Coopman v. City of Eugene

• Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Land Use
• Date Filed: 10-12-2023
• Case #: 2022-056
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Zamudio
• Full Text Opinion

Where a local government fails to consider and explain that an ordinance is consistent with a planning goal, LUBA will remand.

At issue is an ordinance that approved amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Eugene Code regarding middle housing (Ordinance 20667). In their first assignment of error, Petitioner argued that the City erred when it failed to consider and explain how the Ordinance 20667 was consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). LUBA previously rejected Petitioner’s arguments and denied the assignment of error. Coopman v. City of Eugene, __ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA No 2022-056, Jan 27, 2023). The Court of Appeals agreed with Petitioner’s arguments and remanded the matter to LUBA. Coopman v. City of Eugene, 534 P3d 1105 (2023). Accordingly, LUBA held that Petitioner’s assignment of error was sustained.

Remanded.

Share Subscribe