Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Emily N. Jerome, Esq. <br />November 10,2006 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />case, the council decided to treat as a legislative decision, a proceeding that <br />started as a quasi-judicial reZOl1e request. More importantly, relying on Snzitll <br />v. DO~lglas CO~lnty, LUBA held the error was substantive, not procedural, a11d <br />reversed the city's decisiol1. <br /> <br />Another example is Wal711art Stores, Inc. v. City of Medford, 49 Or LUBA <br />52, 57-60 (2005). In this case, the city code limited the city council's review to <br />determining whether there was substantial evidence in the record supporting <br />the planning commission's findings. Walmart argued the city council <br />exceeded its scope of review by instead re-examining issues of fact and <br />making their own findings. LUBA agreed with WaImart, holding that the city <br />exceeded the scope of review it created for itself when it adopted the code <br />provisiol1 in question. <br /> <br />This issue is not going away. The questiol1 is whether the city will act <br />COl1sistently with its own code procedure in this first proceeding. If it does <br />not, we are confidel1t that LUBA would reverse. The Narvas respectfully <br />submit it is a better use of public and private time and resources to use the <br />correct procedure the first time through this matter. <br /> <br />Thal1k you, in adVa11Ce, for your consideration of this letter and for <br />your professional courtesies. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />HUTCHINSON, COX, COONS <br />DuPRIEST, ORR & SHERLOCK, P.C. <br /> <br />Douglas M. DuPriest <br /> <br />DMD:hs <br /> <br />Encl: Cases cited above <br /> <br />cc: Cliel1ts <br />