Crowley v. City of Hood River

Under OAR 661-010-0071(2)(d), when the Court of Appeals rejects a local government’s interpretation of its comprehensive plan, but does not adopt its own interpretation or express any opinion regarding petitioner’s interpretation, the appropriate disposition for LUBA is to remand the decision to the local government for further proceedings.

Petitioner appeals a city decision re-approving comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments to allow a five-acre city park to be developed for residential use. In its original decision, the city concluded that the amendments were consistent with various provisions of the Hood River Comprehensive Plan (HRCP). Concluding this interpretation was not inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or policy underlying the HRCP, or otherwise implausible, LUBA affirmed the city’s decision. Finding that the city’s interpretation of the HRCP did not plausibly account for its text and context, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded LUBA’s decision.

OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c) requires LUBA to reverse a land use decision when it violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as a matter of law. OAR 661-010-0071(2)(d) requires LUBA to remand a land use decision when it improperly construes applicable law, but is not prohibited as a matter of law. Because the Court of Appeals, in rejecting the city’s interpretation of the HRCP, did not adopt its own interpretation or express any opinion regarding petitioner’s interpretation, the city’s decision is REMANDED.