14 <br />Or 301, 194 P3d 147 (2008); National Mortgage Co. v. Robert C. Wyatt, Inc., <br />173 Or App 16, 23-24, 20 P3d 216, rev den, 332 Or 430, 30 P3d 1183 (2001). <br />To that end, courts liberally construe procedural requirements so as to avoid the <br />harsh result of depriving a party of its day in court. See also Johnson v. <br />Sunriver Resort Ltd. Partnership, 252 Or App 299, 287 P3d 1153 (2012) and <br />David M. Scott Construction v. Farrell, 285 Or 563, 592 P.2d 551 (1979) <br />(judicial policy favors preserving right to appeal). Thus, LUBA has a mandate <br />to follow the "sound principle of judicial review" to ensure that all parties are <br />able to participate in judicial and quasi-judicial matters, including appeals to <br />LUBA. Allowing a petitioner to a LUBA proceeding to preclude intervention, <br />intentionally or because of a local government's errors, is inconsistent with that <br />requirement. <br />Additional context for this interpretation can be found in the Statewide <br />Land Use Planning Goals. Beaver State Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas <br />County, 187 Or App 241, 65 P3d 1123 (2003). Goal One, the first of the land <br />use planning Goals, requires local governments to ensure citizen involvement at <br />all stages of the land use process. It requires local governments to have "a <br />citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be <br />involved in all phases of the planning process." This overarching Goal suggests <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />