Tadei v. City of Astoria

Under OAR 661-010-0030(4), a petition to LUBA must contain: (a) “the facts that establish petitioner’s standing;” (b) “a clear and concise statement of the facts in the following order[:] (A) The nature of the land use decision . . . and the relief sought by petitioner; (B) A brief summary of the arguments appearing under the assignments of error[;] (C) A summary of the material facts . . . in narrative form with citations to the record where the facts alleged can be found[;]” (c) a statement of “why the challenged decision is a land use decision . . . subject to [LUBA]’s jurisdiction;” (d) “each assignment of error[.]” “Although each of the . . . requirements [for the petition for review] is important, the requirement . . . that the petition for review include assignments of error, supported by argument, is particularly important.” Bjerk v. Deschutes County, 17 Or. LUBA 187, 194 (1988).

Petitioner appealed the City’s denial of their appeal of the Historic Landmark Commission’s approval of a permit to construct an accessory multi-use building beside an existing church. On appeal to LUBA, Petitioner objected to the approval, arguing the proposed plans were not compatible with surrounding historic structures, but did not make any assignments of error. The City responded that Petitioner’s petition for review was incomplete.

Under OAR 661-010-0030(4), a petition to LUBA must contain: (a) “the facts that establish petitioner’s standing;” (b) “a clear and concise statement of the facts in the following order[:] (A) The nature of the land use decision . . . and the relief sought by petitioner; (B) A brief summary of the arguments appearing under the assignments of error[;] (C) A summary of the material facts . . . in narrative form with citations to the record where the facts alleged can be found[;]” (c) a statement of “why the challenged decision is a land use decision . . . subject to [LUBA]’s jurisdiction;” (d) “each assignment of error[.]” “Although each of the . . . requirements [for the petition for review] is important, the requirement . . . that the petition for review include assignments of error, supported by argument, is particularly important.” Bjerk v. Deschutes County, 17 Or. LUBA 187, 194 (1988).

LUBA agreed with the City, finding that Petitioner had failed to follow most of the rules in their petition for review, including a failure to address their standing, state their summary of argument, the basis of LUBA’s jurisdiction, or make any assignments of error. LUBA noted the failure to assign error to any of the City’s findings or explain why the City’s decision needed to be reversed or remanded was particularly fatal, as without any errors to review, LUBA had no basis to evaluate the challenge and reverse or remand. Affirmed.