2006 PROS Plan - Legal Appeals - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

I harmless error. Because the City followed an extensive public process prior to adopting the 2 PROS Plan, no one was prejudiced by the enactment of the PROS Plan by resolution instead of 3 ordinance; Petitioners do not offer any argument to the contrary. As such, LUBA should deny 4 Petitioners' fourth assignment of error. 5 E. Response to Fifth Assignment of Error 6 The PROS Plan meets the requirements of the statute and LCDC rules that apply to park plans. 7 8 Petitioners' fifth assignment of error asserts that the PROS Plan does not include 9 elements required by the Parks Planning Statute (ORS 195.120) and the LCDC Parks Planning 10 Rule (OAR 660 - 034 -0000, et seq. ). As discussed below, the PROS Plan did not need to include 11 the elements delineated in OAR 660 - 034 - 0040(1) Parks Planning Rule because the City did not 12 adopt the PROS Plan as part of its comprehensive plan. 13 1. Parks Planning Statute. 14 Petitioners do not assert that the City failed to comply with an element of the state's 15 Parks Planning Statute. Rather, Petitioners merely block -quote ORS 195.120, which directs 16 LCDC to adopt rules related to state and local parks. The Parks Planning Statute does not 17 establish any requirement to which the City must comply; thus, the City does not address the 18 Parks Planning Statute any further. 19 2. LCDC Parks Planning Rule. 20 Petitioners assert that, because the PROS Plan is a "local parks plan" within the meaning 21 of the LCDC Parks Planning Rule and because the PROS Plan "has been adopted as a part of the 22 comprehensive plan, in some fashion," the PROS Plan must have the elements set forth in the 23 Rule. (Pet. Br. 24, In. 6 -8). The PROS Plan was not, in any fashion, adopted as part of the 24 City's comprehensive plan, thus, the City was not required to include in the PROS Plan the 25 elements set forth in the Parks Planning Rule. 26 /// I j Pate 14 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENTT