New Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />housekeeping amendments, if applicable, would support their arguments that the PROS Plan <br />should have been called a "refinement plan" and that the PROS Plan should have included a list <br />of the City's park projects. The City disagrees and addresses these arguments in the <br />Respondent's Brief. <br />As stated in the Respondent's Brief, the housekeeping amendments were not in effect <br />when the City adopted the PROS Plan because of a pending appeal filed by Petitioners, <br />themselves. Non - site - specific Metro Plan amendments are effective on the date on which all <br />three Metro jurisdictions' ordinances have taken effect. Metro Plan IV -2. Local governments <br />set the effective date of their own ordinances and in this instance, the effective date for the <br />housekeeping amendments was the date on which the ordinances were acknowledged.' Tying <br />the effective date to acknowledgment ensures that the amendments are not applied to any local <br />decisions until it is clear that the amendments will not be remanded. At the time the City <br />adopted the PROS Plan, the housekeeping amendments were not yet acknowledged. Therefore, <br />they did not apply. <br />As discussed in the Respondent's Brief, Petitioners had appealed the housekeeping <br />amendments both to DLCD and to LUBA. At the time of the PROS Plan decision, the DLCD <br />appeal process had concluded.' However, the LUBA appeal process was still pending. LUBA <br />issued its Final Opinion and Order on February 7, 2006. The appeal period for LUBA's order <br />was still running at the time the City made its decision on the PROS Plan. In their Reply, <br />Petitioners argue that, due to the specific circumstances leading up to LUBA's order on the <br />housekeeping amendments, no one would have appealed the order. However, as LUBA's order <br />2 Even if the housekeeping amendments did apply, as discussed in the City's Response Brief, they do not <br />support Petitioners' arguments. Petitioners' brief quotes from a "finding" that was added to the Metro Plan as part <br />of the housekeeping amendments (fording 3 at Pet. Br. App -23) along with a new sentence added to Policy H.2. (also <br />at Pet. Br. App -23). Petitioners site to the new Metro Plan language in support of their argument that the City was <br />required to have adopted the PROS Plan as a "refinement plan." Pet. Br. 19 <br />'See Section 5 of the attached ordinance adopting the housekeeping amendments (Exhibit A). <br />4 DLCD's acknowledgment order was issued on May 3, 2005. Home Builders appealed that order to the <br />Court of Appeals, but later withdrew their appeal. <br />Page 3 - CITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION AND PROPOSED REPLY BRIEF <br />