Resolution No. 4780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment A To Resolution 4780 Remand Response and Explanation of Findings Introduction In July 2002, the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County and Lane Transit District ("the local governments") took actions that collectively amended TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan, the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, and the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. The local government actions were appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). On March 24,2003, LUBA issued its decision upholding the local government actions on most of the issues raised, but remanding the actions based on four of the issues raised by petitioners. The petitioners appealed LUBA's decision to the Court of Appeals. On August 27,2003 the Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA's decision, without providing a written opinion. The petitioners did not seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals' decision. The appellate judgment of the Court of Appeals became effective October 7, 2003 and LUBA issued a notice of appellate judgment on October 8, 2003 that indicated the appellate judgment required no change to the earlier LUBA decision. None ofthe issues on remand require the local governments to reopen the record for additional evidence. For each of the four issues remanded by LUBA and set forth below, the local governments describe findings already adopted to support the actions taken or, as necessary, provide some additional explanations of those findings or the evidence in the record which supports the findings already adopted. Subassif!nment of Error 1 (d) Petitioners argued that the local governments inadequately addressed Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II(c)(4) when they adopted exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14. Specifically, Petitioners argued that the findings relating to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) were deficient with respect to the impacts of the Modified Alignment on adjacent agricultural uses. Criterion on remand: Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part II(c)(4): "A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when: * * * (4) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts." LUBA's direction on remand: "Although we might be able to locate an adequate response to this subassignment of error from the many pages of findings, we decline to do so without assistance from [the local governments]. On remand [the local 1