Case Name: OREGONIANS IN ACTION, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, and Deschutes County, Respondents, ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Howard Paine, Respondents below
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1995-02-22
Citations: 133 Or. App. 254
Docket Number: CA A81525
Parties: OREGONIANS IN ACTION, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, and Deschutes County, Respondents, ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Howard Paine, Respondents below.
Judges: Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, Richardson, Chief Judge, and Leeson, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 133
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 21, 1994,
affirmed February 22, 1995
OREGONIANS IN ACTION, Petitioner, v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, and Deschutes County, Respondents, ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Howard Paine, Respondents below.
(CA A81525)
889 P2d 1370
Dorothy S. Cofield argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief was David B. Smith.
Stephanie L. Striffler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Land Conservation and Development Commission. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
No appearance for respondent Deschutes County.
Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, Richardson, Chief Judge, and Leeson, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Riggs, P. J., vice Rossman, P. J., retired.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Oregonians in Action seeks review of LCDC's periodic review order for Deschutes County. In its first assignment, petitioner contends that LCDC erred by refusing to consider certain objections advanced by petitioner, on the ground that petitioner had not presented the corresponding issues to the county specifically enough to satisfy former ORS 197.643(3)(c) and OAR 660-19-080(3)(c). Petitioner maintains that LCDC wrongly imported the assertedly more stringent preservation requirements of ORS 197.763 into those provisions. Even assuming petitioner's premises, we agree with LCDC that the relevant aspects of petitioner's presentation before the county were so undifferentiated as to amount to not raising the issues in question at all. Only if the preservation requirement in former ORS 197.643 and LCDC's regulatory provision were construed as requiring no particularization could petitioner's argument succeed, and such a construction would convert the provisions into total non-sequiturs.
We reject petitioner's first assignment. We also reject petitioner's second assignment, which does not warrant discussion.
Affirmed.