Crowley v. City of Hood River

Under HRCP Goal 8, Policy 1, the city of Hood River must protect existing parks from being impacted by incompatible uses on nearby lands, but the city council may nevertheless elect to rezone existing parks to allow for new uses.

The subject property, Morrison Park, is a 5.03-acre city park zoned as “Open Space/Public Facilities” (OS/PF), located in the city of Hood River. The park is undeveloped, with the exception of a disc golf course. The land was acquired by the city in the 1930s and has been used as a city park since. In 1976, the park was zoned as “Open Space,” and then in the early 1980s, rezoned to OS/PF. At that same time, the city adopted and incorporated into its comprehensive plan the “Background Report for the City of Hood River Comprehensive Plan, May 1983.” The Background Report included the inventories and findings “supporting the elements of the Hood River Comprehensive Plan (HRCP), including its Goal 8 Recreational Resource Element. That element implements the city’s obligations under Statewide Planning Goal 8.” The document states that the resource inventory “contains a list of existing park sites and comments concerning quality and suggested improvements . . . and] existing parks will be protected from incompatible uses.”

Petitioner appeals a city council decision approving a comprehensive plan and rezoning map amendment that would allow the park to be developed for high-density residential use. Under the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that rezoning Morrison Park would fail to protect the park from “incompatible uses.” However, the city responds, and LUBA agreed, that “incompatible uses” is ambiguous, and either the petitioner or the respondent’s interpretation could be correct. However, petitioner’s interpretation would require the presumption that the 1983 city council, in adopting HRCP Goal 8, Policy I, “meant to tie the hands of future city councils, and to prohibit the city from ever rezoning a city park to allow for a non-park use, in effect to require the city to maintain all existing parks in perpetuity.” LUBA rejected this interpretation and found that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the city’s interpretation of HRCP Goal 8, Policy I, is inconsistent with the policy’s express language, its, purpose, or underlying policies. AFFIRMED.