Eugene Hearing Official <br />April 6, 2018 <br />Page 12 <br /> <br /> in its March 21 submittal is that the SHS was not adopted with a map, but <br />was intended to cover land outside the city limits as of 1974; thus, the SHS applies to properties <br />when they are annexed to the City. City Attorney March 21 memo at 3. <br /> <br />The trouble with this theory is two-fold. First, there is no basis in the SHS supporting this theory <br />insomuch as there is no language in the SHS that says the plan (which is a body of law) applies <br />to property at the time the property is annexed. It is just not there. Second, and more <br />importantly, the Cto the statute that says county plans and codes continue <br />to apply to land even after the land is annexed to a city and until such time as the city changes <br />those designations. ORS 215.130(2). The City may only plan and zone land over which it has <br />statutory authority to do so. The City did not acquire authority to plan and zone land outside the <br />City until it was delegated that authority by the County in 1987. <br /> <br />Mr. Malone simply agrees with staff it must be the <br />case that the South Hills Study applies to property when it is annexed. <br /> <br /> <br />The memo from the oppo <br />The assertion is that it simply must be the case that the SHS sticks at the time of annexation. <br /> <br />There is nothing in any statute, comprehensive plan, refinement plan, or City ordinance that <br />expressly says that or implies it. This site is subject to the Metro Plan, which was extended to <br />the UGB with the acknowledgment of the first Metro Plan in 1982; it is not subject to the SHS. <br /> <br />In their search for a Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment that applies the SHS to this <br />property, the parties should be looking for a city or county enactment that applied the SHS to the <br />urban growth boundary. That would be a county enactment between 1980 and 1987 (when we <br />had a UGB and the county was in charge of it), or a city enactment after the city got planning <br />authority for the UGB in 1987. As best as the applicant can determine, that never happened. <br />The City has the burden to prove that it did happen to show that the SHS is a standard that may <br />be applied under ORS 227.173. The City has not done that. <br /> <br />EVALUATION OF SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS <br /> <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(1) The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Report page 6. <br /> <br />The applicant concurs that with the conclusion in the Staff none of the relevant <br />Metro Plan policies appear to directly apply as mandatory approval criteria for the PUD. <br />also see our discussion of Metro Plan policies in our March 5 Spreadsheet of Standards. The <br />policies either do not contain mandatory language; they are implemented through the code; or <br />they are directive to the city, not to applicants. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />