New Search
Ms. Jan Childs <br /> September 20, 2001 <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> In summary, the applicant makes two suggestions here: (1) Parks issues related to the <br /> Ridgeline Trail should not be an issue in this PUD appeal. There is no Ridgeline Trail in this <br /> area to connect to, and there is no Ridgeline Trail planned in this area to connect to. (2) Instead <br /> of focusing on exacting or buying park land in the City to link to the Ridgeline Trail, the city <br /> Parks Planning staff should shift gears and do the planning for the Ridgeline Trail first. This <br /> would involve working in a cooperative way with Lane County to get the County to adopt a <br /> comprehensive plan for the trail, and then securing the land use permits from the County to <br /> legalize the trail use as a park on resource land in the county's jurisdiction. Once a county plan is <br /> in place that authorizes the Ridgeline Trail, then the City can focus on coordinating acquisitions <br /> in the City that link to and support the trail. To simplify this proposal further, the City should <br /> first focus on getting a plan in place authorizing the trail; then is should get the county permits <br /> needed for the trail; then it should acquire and develop the trail. <br /> Continuing on the current course poses serious risks for development of the park. Under <br /> the current strategy the City is ignoring the law and developing the park on resource land that is <br /> under county jurisdiction without the required planning or land use permits. Private persons, or <br /> the County at the request of private persons, could enforce against the City at any time. The <br /> rationale for enforcement would be that the city's park use is illegal. City operation of a park on <br /> rural resource land outside the UGB without required county permits is no different from a <br /> private person operating a park on such land without county permits. <br /> As a fuller explanation of this situation, I am enclosing a July 10, 2001, File <br /> Memorandum that examines the legal status of the Ridgeline Trail park in the context of statutes, <br /> rules, plans and codes that apply. The memorandum supports the following points, among <br /> others: <br /> • No adopted plan supports a Ridgeline Trail park outside the UGB, which is where the <br /> City wants most of the trail to be. This land is under county land use jurisdiction, not the <br /> city's. The city's park plan has no more effect in Lane County outside the UGB than it <br /> would in the City of Albany, for example. The current county park plan, which does <br /> apply, does not include the Ridgeline Trail park. <br /> • A valid plan for the trail would have to be a county plan for all those areas outside the <br /> UGB. Rural Lane County is under county land use jurisdiction, not the city's. It would <br /> also have to be the product of comprehensive planning that meets a new statute and <br /> LCDC rule for parks planning. <br /> • Any new Ridgeline Trail park development on Agricultural or Forest land would need <br /> county permits for parks use, and those permits would have to comply with state law. <br /> • Any existing Ridgeline Trial park uses on Agricultural or Forest land outside the UGB, <br /> which are not authorized by county land use permits, are likely illegal, unless they predate <br /> the effect of statutes, rules and code provisions that govern park uses on resource lands. <br />