Eugene Hearing Official <br />March 5, 2018 <br />Page 11 <br />If it was the intention of the City to extend the SHS with the adoption of the new zoning code in <br />2001 (city adoption for city limits) and 2003 (county adoption for the UGB), then the City <br />should have included language at that time to the effect that: "We hereby decide to extent the <br />footprint of the SHS to all land that is inside the UGB now but that was outside the city limits in <br />1974." That would have done the job. That City has not pointed to equivalent language; it does <br />not exist. <br />4. The City asserts that the 1982 Metro Plan ratified the South Hills Study. The Metro <br />Plan did not extend the SHS to any land; it explicitly recognized the authority of the City to <br />plan inside the city limits and the county outside the city limits. <br />Finally, the Staff Report twists the applicant's narrative argument and says: "the applicant's <br />materials acknowledge that the Metro Plan ratified the South Hills Study." The applicant said no <br />such thing. Our narrative said that the 1982 Metro Plan "ratified the continued existence of area <br />refinement plans, including the SHS, but the plan did not extend the footprint of the plan to land <br />that was outside the City but inside the UGB." March 3 narrative at 23. There is nothing in the <br />1982 Metro Plan that extended the footprint of the SHS to any area outside of the city limits. <br />Indeed, our narrative quoted from the 1982 Metro Plan language that verified that the city's <br />planning and zoning authority was being limited to the city limits. The 1982 Metro Plan <br />explained at page IV-3: "The Cities of Eugene and Springfield have responsibility for all areas <br />within their city limits." <br />5. The city's final "legislative history interpretation" argument grasps at straws but misses <br />even the straws. <br />The City concludes with this fuzzy argument at page 6 para 2 of the Staff Report: <br />"Staff believes that it is reasonable to interpret the footprint of the South <br />Hills Study as encompassing all properties south of 18th Avenue and over 500 <br />feet elevation within the City limits (and the UGB), based on the legislative <br />history discussed above." <br />The City has not cited any legislative history. It has just cited the language of the SHS and the <br />enactment of the new zoning code in 2001 (for the City) and 2003 (for the UGB via the County) <br />which included language that incorporated plan policies as standards for limited land use <br />decisions. In none of the city's defenses is there a whiff of any enactment by a governing body <br />having authority to apply the SHS as a play to the area that was outside the city limits in 1974 <br />when the SHS was adopted. <br />State statutes confirm what is apparent here the SHS can't be applied to any area that was in <br />the county when the City adopted the SHS in 1974, unless the City can point to an ordinance <br />affirmatively extending the plan to land within its jurisdiction. See ORS 215.130(2): <br />APP B - HEARING LTTR 3.5.2018 <br />