New Search
I Comprehensive Plan was mailed to the Planning Directors of Springfield and <br />Lane County. Additionally, on September 27, 2005, City staff met with the Lane <br />2 County Board of Commissioners to provide the Board information regarding the <br />PROS Comprehensive Plan. In response to concerns raised by some of the <br />3 Commissioners, the City made a number of revisions to the PROS <br />Comprehensive Plan. On November 1, 2005, City staff met with the Lane <br />4 County Planning Commission to provide the Commission with information <br />regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan. <br />5 <br />6 (Rec. 13). Clearly, the City did coordinate with Lane County with respect to the PROS Plan. <br />7 V. CONCLUSION <br />8 For the reasons set forth above, LUBA should deny Petitioners' Assignments of Error. <br />9 Dated this 21 s' day of June, 2006. <br />10 <br />11 HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. <br />12 y O <br />13 Raffiryn P. rotherton, OSB #98153 <br />Emily N. Jerome, OSB #95365 <br />14 Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Eugene <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 />Pape 3 -BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />