Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

t . Refinement Plan Amendment Appro~aI. Criteria One of the more important aspects of this proposed legislative action is that it is being driven from bottom up. Normally Land Use Planning is a top down process; we stm with a Statewide Plaooing Goal and working down through the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan to the Zoning Code. In the matter before, you this is I)ot the case. The reason behind this proposal is to respond to what some perceive as inappropriate infill in Area 15 of the Jefferson Far West Refinement Plan. The goal is to prevent this "inappropriate infill" by changing the land use code. As this proposed change is not consistent with the existing Refinement Plan language.a change to the Refinement Plan is necessary. As this revision is not consistent with the current Metro plan dia~ the Metro plan Diagram needs to be changed. Or to put it another way, if the code change was possible without a Refmement Plan amendment we would not be going through the refinement plan amendment process and if the Code Change and Refinement Plan Amendment was possible without a Metro Plan Amendment we would not be going through the Metro Plan Amendment Process. This clearly indicates that this is a bottom up proce,ss* The fact that this proposal is being driven from the bottom up is significant in evaluating whether or not the proposal meets the Refinement Plan Amendment criteria contained in EC 9.8424 (2). The Eugene City Code in 9.8424 states that: "The'platming cOlnmission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below~ and forward a recommendation to the city council." [EC 9.8424] . Subsection (2) The Criteria listed ill subsection 2 establishes the circumstances vlllere a, Refinement PlaIl Amendment is warranted. As failure to meet at least one of the criteria should disqualify a proposed amendment from consideration I will address them first. This section reads: (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of tIle refin.ement .plan. (b) New inventory material \ivhic.b relates to a statewide plannillg ,g~aL (c) Ne\\T or amended- connnuuity policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulati.on, statewide planning goal, {)r state agency land use plan. (e) A change of cirC,U1TIstances in a substantial manner that was not tlnticipated. at the time the refinenlent plari Vlas adopted. [EC 9.8424(2)J As the staff findings correctly states tIle IJ[oposed amendment is'n,ot based on a error ill tll.e Jefferson-Far Vi est Refi.nem.ell.t Plan,nevv illventory fllRterial \V'llich relates to a statewide planning goal, new or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land. use plan. Nor has there been a change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan I-iinkley Testinl011'y on IvtA. 06-5, .Ra. 06-3 and CA, 06-1 5 December 2006 Page 2 of 12 pages