Eugene Hearing Official <br />March 5, 2018 <br />Page 10 <br />City had planning authority in 1974 does not make the plan effective in areas where the City did <br />not have planning and zoning authority at that time. That assertion really begs the legal theory <br />posed here when did a governing body act to extend the plan to the area at a time when that <br />governing body had authority to plan for that area? <br />2. The City asserts that EC 9.9630 extended the SHS policies to the current city limits. Not <br />SO. <br />EC 9.9630 is a portion of the code section that incorporates specific refinement plan policies into <br />the zoning code in response to the statutory mandate in ORS 197.195, which requires a city to <br />explicitly incorporate into the zoning code any plan policies it wishes to apply to limited land use <br />decisions. "Within two years of September 29, 1991, cities and counties shall incorporate all <br />comprehensive plan standards applicable to limited land use decisions into their land use <br />regulations." ORS 917.195(1). Eugene did this in 2001 as part of its code makeover. This <br />intention is express in the introductory language in EC 9.9500 that explains that the sections that <br />follow, including EC 9.9630 for the SHS, list the plan policies that will apply to limited land use <br />decisions. That introductory language in EC 9.9500 says: <br />"Adopted Plan Policies. The adopted plan policies set forth in the sections <br />beginning at EC 9.9500 shall be used when applicable for purposes of evaluating <br />applicable adopted plan policies pertaining to subdivisions, partitions, and site <br />review." <br />More importantly, language in the code stating that refinement plan policies will be applied to <br />any land use decision or limited land use decision begs the question of the extent of the <br />regulatory footprint of any refinement plan. Even if the language in EC 9.9630 stated explicitly <br />that the policies of the SHS were to be applied to aM decision, such language would not be <br />effective to make the SHS or its policies apply to any land that the governing body with authority <br />had not made subject to the SHS. <br />The City needs to point to a PAPA by the governing body with authority that extends the SHS to <br />the subject property. <br />3. The City asserts that the SHS became applicable to the UGB area when the county in <br />2003 adopted the EC 9.9630 language as part of the new zoning code for the Urban <br />Transition Area the UTA code. Not so. <br />This theory suffers the very same limitation at the city's theory stated above. For the same <br />reason that the city's adoption of refinement plan policies for purposes of limited land use <br />decisions, the county's adoption of the same new zoning code provisions for the UGB did not <br />have the effect of extending the jurisdictional footprint of the SHS to any land where it did not <br />already apply. <br />APP B - HEARING LTTR 3.5.2018 <br />