261 P.3d 85
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Goodpasture applied for tentative approval of a PUD in Eugene comprising multiple parcels, with a plan for hundreds of residential units and a commercial building.
- The city approved the Hearing Officer’s decision; Willamette Oaks appealed to the Eugene planning commission challenging the decision and the city's appeal fee.
- The city charged Willamette Oaks a fee of $14,870.87 to appeal to the planning commission under a city fee schedule.
- The planning commission refused to accept extra-record evidence challenging the fee under Eugene Code 9.7655(2)-(3), and upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision with some modifications.
- Willamette Oaks sought relief at LUBA, challenging both the planning commission’s decision and the appeal fee, and LUBA remanded to the city to develop evidence on whether the fee violated ORS 227.180(1)(c).
- This court ultimately reversed and remanded regarding the fee issue, holding LUBA erred in remanding to obtain evidence on the fee violation and distinguishing Young v. Crook County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LUBA had jurisdiction to remand on the fee-violation issue | Willamette Oaks argues LUBA had jurisdiction to address the fee issue on remand. | City contends LUBA lacked authority to review a fiscal decision and remand for fee evidence. | LUBA erred; remand on the fee issue was improper. |
| Whether Eugene Code 9.7655 restricts new evidence on fee challenges | Willamette Oaks needed to present evidence on the fee violation on remand. | Planning commission cannot accept new evidence under the code, limiting review. | Remand to admit evidence was improper given the code limits on new evidence. |
| Whether Young v. Crook County supports admitting fee-challenge evidence at local level | Young requires opportunity to present prima facie fee-challenge evidence at local level. | Young does not apply free-standingly to compel local admission of fee evidence here. | Young does not authorize the remand here; the principle was misapplied. |
| Whether the local appeal fee violates ORS 227.180(1)(c) was reviewable by LUBA | Willamette Oaks contends the fee may exceed statutory limits and is reviewable. | The issue is not properly reviewable within LUBA due to procedural constraints. | Not addressed on merits; remand on the fee issue improper, so reverse on this point. |
| What is the proper disposition of Willamette Oaks's fee-challenge appeal | Willamette Oaks seeks relief by permitting evidence and potential fee adjustment. | City disputes remedial authority and proper process for fee challenge. | LUBA erred; case reversed and remanded with respect to the fee challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Crook County, 224 Or.App. 1 (Or. App. 2008) (as-applied fee challenges require local prima facie evidence and burden-shifting review)
- Friends of Lincoln County, Inc. v. City of Newport, 7 Or. LUBA 114 (Or. LUBA 1982) (fiscal decisions framed as not reviewable by LUBA)
- Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or.App. 525 (Or. App. 1980) (local appeal and transcript fees deemed fiscal decisions not reviewable by LUBA)