Martin v. City of Tigard

City council interpretations of their own land use laws are subject to a highly deferential standard of review by LUBA, under which it must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of local land use legislation unless that interpretation is implausible.

Petitioner appeals a city decision approving intervenor-respondent’s proposed medical oncology facility and parking lot on the subject property. Two Community Development Code (CDC) requirements specify maximum street separations in the vicinity of the subject property and require street connections where those limits are exceeded. The subject property’s north-south length exceeds the maximum street separation required by the CDCs. It is bordered on the east by a street and on the west by a Walmart store parking lot. In approving intervenor-respondent's proposal, the city council interpreted the CDCs to require street connections only where there are two existing streets that can be connected. Because the subject property is bordered on the west by a Walmart store parking lot, which is not a street, the city council determined that the CDCs do not require a street connection through the subject property. Petitioners subsequently appealed.

On the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that the CDCs do not require street connections only where two existing streets can be connected, and that the CDC requirements could be met by a street extension through the subject property which terminates in a cul de sac. LUBA states that, while petitioner’s interpretation of the CDCs may be plausible, city council interpretations of their own land use laws are subject to a highly deferential standard of review by LUBA, under which it must affirm a governing body’s interpretation of local land use legislation unless that interpretation is implausible. Because the city council’s interpretation is plausible, the first assignment of error is denied, and the city’s decision is affirmed. AFFIRMED.