City of Portland v. City of Beaverton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

City of Portland v. City of Beaverton

886 P.2d 1084, 131 Or. App. 630, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1821

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 14, 1994

DocketLUBA 92-225; CA A84260 (Control); LUBA 93-195; CA A84261

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 886 P.2d 1084 (City of Portland v. City of Beaverton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Portland v. City of Beaverton, 886 P.2d 1084, 131 Or. App. 630, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1821 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

*633 DEITS, P. J.

In these consolidated cases, LUBA remanded comprehensive plan amendments by the City of Beaverton and Washington County, respectively. The amendments purported to establish an urban service boundary (USB) that included certain unincorporated territory in the county within the area that would ultimately be annexed by and receive services from Beaverton, rather than the City of Portland. 1 Before the amendments, the acknowledged plans of all three jurisdictions contained provisions that were to the essential effect that both cities had potential interests in eventually acquiring and servicing the area, but no determinative course had been elected by any of the jurisdictions or agreed to by the three together.

LUBA held that the amendments to the county’s and Beaverton’s plans placed them in conflict with the Portland plan in its unamended form, that the two jurisdictions could not “unilaterally alter the acknowledged land use planning status quo,” and that their doing so violated Goal 2. LUBA further concluded that, under former ORS 197.190(1), see ORS 195.025, and applicable provisions of ORS chapter 268, the coordination and the resolution of any conflicts among the planning jurisdictions are within the exclusive authority of the Metropolitan Service District. 2

Beaverton and the county seek review. On the principal points in LUBA’s opinion, which we have described above, we agree completely with LUBA’s analysis and conclusions. We also agree with LUBA’s disposition of the other issues the parties raise, and believe that no purpose would be served by restating LUBA’s discussion.

Affirmed.

1

Portland adopted a comprehensive plan amendment which, apparently, was to the exact opposite effect. LUBA also remanded that amendment. That decision is not before us in this proceeding.

2

The challenged decisions were made while the former statute cited in the text was in effect. We express no view on the effects that ORS 195.025 or any other 1993 legislation may have on the issues on remand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*633 DEITS, P. J.

In these consolidated cases, LUBA remanded comprehensive plan amendments by the City of Beaverton and Washington County, respectively. The amendments purported to establish an urban service boundary (USB) that included certain unincorporated territory in the county within the area that would ultimately be annexed by and receive services from Beaverton, rather than the City of Portland. 1 Before the amendments, the acknowledged plans of all three jurisdictions contained provisions that were to the essential effect that both cities had potential interests in eventually acquiring and servicing the area, but no determinative course had been elected by any of the jurisdictions or agreed to by the three together.

LUBA held that the amendments to the county’s and Beaverton’s plans placed them in conflict with the Portland plan in its unamended form, that the two jurisdictions could not “unilaterally alter the acknowledged land use planning status quo,” and that their doing so violated Goal 2. LUBA further concluded that, under former ORS 197.190(1), see ORS 195.025, and applicable provisions of ORS chapter 268, the coordination and the resolution of any conflicts among the planning jurisdictions are within the exclusive authority of the Metropolitan Service District. 2

Beaverton and the county seek review. On the principal points in LUBA’s opinion, which we have described above, we agree completely with LUBA’s analysis and conclusions. We also agree with LUBA’s disposition of the other issues the parties raise, and believe that no purpose would be served by restating LUBA’s discussion.

Affirmed.

1

Portland adopted a comprehensive plan amendment which, apparently, was to the exact opposite effect. LUBA also remanded that amendment. That decision is not before us in this proceeding.

2

The challenged decisions were made while the former statute cited in the text was in effect. We express no view on the effects that ORS 195.025 or any other 1993 legislation may have on the issues on remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 P.2d 1084, 131 Or. App. 630, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 1821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-portland-v-city-of-beaverton-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack