Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Emily N. Jerome, Esq. <br />November 10, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />case, the COtll1Cil decided to treat as a legislative decision, a proceeding that <br />started as a quasi-judicial rezone request. More importantly, relying on Snzith <br />v. Dotlglas COtl1'Zty, LUBA held the error was substantive, not procedural, and <br />reversed the city's decisiol1. <br /> <br />Another example is Wal7nart Stores, Inc. v. City of Medford, 49 Or LUBA <br />52, 57-60 (2005). III this case, the city code limited the city council's review to <br />determining whether there was substantial evidence in the record supporting <br />the planning commission's findings. Walmart argued the city council <br />exceeded its scope of review by instead re-examining issues of fact and <br />making their own findings. LUBA agreed with Walmart, holding that the city <br />exceeded the scope of review it created for itself when it adopted the code <br />provisiol1 in question. <br /> <br />This issue is not going away. The question is whether the ci ty will act <br />consistently with its own code procedure in this first proceeding. If it does <br />not, we are confident that LUBA would reverse. The Narvas respectfully <br />submit it is a better use of public and private time and resources to use the <br />correct procedure the first time. through this matter. <br /> <br />Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of this letter and for <br />your professional courtesies. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />HUTCHINSON, COX, COONS <br />DuPRIEST,ORR & SHERLOCK, P.C. <br /> <br />Douglas M. DuPriest <br /> <br />DMD:hs <br /> <br />Encl: Cases cited above <br /> <br />cc: Clie11ts <br />