My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Docs (Petitioner's Brief)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
Appeal Docs (Petitioner's Brief)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2017 4:03:30 PM
Creation date
12/28/2017 10:27:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Appeal Docs
Document_Date
10/6/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 2 of <br />Table of Contents <br />Page <br />1. PETITIONER'S STANDING . . . .................1 <br />11. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................1 <br />A. Nature of the Decision and Relief Sought ....................................................1 <br />B. Summary of Arguments ............................................................................2 <br />C. Summary of Material Facts ..........................................................................4 <br />D. Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................6 <br />III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />(Plan and code restrictions that prohibit or restrict development) <br />The city has failed to demonstrate that its residential BLI contains <br />sufficient land to accommodate 20 years of housing need. State law <br />requires the sufficiency determination to be made considering the <br />constraints that come with clear and objective standards. ORS <br />197.296-197.307; Goals 2 and 10; Goal 10 Rule. The city used the <br />wrong methodology, reaching a conclusion that is inadequately <br />explained and contrary to the evidence. More specifically, the city: <br />Premised its BLI on land developable under discretionary <br />standards and then assumed in conclusory fashion that the <br />acreage could also meet the 20-year need if development <br />proceeds under the restrictions imposed by the code's clear and <br />objective standards; <br />Failed to consider "the extent that residential development is <br />prohibited or restricted" on its BLI acreage by its regulations <br />that are clear and objective, as required by ORS 197.296(4)(b); <br />and <br />Failed to explain why its BLI remains adequate despite the <br />RBA's documentation that the city's clear and objective <br />regulations reduce what BLI acreage can be developed, reduce <br />what density may be developed, and in some instances <br />cumulatively make BLI sites undevelopable ..........................................6 <br />out:blank 1019120 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.