Making Bend a College Town (Powers: costs, homeless, title)

[Dry Side]

Next phase is appeals.

Who will be appealing? What error(s) did the hearings officer make when he approved the site plan?

Now the burden of proof shifts away from OSU and the city.

[BendLocal]

Interesting quote from the article provided by Dry Side:

"It is easy to understand the frustration of [Truth in Site Coalition] and other concerned neighbors with the seemingly piecemeal way that OSU is moving forward with the OSU Cascades project. When a larger project, here a concept for a 50 acre + campus, has been discussed for years and would appear ideally suited for a master planning process, OSU’s approach comes very close to thwarting sound planning and the very purpose of the City’s master planning provisions," Helm writes. "OSU could easily have requested that 4-R Equipment, LLC allow for the conceptual master planning of its 46 acre property, which would not be binding in the future if the current purchase and sales agreement falls through. However, there is no evidence that the applicant made such an effort. Thus, it is understandable that the opponents of this application view the 'ownership' issue as a superficial and convenient excuse to avoid the master planning process."

http://www.bendsource.com/Bent/archi...ades-site-plan

[kapetrich]

It would be a lot more interesting if the submission did not get approved and it read: "OSU's approach IS thwarting sound planning and the very purpose of the City's master planning provisions..."

But it doesn't.

That paragraph is a way to acknowledge concerns, nothing more or the officer would not have approved the project. I wrote about this tension in this thread back in March of this year:

Originally Posted by kapetrich

To me, these dissenters are an important part of the process and our community. While they may not change the broad stokes of the projected, OSU Cascades will, in the least, try and minimize this type of 'backlash' as it is, at times, in their best interest too. OSU will likely make gestures showing that they acknowledged peoples concerns with symbolic and conciliatory acts that won't make the most die hard opponents happy, but will pacify the more reasonable as they really just want to be heard and have their reasonable concerns acknowledged to some degree. The most fundamental opponents won't be happy unless OSU chooses a different location, but that's not going to happen and is a loosing hand at this point in the game anyway.

Dry Side is right. The burden of proof is no longer on OSU Cascades. It's even more of a done deal now.

[BendLocal]

Originally Posted by Dry Side

Who will be appealing?

OSU-Cascades campus approved; Opponents have 12 days to appeal

Tuesday’s ruling doesn’t necessarily signal an end to the fight, as Truth In Site has 12 days to file an appeal with the Bend City Council.

Jeffrey Kleinman, Truth In Site’s lawyer, said, “We are reviewing the decision carefully and will consider whether to file an appeal to the City Council.”

[Dry Side]

Typically the City Council does not hear appeals and kicks it up to LUBA. I hope Jeffrey Kleinman has the ethics to tell his clients whether they really have a shot at prevailing on something other than the requirement of a master plan for property OSU does not hold title to. Appeals are very costly so it will be interesting to see if Truth In Site has the resources.

My .02c is Truth In Site should wait until OSU wants to develop a larger campus and must submit a master plan. Lots of opportunities there to slow things way down.

[BendLocal]

If I'm reading this correctly they are saying OSU is going to grow in Bend regardless of the pumice pit acquisition.

“There are other reasonable ways we can proceed from the 10-acre site, such as purchasing other buildings between there and the (Graduate and Research Center a half-mile away),” Johnson said. “We think the 10-acre (site) can stand alone with multiple options for expanding it into the future.”

OSU-Cascades campus approved; Opponents have 12 days to appeal

[Dry Side]

Just received notice that "Truth In Site" has decided to appeal the hearings officer conditional approval of the ten acre site plan. Will be interesting to see if the Bend City Council will hear the appeal. Will be interesting to hear what the "Truth In Site" land use attorney believes were errors in the conditional approval. If the city council choses not to hear the appeal than it can go to the governors appointed land use board of appeals.

[BendLocal]

http://www.truthinsite.com/

Due to the overwhelming community support regarding this issue that affects all of Bend, TRUTH in SITE WILL be appealing the decision.

[Dry Side]

Right, but to prevail in an appeal TRUTH in SITE will have to show where the hearings officer made errors in the conditional approval. If the city counsel hears the appeal hard to believe they will not follow the advice of city staff who already recommended the site plan before it got to the hearings officer.

I keep coming back to the fact that this is a permitted use of the 10 acre site. OSU submitted a site plan that adheres to Bend development code.

Anyways because of the 120 day clock we should hear the decision within this month.

[BendLocal]

If OSU has a contract with a purchase option on the adjoining acreage then there is an argument that OSU has a legal interest in that land. Obviously there is no doubt about their intentions because they have provided a few alternate plans on how they might approach development of the pumice pit.