New Search
I I. PETITIONERS' STANDING <br />2 Respondent City of Eugene ( "the City ") accepts Home Builders Association of Lane <br />3 County and Home Builders Construction Company's (Petitioners') statements concerning <br />4 standing. <br />5 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />6 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision <br />7 Petitioners appealed both Ordinance No. 20362 (LUBA No. 2006 -024) and Resolution <br />8 No. 4858 (LUBA No. 2006 -023). On February 28, 2006, LUBA consolidated the two appeals <br />9 and the City filed a consolidated record. <br />10 At page 2, lines 2 -3 of their Petition for Review, Petitioners withdraw their appeal of <br />11 Ordinance No. 20362 (LUBA No. 2006- 024).' Thus, the only decision challenged in this appeal <br />12 is the City's adoption of Resolution No. 4858 (LUBA No. 2006 -023). Resolution No. 4858 <br />13 adopted the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan ( "PROS Plan "). <br />14 B. Summary of Argument <br />15 The City adopted the PROS Plan to serve as an aspirational and guiding document for <br />16 the City as it conducts its long -range planning for parks, recreation and open space. (Rec. 10). <br />17 While the PROS Plan replaced the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan, the City specifically <br />18 stated that the PROS Plan would not be a refinement to the Metro Plan as portions of the 1989 <br />19 Plan had been. (Rec. 10). <br />20 The City did not err by adopting the PROS Plan as a stand- alone, internal guidance <br />21 document. While the Metro Plan allows refinement plans, the Metro Plan does not require that <br />22 the City adopt the PROS Plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan. Neither the Metro Plan, nor <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />'Petitioners did not file a separate motion to voluntarily dismiss LUBA No. 2006 -024. However, <br />26 Petitioners withdraw their appeal of LUBA No. 2006 -024 using no uncertain terms at page 2 of their brief. This <br />Respondent's brief assumes that LUBA will dismiss that appeal as part of its final order. As a precaution, the City <br />is filing a formal Motion to Dismiss simultaneously with this brief. <br />Pat =e I - BRIEF OF RESPONTDENT <br />