Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fa Mr. Bennett directed a question to City Attorney Tim Sercombe about how the <br /> Parks and Recreation Plan relates to the Metro Plan. Specifically, Mr. <br /> Bennett said he was concerned that the draft plan assigns priority to and <br /> directs action on specific community needs and may lead to questions of <br /> interpretation. Mr. Sercombe responded that clarifying language has been <br /> placed in the resolution that addresses Mr. Bennett1s concern, which the <br /> Planning Commission also considered when it discussed the draft plan. That <br /> language helps interpret the different policies and their future use by the <br /> City. The resolution itself will be printed in the final version of the plan <br /> as an aid to interpretation. <br /> Mr. Sercombe said one of his concerns had been that the plan not be <br /> interpreted to create land use decisions out of every administrative and <br /> financial decision made by the City in connection with the parks and <br /> recreation system. If general policy language in the plan was interpreted as <br /> creating planning policy after adoption by council, a number of <br /> administrative and financial facilities planning decisions could be converted <br /> into land use decisions. The consequences of those types of decisions being <br /> classified as such would be that they would need to be taken after a <br /> quasi-judicial or contested case hearing process, would need to be justified <br /> by findings, and could be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Mr. <br /> Sercombe referred to a memorandum he sent the Planning Commission and said <br /> that many of the draft plan's policies are only guidelines for the council <br /> and for staff in making parks and recreation decisions in the future. Those <br /> policies which implement the Metro Plan are adopted as policy to guide land <br />e use decisions. The resolution specifies that the proposed actions that are <br /> intended to be guidelines (particularly the assignment of high, medium, and <br /> low priorities to specific elements of the plan) are not adopted as policy <br /> and are not intended to commit the City to do any particular project. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked whether there was significance in the fact that the name had <br /> been changed from the 1983 title which included "Master Plan" to just "Plan.1I <br /> Mr. Sercombe saw no legal significance in the change. <br /> Mr. Holmer asked which policies in the plan are land use regulations or are <br /> adopted as policies to be used in making land use decisions. Mr. Sercombe <br /> responded that those policies are not highlighted within the Parks and <br /> Recreation Plan. He added that where general policy covering the regulation <br /> of specific land use decisions has already been adopted in the Metro Plan and <br /> language in this plan refines that or makes it more clear, that policy <br /> language is adopted as guiding land use decisions. <br /> Ms. Bascom thanked staff for its diligent work on the draft plan. She <br /> commented that demographic studies conducted as part of the development of <br /> the plan showed that the parks having the heaviest use were those along the <br /> riverbank. Studies also revealed new, increased demand for mini-neighborhood <br /> parks. Ms. Bascom said the hearings on the draft plan demonstrated the need <br /> to develop networks with other public institutions, including the University <br /> of Oregon, for use of playing fields and swimming pools. <br />- MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1989 Page 5 <br />