New Search
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <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 />require that the City adopt its local parks and recreation plan in a specific manner. Significantly, <br />the Metro Plan does not require that the City adopt its local parks and recreation plan as a "land <br />use plan." In fact, nowhere in the Metro Plan is the term "land use plan" ever used. The City's <br />adoption of the PROS Plan as the local parks and recreation plan; in accordance with the state <br />and local procedures established for making a land use decision, is consistent with the Metro <br />Plan. <br />Notably, almost all of Petitioners' second assignment of error is supported by references <br />to Petitioners Appendices 21 -25, the Parks and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan <br />with the 2004 amendments. That version of the Metro Plan was not in place at the time the City <br />adopted Resolution No. 4858. While amendments to the Metro Plan were adopted in April, <br />2004, because of appeals filed by Petitioners, themselves, those amendments did not go into <br />effect until February 28, 2006, 15 days after the adoption of Resolution No. 4858 (the subject <br />of this appeal).' <br />As such, the version of the Metro Plan attached as Appendices 21 -25 to the Petition for <br />Review was not in effect at the time the City adopted Resolution No. 4858 and does not apply <br />to this appeal. As such, all arguments in the Petition for Review based on Appendices 21 -25 <br />should be disregarded. The City has attached to this brief, as Appendices 5 -9, the Parks and <br />Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan that was in place at the time the City adopted <br />the PROS Plan. <br />The City's land use decision to adopt the PROS Plan as the City's local parks and <br />recreation plan is consistent with the Metro Plan. LUBA should reject Petitioners' arguments <br />to the contrary. <br />'Specifically. LUBA issued its Final Opinion and Order dismissing Hoene Builders Association of'Lane <br />Countti' and Home Builders Construction Company r. Cite of Eugene, City of Springfield and Lane County. LUBA <br />Nos. 2004 -079, 2004 -082 and 2004 -094, on February 7, 2006. The Final Opinion and Order stated that the Order <br />was subject to review pursuant to ORS 197.850. Accordingly, the Order dismissing the Home Builders' appeal of <br />the Metro Plan amendments did not become final until 21 days after February 7, 2006 (i.e., February 28, 2006). <br />The Eugene City Council adopted Resolution No. 4858 on February 13, 2006, 15 days before the amendments to <br />the Metro Plan became final. <br />Page 10 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />