Graser-Lindsey v. City of Oregon City

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-06-2015
  • Case #: LUBA No. 2015-013
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Holstun
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Oregon City Comprehensive Plan Policy 14.3.4, the entity responsible for a new development must bear the cost of providing new public services and improvements to existing public services resulting from the new development to the maximum extent allowed under state law for Systems Development Charges.

In 2008, the city adopted the Beavercreek Road Concept Plan (BRCP) for a 453-acre area that includes the 9.7-acre proposed development that is the subject of this appeal. Elizabeth Graser-Lindsey (petitioner) appealed that decision to LUBA, and LUBA remanded the BRCP decision. In the present appeal, petitioner challenged the city’s decision granting site plan and design review approval for a proposed development comprised of 121 rental apartments and 59 live-work units on a 9.7-acre parcel located on the eastern edge of Oregon City, across Beavercreek Road from Oregon City High School. The main issue on appeal was whether the city erred by granting site plan and design review approval for the proposed development, before re-adoption of the BRCP.

Five sub-assignments under the first assignment of error were denied as providing no basis for reversal or remand because LUBA determined that a 2010 rezoning decision was not on appeal before LUBA, and the appropriate question was whether the 2010 rezoning decision included a decision to allow site plan and design review approval for the proposed development to precede re-adoption of the BRCP. The second assignment of error was also denied, because, again, petitioner was not allowed to raise issues on appeal that should have been raised in an appeal of the 2010 rezoning decision. The third assignment of error contended that the sanitary sewer, water, and transportation facilities proposed in the proposed development were inadequate and inconsistent with the city master plans. LUBA denied each of the sub-assignments under the third assignment of error involving the sufficiency of water service and conflict with Oregon City’s Transportation System Plan, finding that petitioner had failed to appropriately challenge the city’s findings in the prior decisions. AFFIRMED.