Item A: Ordinance Adopting New PROS Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

LA Vv O.FFICE OF BILl, KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W, 4TH STREET, SUiTE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL (541) :343-8596 FAX (541) 343-8702 E.MAIL BlLU{LOOS@f.ANDUSEOREGON..COM Decemher 12, 2005 Eugene City Council City Hall 777 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 Re: PROS Comprehensive Plan Testimony of Home Builders Assn, of Lane County/Home Builders Const. Company Dear Members of the Council: The HBA has submitted detailed evidence and conunents to the Planning Commission, In this letter and my oral testimony my client has asked me to hit the high points. The BRA picks its land use issues with the cities with care, looking for issues that might pinch the land supply and/or raise the cost of delivering housing, For such local decisions the RBA is w'illing to ask fbr state review, The BRA always lets the cities know what its issues are., and how the decision making should be done correctly, bet~)fe filing any appeal. Eugene's approach to parks planning is an issue that needs state review, ifthe city stays on its current course, At the broadest level, this plan is being adopted as the 11rst step of a t'\vo-step strategy, 'nii;,; first step is a 11IZZY, fed good docurnent that purports to make no firm decisions and to regulate nothing, The second step \vill be done outside the land use process. The City will adopt by resolution a list of park acquisition and de'\'eIopment projects that ;,:vill be ihnded by SDCs by landowners who \vant to build housing, This public fuzzy plan will be the rationale for the project list. The city's strategy violates state and local la\v iTI several important respects, lIthe city is going to adopt a new parks plan (and repeal an existing parks plan in the process) it must include in the plan the things that the lavv says must be in a parks plan, State stat11tes spell out what rnust be in a city parks plan, ORS 195.120-.125. So do the LCDC's rules, OAR Chapter 660, Division 24. So does the definition of "comprehensive plan." So, too, does the Metro Plan, Ifthere is to be a separate parks cornponent to the comprehensive plan, the parks plan must identify plalmcd facilities. "Recreational facilities" are an element of any cornprehensive plan. ORS 197.015(5), The parks planning statute and mk~ also require identifying facilities, The City has, in fact, identified future park projects. It is just intentionally deciding not to put them in the pIan. This omission can't be justified under the law that applies,