New Search
1 I -13 Maintain a regional planning approach by coordinating with Oregon State <br />Parks, River Road Park and Recreation District, Willamalane Park and <br />2 Recreation District, Lane County Parks, and other neighboring <br />jurisdictions. (Rec.95). <br />3 <br />1 -23 Work with Lane County and property owners of local gravel mining <br />4 operations located north of Eugene's urban growth boundary along the <br />Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, to explore the recreation potential of <br />5 those sites once mining operations are concluded. (Rec. 96). <br />6 Further, the City of Eugene is a home rule city. The City adopted its charter pursuant to <br />7 Article XI, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution governing home rule powers of cities. Within <br />8 the City charter, the citizens granted to the City "all powers the Constitution or laws of the <br />9 United States or of this state expressing or impliedly grant or allow cities...." As such, the City <br />10 Council possessed the legislative power to adopt any resolution that is not prohibited by the <br />11 United States Constitution or federal laws, or by the Oregon Constitution or state statutes. <br />12 Neither the constitution or statutes prohibit a city from adopting a vision document that looks <br />13 beyond its jurisdiction in an effort to address future park and recreation needs. <br />141 2. The City Properly Coordinated with Lane County. <br />15 Petitioners' eleventh assignment of error states that the City "failed to coordinate with <br />16 Lane County, as required by the Metro Plan and Goal 2, by extending the scope of the PROS <br />17 Plan outside the UGB and into Lane County." (Pet. Br. 38). Petitioners, however, provide no <br />18 argument or evidence in support of their assertion. Because Petitioners have failed to develop <br />19 this argument, LUBA should not consider it. To the extent that LUBA considers the merits of <br />20 Petitioners assertion, Section IVY, above, explains how the City coordinated with Lane County. <br />21 The City's findings adopted for Resolution No. 4858 state: <br />22 Because the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not regulate when or how park land <br />will be acquired, but rather is an aspirational plan that sets forth the needs of the <br />23 community and strategies for satisfying those needs, no other governmental units <br />are affected by this resolution. <br />24 <br />Even though no other governmental units are affected by this resolution, in an <br />25 effort to educate neighboring jurisdictions about the PROS Comprehensive Plan, <br />the City took steps to provide neighboring jurisdictions an opportunity to <br />26 comment on the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, in <br />accordance with the Metro Plan, notice and a copy of the proposed PROS <br />Page 32 - BRIEF OF RESPO?NDENT <br />