Siporen v. City of Medford
Decision Date | 04 November 2009 |
Docket Number | 2008185.,A142541. |
Citation | 231 Or. App. 585,220 P.3d 427 |
Parties | Wendy SIPOREN, Ivend Holen and Medford Citizens for Responsible Development, Respondents, v. CITY OF MEDFORD and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioners. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.
Respondent City of Medford (the city) and intervenor-respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) seek judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in which LUBA remanded the city's decision to approve a site development plan without requiring a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis than the one Wal-Mart provided. ORS 197.850(1). On judicial review, the legal issue is whether LUBA, pursuant to ORS 197.829, was required to affirm the city's interpretation that its code does not require a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis under these circumstances. Because we conclude that the city's decision is not "inconsistent with the express language" of the city's code, ORS 197.829(1)(a), LUBA's order is unlawful in substance, ORS 197.850(9)(a). Accordingly, we reverse.
Because it provides context for the parties' contentions, before turning to the facts, we explain the general structure of the Medford Land Development Code (MLDC) and the specific code provisions that inform the central issue in this case—viz., whether a comprehensive analysis of the traffic impacts resulting from Wal-Mart's proposed store is necessary before the city may approve Wal-Mart's site plan and architectural review application.1
The MLDC is divided into six articles. Three articles are pertinent to our review— that is, Article I, Article II, and Article IV.
The city and Wal-Mart's interpretation of the code relies primarily on the provisions in Article II, the purpose of which is "to designate and define the responsibilities of the approving authorities and to set forth the procedural requirements and substantive criteria for plan authorizations and the development permit." MLDC 10.100. Article II provides for 13 different types of review, including site plan and architectural review as well as the review of zone changes. Those two distinct types of review are governed by different provisions of the MLDC.
The Site Plan and Architectural Commission (SPAC) conducts site plan and architectural review, which is governed by four provisions of the MLDC—that is, MLDC 10.285, 10.287, 10.290, and 10.291. MLDC 10.285 generally describes the site plan and architectural review process and provides, in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Relatedly, MLDC 10.287 defines the content of a site plan and architectural review application. Generally, an application must contain particular information concerning landscaping and building construction. In addition to an architectural plan, the building construction section of the application requires site plan information, including information about (1) "[e]xisting and proposed off-street parking: location, number, type and dimensions of spaces, parking area, internal circulation pattern"; (2) "[a]ccess: pedestrian, vehicular, service, points of ingress and egress"; (3) "[s]treet dedication and improvements"; and (4) "[l]ocation of existing public improvements including streets, curbs, sidewalks, street trees, utility poles, light fixtures, traffic signs and signals, and such other data as may be required to permit [SPAC] to make the required findings."
The nature of those findings is contained in MLDC 10.290. That provision states, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Finally, under MLDC 10.291, the conditions that SPAC may impose include "[r]equiring the installation of appropriate public facilities and services and dedication of land to accommodate public facilities when needed"; "[r]equiring the improvement of an existing, dedicated alley which will be used for ingress or egress for a development"; and "[c]ontrolling the number and location of parking and loading facilities, points of ingress and egress and providing for the internal circulation of motorized vehicles, bicycles, public transit and pedestrians[.]"
In sum, the text of MLDC 10.285 and 10.287 demonstrates that SPAC is authorized to consider consistency in the aesthetic design, site planning, and general placement of related facilities. Specifically, SPAC reviews, inter alia, (1) the placement of facilities (e.g., bus pull outs) as they relate to a specific site plan, (2) ingress and egress from the site, and (3) the movement of vehicles and pedestrians within the site. However, the express wording of the code provisions circumscribing SPAC's authority do not indicate that SPAC has broad authority to determine the adequacy of street capacity for development that constitutes a permitted use within the zone.
Instead, the adequacy of street capacity is determined during the review of zone changes, which is governed by an entirely separate provision, MLDC 10.227. Specifically, MLDC 10.227 provides that the Planning Commission—not SPAC—"shall approve a quasi-judicial zone change" if it finds, among other things, that the zone change complies with certain criteria.
One of those criteria is that the applicant demonstrate that "Category A urban services and facilities are available or can and will be provided, as described below, to adequately serve the subject property with the permitted uses allowed under the proposed zoning * * *." MLDC 10.227. Among the requirements of "Category A urban services and facilities" in MLDC 10.227(2) are:
In sum, MLDC Article II allocates authority among different decision-making entities. The Planning Commission has authority to determine the adequacy of street capacity to serve permitted uses before approving a zone change. Conversely, in reviewing a site plan application, SPAC has authority to consider consistency in the aesthetic design, site planning, and general placement of related facilities.
Unlike Article II, which allocates authority among decision-makers, MLDC Article I contains provisions that "apply to the general provisions, administration and enforcement" of the MLDC, including broad definitions of the terms "development" and "developer" on which petitioners rely, and Article IV contains provisions that apply to "the establishment and application of development standards for public improvements." MLDC 10.007. Of particular pertinence to our review here, Article IV includes MLDC 10.460 to 10.462, the code provisions that petitioners invoke—and on which LUBA relied—as precluding the city from approving the site plan without requiring a more comprehensive traffic impact analysis than the one Wal-Mart provided.
Among other things, a TIA "identif[ies] the traffic impacts that a proposed development will have on the existing and future street network" and "determines all improvements or mitigation measures necessary to maintain adequate [levels of service] at study area intersections and ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular ingress to and egress from the transportation system."4 MLDC 10.460. A TIA is required when "a proposed application has the potential of generating more than 250 net average daily trips * * * or the Public Works Department has concerns due to operations or accident history, a TIA will be required to evaluate development impacts to the transportation system."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Siporen v. City of Medford
...that LUBA and the Court of Appeals therefore were required to accept that interpretation for purposes of review. Siporen v. City of Medford, 231 Or.App. 585, 220 P.3d 427 (2009). We allowed petitioners' request for review and now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. As noted, the co......
-
D.C. Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County
...the same meaning throughout the statute.' PGE, 317 Or. at 611, 859 P.2d 1143."(Footnotes omitted.) See also Siporen v. City of Medford, 231 Or.App. 585, 598-99, 220 P.3d 427 (2009), rev. allowed,348 Or. 13, 227 P.3d 1172 (2010) (ORS 197.829 requires LUBA to defer to a local government's pla......
-
Devin Oil Co. Inc v. Morrow County
...that interpretation, even if another interpretation might be ‘better’ or more sensible or persuasive.” Siporen v. City of Medford, 231 Or.App. 585, 599, 220 P.3d 427 (2009), rev. allowed, 348 Or. 13, 227 P.3d 1172 see also ORS 197.829. In our view, the county's interpretation is not inconsi......
-
Scovel v. City Of Astoria, No. 2009-116
...unless those interpretations are "inconsistent with the express language of ADC 9.100, viewed in context.2Siporen v. City ofMedford, 231 Or App 585, 598, 220 P3d 427, 434 (2009). "Whether a local government's interpretation of its ordinance is 'inconsistent' with the language of the ordinan......