provided or have been provided adequate notice, an opportunity to review the applications and plans, and an opportunity to present all of their arguments and evidence in fair and open hearings conducted before the City Council. 16.7
Prejudice to Substantial Rights
16.7.1 Numerous land use cases address procedural errors, not from the standpoint of jurisdiction, but in terms of whether the errors caused prejudice to the substantial rights of a petitioner. Those cases generally hold that adequate notice, an opportunity to prepare and submit objections and comments, and when required by law, the opportunity for a “fair and full hearing,” are “substantial rights.” 16.7.2 The Council notes the objections and comments received from parties to the proceeding regarding procedural errors. To the extent those objections and comments are clear enough to address, the Council has taken appropriate steps to cure. For example, in consideration of opponents’ claim that they had inadequate time to prepare for the hearing, the hearing was continued and additional oral testimony was received. In response to a claim that inadequate time had been allowed to review additional comments made by the Owner, additional time was provided. In response to allegations that relevant state agencies had not been given adequate notice, the Owner provided notice to such agencies. The most relevant state agency, ODFW, participated in the proceedings, testified orally, and submitted written testimony to the record in response to questions from the opponents. The record supports a determination that the substantial rights of all parties was preserved through procedures employed by the City. The Council does not find credible any claims of prejudice to substantial rights made by any party due to the procedures followed by the City. 16.8 Conclusion Regarding Council Authority. Oregon courts echo the statements in the Bend Charter indicating that governing body jurisdiction over land use matters cannot be relinquished except by express, ‘clear’ delegation. The presence of a statute purporting to grant authority to a local governing body to exercise jurisdiction militates against a determination that the governing body does not have such jurisdiction, or has delegated parts or all of its jurisdiction to lesser tribunals or officials. Local governments are afforded deference when interpreting their own enactments. In establishing the Council’s intent, the text and context of an ordinance are important. In establishing whether the Council intended to delegate authority over all, or any part of a development agreement, the “context” of the ordinance includes consideration of the City’s Charter. The terms of the Procedures Ordinance establish that it is not jurisdictional and was intended to establish procedures, not to convey “power” to appointed officers and the planning commission. Likewise, the City Council has not expressly or ‘clearly’ delegated or forfeited jurisdiction through any provision in its zoning ordinance. Once the jurisdiction of the Council to make a decision has been established, a petitioner wishing to contest the procedures used must establish that those procedures caused prejudice to his or her substantial rights. No party to the proceedings has established to the satisfaction of the City Council that any of his or her substantial rights were prejudiced by the procedures employed in this instance to consider the proposed Development Agreement. 148 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS ORDINANCE NO. NS-1951