rejecting argument that the City of Portland was required to address Goal 19 (Ocean Resources) during periodic review because several streams within the city's planning area contained anadromous fish
Summary of this case from Williams v. Land Conservation & Development Commission1997.
rejecting argument that the City of Portland was required to address Goal 19 (Ocean Resources) during periodic review because several streams within the city's planning area contained anadromous fish
Summary of this case from Williams v. Land Conservation & Development CommissionFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
We need not address the merits of that expansive reading of the Goal 5 impact area requirements. But see…
State v. DavillaWe affirmed without opinion. Davilla v. Zenon, 147 Or App 241, 932 P2d 1217, rev den, 325 Or 403 (1997) (…