Royal Blue Organics v. City of Springfield

In reviewing whether LUBA’s decision was “unlawful in substance,” ORS 197.850(9)(a), we review the pertinent city code provisions to determine whether LUBA interpreted them consistently with the ordinary principles of statutory, or code, construction.

City of Springfield (City) approved Springfield Utility Board’s (SUB) application for permits to build electrical utilities. SUB sought reversal of LUBA’s determination that “the waterside protection regulations prohibited development of an electrical substation” on the lot. On appeal, SUB argued LUBA’s remand order is unlawful under ORS 197.850(9)(a) because, LUBA conflated “watercourse” with the city’s definition of “water quality limited watercourse.” In reviewing whether LUBA’s decision was “unlawful in substance,” ORS 197.850(9)(a), [the Court] review[ed] the pertinent city code provisions to determine whether LUBA interpreted them consistently with the ordinary principles of statutory, or code, construction. The Court determined that LUBA misconstrued the definition of “watercourse” and that the lot is excluded from the SDC definition, which requires that the area be defined as riparian. REVERSED AND REMANDED on SUB’s Petition.