Legal Opinion
Ramsey v. City of Portland
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided August 26, 1992No. LUBA 91-215; CA A75199PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.
The City of Portland seeks review of LUBA’s remand of its “interim forest review” ordinance. PCC chapter 33.453. We affirm.
The city’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations were acknowledged in May, 1981. Earlier that month, LCDC had promulgated its Goal 5 implementing rule, OAR 660-16-000 et seq, but it was not yet applicable to the city’s legislation at the time of the original acknowledgment. However, compliance with the rule is required as part of the periodic review process, which the city is presently undergoing. As part of its effort to achieve compliance, the city has enacted or…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Clark v. Jackson CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- Cope v. City of Cannon BeachCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Urquhart v. Lane Council of GovernmentsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Collins v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Forster v. Polk CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Davenport v. City of TigardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- Yamhill County v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Holland v. City of Cannon BeachCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
- Carlson v. City of Dunes CityCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.