Appeal Materials (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

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