Attachment A PC Final Order (PDT 13-1) <br />• City Attorney's Office Memorandum <br />Date: December 11, 2013 <br />To: Eugene Planning Commission <br />From: Anne C. Davies <br />Subject: Oakleigh PUD PDT 13-01 <br />The Planning Commission has asked for guidance on a couple of issues prior to <br />continuing deliberations on the Oakleigh PUD. <br />1. Bothman v. City of Eugene <br />. The first assignment of error in the appeal statement asserts that the Planning <br />Commission must address two Metro Plan policies that the hearings official failed to address <br />(Metro Plan Policy F.26 and Metro Plan Policy F.36). The appellant argues that the Planning <br />Commission must address these policies even though they are not worded as mandatory approval <br />criteria. <br />The general rule is that a comprehensive plan or refinement plan policy need not be <br />addressed, in a specific land use action (such as this PUD) unless the policy uses mandatory <br />language that would make it an applicable approval criterion. However, there are some instances <br />where the language of a policy is not mandatory, but where the language could require the <br />Planning Commission to "consider" the policy or weigh certain factors. In the case cited, <br />Bothman, the refinement plan policy in question provided: "[r]ecognize the existing general <br />office and commercial uses located along the west side of Coburg Road, north of Willakenzie <br />Road, and discourage future rezonings of these properties." LUBA held that, in a request to <br />rezone several properties within that area from C-1 and GO to C-2, the Planning Commission <br />was required to at least "consider" the policy. LUBA recognized that the role that any particular <br />policy would play depends on the actual text and context of the policy at issue. <br />The two polices raised by the appellant in this case are not like the policy at issue in <br />Bothman. Policy F.26 provides: "Provide for a pedestrian environment that, is. well integrated <br />with adjacent-land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of <br />wallring." Policy F.36 provides: "Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on <br />the transportation system." First, the applicant contends that the policies do 'not provide <br />mandatory approval standards. Letter dated December 5 from Zack Mittge. Further, unlike the <br />policies in Bothman, where the policies actually sought to discourage the exact planning action <br />that was being proposed, the text and context of these policies do not appear to require any <br />additional consideration for the proposed PUD. Ihe Planning Commission should include <br />qty o£ Eugene 25 HtFi Ave Euj -ne OR974(11 1 68 h X41 82 54-14 > ax <br /> <br />(00108854;1 } J <br />115 <br />