Restore Oregon v. City of Portland

Under ORS 197.850(9)(1), LUBA orders are reviewed to determine if the decision was "unlawful in substance or procedure."

Petitioners appealed the Land Use Board of Appeals order that the City of Portland adopt findings that explain its decision on new building height limits around New Chinatown/Japantown Historic District.  Petitioners assign error to different parts of the order, with Guardian assigning error to LUBA's remand of Ordinance 189000; Restore Oregon assigning error to LUBA's rejection of its assignments of error; and OSB assigning error to LUBA's approval of the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis prepared by the city.  On appeal, Guardian argued that LUBA misunderstood the standard for remanding Ordinance 189000 by failing to give appropriate deference to the city's interpretation; Restore Oregon argued that the city's process violated Goals 2.C and 2.E, "failing to provide a 'meaningful opportunity to participate in and influence all stages of planning and decision making;'" and OSB argued that LUBA misapplied the law when determining that the ESEE was consistent with goals and statutes.  In response, the City argued that it complied with the citizen involvement programs.  Under ORS 197.850(9)(1), LUBA orders are reviewed to determine if the decision was "unlawful in substance or procedure."  The court found that LUBA did not err and rejected Guardian's arguments because nothing in the record indicated LUBA misunderstood or misapplied the substantial evidence standard. The Court also rejected Restore Oregon's arguments in deference to the city's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and that LUBA did not err when concluding that the city's ESEE was sufficiently specific.  Affirmed on petitions and cross-petitions.