Eugene Planning Commission <br />October 6, 2023 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />document dumpster. The dumping of the old needs to be justified just like the adopting of the <br />new. With the dumping of the old, all property owners are being stripped of the plan <br />designations shown in and the policies stated in the existing RRSC plan. The City needs to <br />justify, under the city and state standards for amending plans, all of the information in the <br />existing plan that is being abandoned, Here is a short, partial list of clear, directive mapping and <br />policy that is being dumped: <br /> <br />• The current plan is used to determine what the plan designation is for specific properties <br />when that cannot be determined by the Metro Plan Diagram alone. See, e.g. Shin Zone <br />Amendment Z 06-3, an application denied by the HO but approved by the Commission. <br /> <br />• The current plan is used to determine whether a zone change is consistent with plan <br />policies. See Shin decision above. <br /> <br />• The current plan makes policy statements about what areas should be the subject of city- <br />initiate plan amendments. <br /> <br />• The land use element of the plan states five residential policies that apply to land use <br />decisions. RRSC Plan at 2-14. <br /> <br />• The commercial/industrial element of the plan states six policies that apply in <br />determining where these uses should go (and not go) and how they should be regulated to <br />be good neighbors. RRSC Plan at 2-18 <br /> <br />• The plan states mandatory policies for growth in the many identified subareas. RRSC <br />Plan at 2-24. <br /> <br />If the old plan is being thrown out as the new plan is adopted, where will the Director and the <br />HO and Commission turn for the clear guidance that is now provided in the current plan? Is it <br />efficient or good planning to cut decision makers adrift as this amendment will do? <br /> <br />Maybe the City could have both. Leave the existing RRSC Plan, with its maps and grit and <br />specificity, in place and put the new plan on top of it. The new plan is general and largely <br />content free in terms of mandatory language such that it might fit on top of the existing plan with <br />minimal conflict. <br /> <br />The Commission should consider recommending to staff that a map be added to the new plan <br />that makes the new plan parcel-specific. The text of the Metro Plan says: (1) The Metro Plan is <br />not parcel specific, yet. (2) The parcels on the boundary line of two plan designations are of <br />indeterminate plan designation. (3) The RLID parcel database is the official database for the <br />current Metro Plan Diagram. (4) The City is committed to getting to a 100% parcel-specific plan <br />diagram. Given all of the above, the City could add to the plan a diagram that shows the plan <br />designation in the RLID database for each parcel. That would refine the Metro Diagram in the <br />way that the Metro Plan text anticipates and would have great utility in decision making. There <br />11