New Search
I of park facilities needed for the planning period." Petitioners do not further elaborate on their <br />2 argument, nor do they explain why a local parks plan must comply with the states' definition of <br />3 "comprehensive plan." <br />4 The definition of "comprehensive plan" does not apply to the City's adoption of the <br />5 PROS Plan. The Metro Plan is this area's acknowledged comprehensive plan, as that term is <br />6 defined by ORS 197.015(5) and the Metro Plan is not now on review. Even if the <br />7 comprehensive plan was on review in this appeal, the definition does not require that the plan <br />8 set out the park facilities that are needed for the planning period. <br />9 2. Goal 2. <br />10 Petitioners argue that, based on Statewide Planning Goal 2, LUBA is required to remand <br />11 the PROS Plan because of that Plan's omission of "an identification of park facilities needed for <br />12 the planning period." (Pet. Br. 29, lines 5 -6, Pet. Br. 30, line 23 to 31, line 2). Petitioners argue <br />13 that this omission in the PROS Plan violates Goal 2's requirement that land use plans include <br />14 "ultimate policy choices." Petitioners argue that the City is prohibited from adopting a plan that <br />15 does not include "policy choices about what facilities are needed to implement the plan." (Pet. <br />16 Br. 30, lined 1 -15). <br />17 Goal 2 does not require that the PROS Plan identifythe park facilities that will be needed <br />18 in the future. With respect to specific determinations as to the improvements needed to existing <br />19 park land and as to the quantity, location, type and size of future parks, the City Council's <br />20 ultimate policy choice was to make such determinations as part of a different process. The <br />21 ultimate policy choice made by the Council in adopting the PROS Plan was to approve the PROS <br />22 Plan as guidance, a Plan to be consulted as the City makes those separate, more detailed <br />23 determinations about specific projects and facilities. Petitioners do not explain how this violates <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />11 Page 25 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />