New Search
Pave <br />C. Response to Third Assignment of Error ......................... 11 <br />The Metro Plan does not mandate that the PROS Plan be <br />adopted as a refinement plan. Adopting the PROS Plan as a <br />stand -alone internal guidance document is consistent with the <br />Metro Plan and does not amount to a de facto amendment to <br />the Metro Plan. <br />1. Adoption of the PROS Plan as a Stand -Alone Document ...... 11 <br />2. The City Did Not Effectuate a De Facto Amendment to <br />the Metro Plan ........ ............................... 12 <br />3. Conclusion ............. .............................12 <br />D. Response to Fourth Assignment of Error ......................... 13 <br />LUBA has consistently stated that it will not elevate form <br />over substance when reviewing an enactment that was made <br />by resolution instead of an ordinance. <br />E. Response to Fifth Assignment of Error .......................... 14 <br />The PROS Plan meets the requirements of the statute and <br />LCDC rules that apply to park plans. <br />1. Parks Planning Statute .. ............................... 14 <br />2. LCDC Parks Planning Rule ............................. 14 <br />3. Conclusion ............. .............................16 <br />F. Response to Sixth Assignment of Error .......................... 16 <br />The planning period and the population projections used in <br />the PROS plan do not violate Statewide Planning Goal 2 or <br />the Metro Plan. <br />1. Background ............ .............................16 <br />a. Population Projections and Planning Period for <br />the Metro Plan .. ............................... 16 <br />-ii- <br />