Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; July 14, 2004; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Petitioners are contesting the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision that upheld the City of Pendleton's approval of a conditional use permit for a proposed 15-acre city park on land zoned Low Density Residential (R-1) near a tributary of the Umatilla River. They argue that the city misinterpreted its comprehensive plan parks and recreation policy as a mere classification system rather than as mandatory approval criteria. The city’s zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for certain developments, which the Planning Commission granted, leading to an appeal by the petitioners to the City Council and then to LUBA.
Petitioners assert that the conditional use permit should have been denied because the proposed use did not comply with the comprehensive plan, specifically citing that the plan's Park Policy 2 mandates community parks to be at least 30 acres. Although LUBA remanded the decision on other grounds, it agreed with the city that the cited comprehensive plan sections were not mandatory criteria. The court affirmed LUBA's remand but disagreed with its conclusion regarding the comprehensive plan’s status as approval criteria. It found that the city’s findings did not clarify how the comprehensive plan's park policies applied to the park's approval process, nor did they provide a rationale for the community park policy's relevance or applicability. Consequently, the court concluded that LUBA erred by not requiring the city to explain the applicability of the community park policy, directing LUBA to ensure the city addresses this issue on remand.
The council reaffirmed its approval of the city’s conditional use permit application after remand, but LUBA ruled that the council had not clarified if the comprehensive plan's policies were mandatory criteria or merely aspirational. Upon further review, the council stated that its park classification system outlines types of parks without establishing mandatory development criteria. It identified four classifications: A) Play parks and play lots, B) Neighborhood parks/playgrounds, C) Community parks, and D) Special recreation areas. It emphasized that the classification designations do not necessitate all aspirational features be present in each park.
Within the R-1 zoning, 'city parks' are permitted outright, defined as areas designated for public use. Policy 2A specifies play parks should serve populations within a one-quarter mile radius, while Policy 2B aims for neighborhood parks to serve a half-mile radius. Policy 2C addresses community parks with less clarity, suggesting a goal of city-wide access within one mile, which is deemed aspirational and financially uncertain. The council acknowledged that while it aims for a minimum community park size of 30 acres, this too is aspirational, and it prefers to establish smaller parks rather than none at all.
The council concluded that neither the minimum size for community parks nor the distance standards are mandatory approval criteria, viewing them instead as goals. Petitioners appealed to LUBA again, which upheld the council's interpretation, stating that petitioners did not prove the council's understanding of its park policies contradicted their language or intent.
Petitioners are seeking judicial review of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision, arguing that the city council's ruling violates the community park policy, which mandates a minimum park size of 30 acres. The city council has since amended the Umatilla River Subdistrict zoning to exempt the relevant development activity from requiring a conditional use permit. This new ordinance classifies city parks as consistent with the subdistrict's purpose and compatible with existing open-space utilization, thereby exempting them from review and permit requirements under the zoning provisions.
In light of this ordinance, the court inquired whether the petition is moot, particularly if the city plans to abandon the conditional use permit currently under review. The city clarified that it does not intend to abandon the permit due to ongoing litigation concerning the park and the permits for work therein in federal court. Abandoning the permit could complicate the city’s legal position regarding previously constructed improvements and the pending litigation.
The court must determine if the ordinance amendment renders the petition moot. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the court noted that if a decision no longer affects the parties' rights, it may be dismissed as moot. However, the city’s stance indicates that a ruling on the legality of the city council’s and LUBA’s decisions would have practical implications for the ongoing litigation, and petitioners did not contest this point.
The merits of the case hinge on whether the city council's interpretation of its comprehensive plan aligns with the plan's explicit language and policies. Specifically, the plan states that the optimal standard for recreational land is one acre per 100 residents, with a minimum standard of two-thirds acre per 100 residents. Additionally, it categorizes parks into four types, emphasizing that play parks should be developed primarily for neighborhoods lacking other recreational facilities.
Design and accessibility criteria for parks include a one-fourth mile radius for neighborhood parks with minimal barriers to pedestrian access, featuring equipment like swings, slides, and benches, and a minimum size of 10,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood parks/playgrounds should accommodate both quiet relaxation and active play within a one-half mile radius, ideally located near play lots, with a minimum size of five acres and facilities including restrooms and sports areas. Community parks, sized at a minimum of 30 acres, should offer major recreational facilities for city-wide use and be located at least a mile from other major recreational areas. Special recreation areas encompass a Parkway system for aesthetic preservation and various recreational activities, which may be integrated within community parks or school grounds but typically exist separately.
The Pendleton Comprehensive Plan includes policies for evaluating existing parks and addressing deficiencies through cost-effective programs, indicating a focus on future city planning rather than immediate approval or disapproval of specific applications. The policy uses the term "standards," which is ambiguous and likely refers to classification rather than criteria for application decisions. The mention of minimum park sizes is interpreted by the city as aspirational, supporting the idea that the policy does not mandate strict adherence to all standards for park creation. Consequently, LUBA's conclusion that the city council's interpretation aligns with the comprehensive plan's language and intent is affirmed.
