New Search
CITY OF EUGENE <br />INTER - DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM <br />CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br />To: Planning Commission Date: September 13, 2006 <br />Subject: LUBA's Decision Regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan <br />CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY /CLIENT COMMUNICATION — NOT <br />SUBJECT TO RELEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT <br />This memorandum summarizes the Land Use Board of Appeal's (LUBA) August 9, 2006, <br />decision in Home Builders Association of Lane County, et al. v. City of Eugene. In that case, the <br />Home Builders challenged the City's adoption of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space <br />Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan). The Home Builders alleged eleven separate assignments of error. <br />As discussed in detail below, LUBA denied six of the assignments of error, sustained (remanded on) <br />two of the assignments of error, and chose not to consider the other assignments of error. <br />I. LUBA's Decision <br />A. Denied Assignments of Error <br />LUBA denied Home Builders' first, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and eleventh assignments <br />of error.' In so doing, LUBA disagreed with the Home Builders' assertion that the City was unclear <br />as to the fact that the PROS Plan was adopted as a standalone plan and not as a refinement plan to <br />the Metro Plan. LUBA also rejected the Home Builders' assertion that the PROS Plan failed to <br />include elements required by State administrative rules (LUBA held that the rules identified by the <br />Home Builders do not apply to the PROS Plan). LUBA also rejected Home Builders' arguments that <br />the City was required to include in the PROS Plan tables that prioritize proposed park, open space <br />and recreational facility projects and tables that set out the estimated costs of the proposed projects. <br />LUBA determined that neither the statutory definition of "comprehensive plan," Statewide Planning <br />Goal 8, Statewide Planning Goal 2 or State administrative rules impose such a requirement. LUBA <br />agreed with the City that jurisdictions may use different planning periods for different plans. LUBA <br />disagreed with Home Builders' assertion that the PROS Plan fails to include sufficient consideration <br />'LUBA did not consider Home Builders' fourth assignment of error asserting that the City erred in adopting <br />the PROS Plan via a resolution instead of an ordinance. Nor did LUBA consider Home Builders' tenth assignment of <br />error asserting that the City was required to consider impacts on residential lands when it adopted the PROS Plan. Home <br />Builders' brief did not include a ninth assignment of error. <br />00152287. WPD;1 <br />