New Search
I stated, an appeal period was running pursuant to ORS 197.850. The circumstances specific to <br />2 that particular LUBA order, and any party's inclination to appeal, are irrelevant. <br />3 Petitioners make the alternative argument that, even if the housekeeping amendments did <br />4 not apply to the City's adoption of the PROS Plan, LUBA should consider the housekeeping <br />5 amendments as "what the PROS Plan is intended to be." The City agrees that LUBA may take <br />6 official notice of the ordinance that adopted the Metro Plan housekeeping amendments. <br />7 However, there is no reason for LUBA to do so in this case. Since those amendments were <br />8 neither in effect nor acknowledged at the time the City adopted the PROS Plan, the City <br />9 disagrees that LUBA can consider them in determining whether the PROS Plan is consistent with <br />10 the Metro Plan. <br />11 <br />12 Dated this 3r day of July, 2006. <br />13 <br />14 HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. <br />15 <br />16 Ka hryn P rotherton, OSB #98153 <br />Emily N. Jerome, OSB #95365 <br />17 Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Eugene <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />Page 4 - CITY'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION AND PROPOSED REPLY BRIEF <br />