New Search
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />Page <br />I. PETITIONERS' STANDING ........ ............................... <br />1 <br />II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE <br />1 <br />A. Nature of the Land Use Decision <br />1 <br />B. Summary of Argument ......... ............................... <br />1 <br />C. Summary of Material Facts ..... ............................... <br />3 <br />III. JURISDICTION <br />6 <br />IV. RESPONSES TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ....................... <br />6 <br />A. Response to First Assignment of Error ........................... <br />6 <br />The City clearly adopted the PROS Plan as a stand -alone <br />internal guidance document and not as a refinement plan. The <br />City's adoption of the PROS Plan is supported by adequate <br />findings and facts. <br />1. The City's Intent is Clear . ............................... <br />6 <br />2. The Findings in Support of the PROS Plan are <br />Consistent. ............. ..............................8 <br />a. The Pros Plan is Not a Refinement Plan .............. <br />8 <br />b. The PROS Plan Replaced the 1989 Parks and <br />Recreation Plan .. ............................... <br />8 <br />C. The PROS Plan is the City's Local Parks Plan ......... <br />9 <br />3. Conclusion ............. ..............................9 <br />B. Response to Second Assignment of Error ......................... <br />9 <br />The City's adoption of the PROS Plan to serve as the City's <br />local park and recreation plan was a land use decision. <br />2C <br />