requires the Hearing Official to conclude that the City may not apply any discretionary standards <br />- even to an application filed under EC 9.8320. As the Court of Appeals explained in the <br />Recovery House VI matter, this is true even in the context of an application under standards that <br />the applicant asserts the City may not apply. <br />OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS SOUTH HILLS STUDY APPLICABILITY <br />The Staff Report at pages 5-6 discusses the applicant's assertion that the South Hills Study <br />(1974) refinement plan does not contain standards that apply to this application. We responded <br />to the Staff Report in our March 5 Hearing Letter. Staff and the City Attorney provided more <br />evidence and argument in the first open record period. We respond to that here. <br />The City has failed to show that the South Hills Study, as a refinement plan of the Metro <br />Plan, was ever extended to the subject property by a governing body with authority to <br />adopt plans for the subject property. Hence, the Hearing Official may not apply the South <br />Hills Study to this application. <br />Please see our March 5 Hearing Letter at page 9 and following, which documents the chronology <br />of planning authority for land outside the city limits with reference to the relevant legal <br />documents. <br />The City Attorney and opponents' attorney both respond to the applicant's assertion that the City <br />has failed to carry its burden to show that the South Hills Study (1974) refinement plan does not <br />apply the subject property for the reason that the SHS was never extended to this property. (Nor <br />other land outside the City limits in 1974.) The City needs to show that the plan was applied to <br />this site by a governing body that had planning authority for the site at the time it acted. That <br />would have been a decision by Lane County from 1974 to 1987 or a decision by the City of <br />Eugene after the date in 1987, when the County delegated planning jurisdiction for the UGB area <br />to the City. The challenge from the HO to the City should be: "Show me the Post- <br />Acknowledgment Plan Amendment" that did this. It does not happen by osmosis, default, civic <br />assumptions, many decades of past practice, or a present day wave of a Harry Potter magic <br />wand. Either the plan was extended by the act of a governing body with authority to plan for the <br />site at the time of the act, or it was not. <br />It is important to note here that no party has taken issue with the chronology of the "key dates for <br />South Hills planning" set out at page 9 of our Hearing Letter or with the public documents <br />supporting that chronology. That is a good starting point for the Hearing Official's analysis. <br />Response the City Attorney: There is no legal basis for the city's new theory that the <br />refinement plan automatically attaches to properties as they are annexed to the City of <br />Eugene. <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />