New Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />2. The Findings in Support of the PROS Plan are Consistent. <br />Petitioners assert that the City's findings in support of the PROS Plan are inconsistent <br />because the findings state that the PROS Plan is not a refinement to the Metro Plan while at the <br />same time state that the PROS Plan replaces the 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan and that the <br />PROS Plan is the City's local parks and recreation plan. The findings identified by Petitioners <br />are, in fact, consistent with one another .3 <br />a. The Pros Plan is Not a Refinement Plan. <br />As explained above, the City adopted the PROS Plan as a stand -alone internal guidance <br />document. The City was clear that the Plan was not adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. <br />b. The PROS Plan Replaced the 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan. <br />In July, 1989 the City adopted portions of the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan (1989 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21, <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />Plan) as a refinement to the Metro Plan. (Rec. OE N). The 1989 Plan was adopted prior to the <br />State's adoption of OAR Chapter 660, Division 34, the State and Local Park Planning Rules <br />(Park Planning Rules). The Park Planning Rules, adopted by LCDC in 1998, made it very clear <br />that the City was not required to adopt the City's local parks plan as a refinement to the Metro <br />Plan. (App. 4). Specifically, OAR 660- 034 - 0040(1) states, in part: <br />"Local park providers may prepare local park master plans, and local <br />governments may amend acknowledged comprehensive plans and zoning <br />ordinances pursuant to the requirements and procedures of ORS 197.610 to <br />197.625 in order to implement such local park plans." <br />(Emphasis added). The City's decision to not adopt the PROS Plan as a refinement to the Metro <br />Plan, while at the same time replacing the 1989 Plan, does not create a lack of clarity regarding <br />the City's intentions nor an inconsistency in the City's findings. Rather, the City's act of <br />adopting the PROS Plan is supported by state law and is perfectly clear. <br />'While Petitioners never assert that the findings adopted in support of the PROS Plan fail to adequately <br />explain compliance with the goals. Petitioners state: "Goal 2 imposes an obligation to [sic] for the local government <br />to explain why the amendment complies with the goals." (Pet. Br. 15). If Petitioners are asserting that the City <br />failed to comply with Goal 2. that argument is not sufficiently developed. The findings adopted in support of the <br />PROS Plan sufficiently explain why the PROS Plan complies with the Statewide Planning Goals. (Rec. 12 -21). <br />Pate F - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />