Michaelson v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 27 February 2019 |
Docket Number | A168278 |
Citation | 296 Or.App. 248,437 P.3d 1215 |
Parties | Rick MICHAELSON, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PORTLAND and Guardian Real Estate Services, LLC, Respondents. Northwest District Association, Petitioner, v. City of Portland and Guardian Real Estate Services, LLC, Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Carrie A. Richter argued the cause for petitioners. Also on the brief was Bateman Seidel Miner Blomgren Chellis & Gram, P.C.
Timothy V. Ramis, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for respondents. Also on the brief was Lauren A. King.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.
In this land use case, petitioners seek review of a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) order affirming the City of Portland’s decision to grant design review approval and a master plan amendment for a seven-story, mixed-use building proposed by intervenor (we refer to the city and intervenor, collectively, as respondents). On review, petitioners raise three assignments of error, challenging the city’s interpretation and application of "better meets" in Portland City Code (PCC) 33.825.040 and of a master plan design guideline to the proposed project. As explained below, because we conclude that LUBA’s order was not "unlawful in substance," ORS 197.850(9)(a), we affirm.
We take the relevant facts from LUBA’s order, which the parties do not dispute on review:
(Citation omitted.)
The city issued a detailed 46-page decision that walked through each of the applicable community design guidelines and CMP Design Guidelines, both of which apply to the project, and made explanatory findings as to how the project design met each of those guidelines. The city also separately addressed each of the five modifications to the CMP Design Standards and made explanatory findings as to why each requested modification could be allowed under PCC 33.825.040.1
Petitioners raised seven assignments of error on review to LUBA, and LUBA affirmed the city’s decision. On review to us, petitioners raise three assignments of error to LUBA’s order. We address each of those assignments in turn.
In their first assignment of error, petitioners focus, in the abstract, on the meaning of "better meets" in PCC 33.825.040, which allows modifications to design standards if, among other things, "[t]he resulting development will better meet the applicable design guidelines." Petitioners first argue that the city’s implicit interpretation of the better-meets standard is insufficient for review and requires a remand to the city for additional explanation. Petitioners next argue that, even if the city’s implicit interpretation is sufficient, that interpretation is implausible and not entitled to deference on review.
We first conclude that the city’s decision included sufficient explanation to determine how the city was interpreting and applying the better-meets standard in PCC 33.825.040. In its decision, the city explained, with respect to each requested modification, how the overall design of the building with the modification better meets the applicable guidelines than if the design adhered to the particular design standard at issue.2 Although the city did not expressly set out an "interpretation" of the better-meets standard, the city’s understanding of the meaning of that standard and how it is to be applied is readily discernible from the city’s findings and explanation. The city was not required to do more than that. See, e.g. , Green v. Douglas County , 245 Or. App. 430, 438, 263 P.3d 355 (2011) ; see also Alliance for Responsible Land Use v. Deschutes County , 149 Or. App. 259, 266-67, 942 P.2d 836 (1997), rev. dismissed , 327 Or. 555, 971 P.2d 411 (1998) ( ).
We turn to petitioner’s next argument that the city’s interpretation is not plausible. We (and LUBA) must defer to the city’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land use regulations, unless we determine that the city’s interpretation is inconsistent with the express language,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sachdev v. Or. Med. Bd.
...that the agency provides "an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the results reached." Michaelson/NWDA v. City of Portland , 296 Or. App. 248, 259-60, 437 P.3d 1215, rev. den. , 365 Or. 556, 451 P.3d 608 (2019) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Without that, the......
-
Restore Or. v. City of Portland
...reason challenge to the city’s decision to use the assumptions for the Southern Triangle that it did.8 Michaelson/NWDA v. City of Portland , 296 Or. App. 248, 259-60, 437 P.3d 1215, rev den , 365 Or. 556, 451 P.3d 608 (2019) (" ‘Substantial reason’ is a component of the substantial evidence......
-
Columbia Pac. Bldg. Trades Council v. City of Portland
...No. 187832 is granted.FACTS We first considered the city's adoption of FFT amendments in Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council v. City of Portland, 76 Or LUBA 15 (2017) (CPBT I), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and rem'd, 289 Or App 739, 412 P3d 258 (CPBT II), rev den, 363 Or 390 (2018). I......
-
Kulongoski v. City of Portland, LUBA No. 2021-004
...the setback standard "better meet" Guideline 1. Respondents cite Michaelson v. City of Portland, 77 Or LUBA 504 (2018), aff'd, 296 Or App 248, 437 P3d 1215 (2019), in support of their argument. Petitioners respond, and we agree, that Michaelson does not stand for the proposition that respon......