i occur to accommodate these activities in the floodway„ <br />2 Its is not immediately clear to this Board whether all or <br />3 any of the agreed-on floodway improvements are permissible. <br />4 Under the plan, "new development" is flatly prohibited in the <br />5 f loodway. "New development" :However, is not defined in the <br />6 plan. Although the development code includes an expansive <br />7 definition of "developments"8 and would therefore seem to <br />tf gully support petitioner's challenge-, a development rode <br />9 provision designed to implement the plan's floodway policy <br />itl seems to authorize at least some of Permawood's activities in <br />ii the floodway, i.e., the proposed bikeway and plantings. we <br />12 agree with respondents these mighty well qualify as allowable <br />13 "Open space user" under §11.020 of the development code. On <br />14 the other hand, the plan and coda strongly suggest: that <br />" <br />i, preparation and use of land in the floodway for truck <br />its, maneuvering, parking or outside storage is not allowable. <br />67 As we have repeatedly held, the responsibility for <br />itt interpreting a local land use control is initially that of the <br />ig local yov'erni.ng body. tee e.g., Dawson v. CijLy__.2f <br />20 Boardman, Cr LUBA (1904) (LUBA No. 83-069, February 8, <br />21 1984). Our function is that of a revi.eswi.na tribunal; we cannot <br />22 properly perform this function unless local decision makers <br />23 first set forth their understanding of the facts and the <br />24 applicable law. In the present situation, we believe the <br />25 Albany City Council_ should review Perm2awood's proposal in light <br />26 of the above:-quoted floodway restrictions in the plan and <br />Page 13 <br />