I Opinion by Holstun <br />2 NATURE OF THE DECISION <br />3 Petitioners appeal two county ordinances that amend a county rural <br />4 comprehensive plan and co-adopt city comprehensive plan amendments to the <br />5 city's transportation system plan and urban growth boundary. <br />6 MOTION TO FILE OVER-LENGTH BRIEF; MOTION TO STRIKE <br />7 Respondents Lane County and City of Coburg (county and city, <br />8 collectively respondents) filed a motion for an over-length response brief. <br />9 Petitioners Land Watch of Lane County and Lee Kersten (petitioners) filed a <br />10 motion to strike and a response to the motion. Because we have two <br />11 consolidated appeals, complex decisions and issues, and a large number of <br />12 parties, we consider all the parties' filings, and petitioners' motion to strike the <br />13 over-length response brief is denied. <br />14 FACTS <br />15 Respondents have an intergovernmental agreement regarding <br />16 coordinated planning and urban services pursuant to ORS 190.003 et seq. To <br />17 address projected population growth in the area, the county and city initiated an <br />18 urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion by passing ordinances to amend the <br />19 city's UGB and revise the city's transportation system plan (TSP) for the area, <br />20 based in part on the expanded UGB. The county ordinances that are before us <br />Page 3 <br />