New Search
Planning Commission September 13, 2006 Page 2 <br />of private recreational facilities in meeting demand for parks, open space and recreation facilities. <br />LUBA also rejected Home Builders' assertion that the City failed to properly coordinate with Lane <br />County and held that the City was within its legal authority to include portions of Lane County in <br />the PROS Plan. <br />B. Sustained Assignments of Error <br />LUBA combined Home Builders' second and third assignments of error and sustained them, <br />requiring that the City address the issues raised in those two assignments of error on remand. In <br />these assignments of error, Home Builders argued that the City was required to adopt the PROS Plan <br />as a refinement plan (i. e., part of the Metro Plan). While LUBA agreed with the City that the Metro <br />Plan does not clearly dictate that the local parks plan must be adopted as a refinement plan, LUBA <br />determined that the City's adoption of the PROS Plan as a purely aspirational document was <br />inconsistent with the Metro Plan's Parks and Recreation Facilities Policy H.2. That policy provides: <br />Local parks and recreation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each jurisdiction <br />and coordinated on a metropolitan level. The parks standards adopted by the <br />applicable city and incorporated into the city's development code shall be used in <br />local development processes. <br />The last sentence of Policy H.2. was added as part of the recent housekeeping amendments to the <br />Metro Plan. Thus, LUBA's decision relied, in part, on Metro Plan text that was added as part of <br />these recent housekeeping amendments. <br />C. Action on Remand <br />LUBA did not provide the City with much direction regarding how it should act on remand. <br />While LUBA was clear that the City needed to adopt, at least part, of the PROS Plan as a refinement <br />to the Metro Plan, LUBA did not state which parts of the PROS Plan should be a part of the Metro <br />Plan. Further, LUBA did not state to what degree the PROS Plan needed to more than purely <br />2 In adopting the PROS Plan, the City made findings to show that the PROS Plan Comprehensive Plan is <br />consistent with the version of the Metro Plan that preceded the housekeeping amendments. The findings did not address <br />the housekeeping amendments because those amendments were on appeal with LUBA at the time of the PROS Plan <br />adoption. The housekeeping amendments did not take effect until they were "acknowledged" pursuant to state law, <br />which normally cannot occur until all appeals are final pursuant to ORS 197.625. In this case, however, LUBA held that <br />ORS 197.625 did not apply because the housekeeping amendments were adopted to complete a periodic review task and <br />were therefore acknowledged when LCDC completed its review, prior to the City's adoption of the PROS Plan. LUBA <br />interpreted state law to mean that LCDC's role in reviewing the housekeeping amendments divested LUBA of any <br />authority over the housekeeping amendments' acknowledgment. This is the first time LUBA has made such an <br />interpretation. <br />00152287. WPD;1 <br />