, 2017) jurisdiction. That would be land inside the City limits at that time. Second, at some later date, between adoption of the urban growth boundary in 1980 and the City acquiring jurisdiction over the UGB land in 1987, the SHS was affirmatively extended to include the subject property. Third, after May 8, 1987, when Lane County transferred land use responsibilities to the City for the area within the urbanizable portion of the urban growth boundary, the County acted at the request of the City to adopt the SHS and make it applicable to the subject property. As best the applicant can determine, none of these three situations applies to the subject property, as discussed further below. If the City believes that the SHS applies to the subject property, the applicant requests that the City provide for the record the documentation described above, or some other basis establishing the SHS as law that applies to the subject property. In the sections below we elaborate on the three points made above. 1. The subject property was not in the City at the time the SHS was effective on June 10, 1974. City records show that Tax Lot 300 was annexed in 1981. Tax Lots 200 and 400 were annexed in 1982. Tax Lots 100 and 201 were annexed in 2014. The SHS was effective on June 10, 1974, via Resolution No. 2295. At the time the SHS was adopted in 1974, there was no urban growth boundary. The City at that time had no lawful basis to regulate land that was outside the City limits. The applicant is unaware of any independent contemporaneous County adoption of the SHS as being applicable to any land that was outside the City limits. Thus, at the time the City adopted the SHS in 1974, it applied only to the land inside the then city limits, and thus it did not apply to the subject property. In the two parts below we examine whether the footprint of the SHS was extended to include the subject property at any later date. 2. The SHS was not extended to the UGB between the time the first UBG was established in 1980 and the time that the City acquired jurisdiction over the UGB land in 1987. The Preface to the Metro Plan explains the history of the adoption and acknowledgment of the plan. The Metro Plan was initially adopted by the three local governments in 1980 and submitted for acknowledgment. The initial plan included an Urban Growth Boundary that encompassed the subject property. Some changes to the plan were required by the State, and those changes were made in 1982. The final version of the plan that applied to all lands inside the UGB was acknowledged on August 23, 1982. The Metro Plan as initially acknowledged ratified the continued existence of area refinement plans, including the SHS, but the plan did not extend the footprint of the plan to land that was outside the City but inside the UGB. See Metro Plan (August 1980) at 1-5 ("Refinement plans and policies adopted subsequent to the 1990 General Plan remain in effect where they do not conflict with the updated Metropolitan General Plan.') The Metro Plan did not extent the footprint of the SHS to land that was outside the City in 1980 but inside the initial UGB. The 1980 Metro Plan maintained the jurisdictional bright line between the City and the County at the city limits. The 1980 Metro Plan explained at page IV-3. "The Cities of Eugene and Springfield have responsibility for all areas within their city limits. " Thus, from 1980 to 1987 the land in the UGB was subject to county land use jurisdiction. The County itself could have applied SHS inventories and maps and policies to the UGB area during this period. However, the applicant is not aware of any County ordinance that did that. Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 m Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540