My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 09/21/09 Public Hearing
>
Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:21:00 PM
Creation date
9/17/2009 2:22:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/21/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1describes one circumstance when local governments must apply the TPR when amending <br />2their land use regulations, it does not purport to describe the only circumstance where that <br />3may be the case. <br />4Amendments to comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements that were <br />5adopted to comply with the TPR clearly might render the comprehensive plan or land use <br />6regulations inconsistent with the TPR, even if they do not have a “significant affect on a <br />7transportation facility,” as that concept is defined by OAR 660-012-0060(1). We agree with <br />8petitioner that in amending comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements that <br />9were adopted to implement the TPR, the city is required to ensure that the amendments are <br />10consistent with the TPR and thus the TPR would apply directly to such amendments. <br />11The only TPR requirements that petitioner cites under this subassignment of error are <br />12OAR 660-012-0035(5) and OAR 660-012-0045(5). OAR 660-012-0035(5) authorizes <br />13alternative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the city’s nodal development policies <br />14were adopted to implement 660-012-0035(5). We have already rejected petitioner’s <br />15challenge based on the city’s nodal development policies, and petitioner’s argument here <br />16adds nothing to the arguments we have already rejected. <br />17OAR 660-012-0045(5), among other things, requires the city to adopt land use <br />18regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile. Petitioner contends that OAR 660-012- <br />190045(5) requires that the city <br />20“have regulations that: allow transit-oriented development along transit <br />21routes; implement a demand management program to meet measureable <br />22standards in the TSP; achieves a 10% reduction in the number of parking <br />23spaces in the region over the planning period; and establishes ‘off-street <br />24parking maximums’ in downtown and other areas, among other things.” <br />25Petition for Review 24. <br />the regulation, and the regulation is not in compliance with the statewide planning goals.” EC 9.8065(1) <br />requires that amendments to the EC must be “consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by <br />the Land Conservation and Development Commission.” <br />Page 30 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.