Ordinance No. 19777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT The proposed plan amendment does not render the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. It simply reallocates most of a single parcel of land from the Metro Area's industrial land base to the area's medium density residential land base. As the discussion of the Economy and Housing Goals makes clear, the reallocation does not impaur the area's industrial land base, However, it significant enhances the area's very restricted base of medium density land and its almost nonexistent base of land actually and realistically available for housing which is affordable to people with earnings typical of the area's growing retail and service sectors. At the same time, the site continues to meet the need for a transitional zone, providing a buffer on the east side of the only existing heavy industrial use, a buffer that is not provided on the west side of that use. This amendment presents no issue of inconsistency with the area's refinement plan. The Metro Plan clearly provides that refinement plans are merely interpretative refinements of the Metro Plan. The do not amend the Metro Plan itself. In cases of conflict, the Metro Plan controls. The Plan provides at page I-S that, "Should inconsistencies occur, the Metro Plan; is the prevailing policy document." The Plan clearly contemplates both that the Plan itself will be amended and that inconsistencies between the Plan and refiinement plans will occur. When the Plan is amended, those elements of a refinement plan that are not consistent with the Plan as amended are ineffective to the extent of the conflict. This is the standard rule concerning the effect of amendments to legislation upon pre- existing implementing and interpretive rules. Any other approach would make plan amendment process hopelessly complex and cumbersome. IV, METRD PLAN AMENDMENTS MUST ADDRESS ONE DR MORE GF T`HE FQLLG~ING CIRCUMSTANCES a. An error in the publication of the Plan; or b. Unanticipated and substantial change in circumstances; or c. Postacknowledgment incorporation into the Plan of newly inventoried material which relates to a Statewide Goal; or d. A change in public policy. This plan amendment satisfies criterion b. The current affordable housing crisis and its causes were unanticipated. Also unanticipated was the dramatic decline in this community's financial capability to address such problems. Finally, it was not expected that housin element of the plan as adopted and implemented would so dramatically fail to g 5pringwood Plan Amendment Application Applicant's Proposed Findings March Z0, 1991 Dran Page 2~