Coopman v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.175(2)(a), “cities and counties ‘shall amend and revise’ their comprehensive plans ‘in compliance with’ the statewide planning goals.”

Petitioners appealed a final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA rejected petitioners’ challenge against a zoning ordinance adopted by the City of Eugene in response to a state statute, requiring cities to allow for middle housing such as duplexes and townhomes in areas previously zoned exclusively for single family dwellings. On appeal, petitioners primarily argued that the City of Eugene should have addressed the ordinance’s compatibility with specific goals of the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and the existing public facilities and services plan, as the existing plan did not address anticipated impacts from increased density resulting from the ordinance. The City of Eugene claimed that the ordinance did not change the city’s existing public facilities and services plan. ORS 197.175(2)(a) requires that “cities and counties ‘shall amend and revise’ their comprehensive plans ‘in compliance with’ the statewide planning goals.” The court held that LUBA erred by concluding that the City of Eugene was not obligated to evaluate consequences of changes to the city’s land use policy on its delivery of public services. The court reasoned that as statewide planning goals changed with the adoption of the middle housing statute, the city must update its plans. Reversed in part and remanded; otherwise affirmed.