Siporen v. City of Medford
243 P.3d 776
| Or. | 2010Background
- Wal-Mart proposed a large store in Medford, requiring site plan and architectural review (SPAC) approval under MLDC.
- petitioners argued MLDC 10.461 (TIA) and 10.462 (LOS) applied to SPAC review to address traffic impacts.
- SPAC rejected applying 10.461/10.462, relying on historical interpretation that these apply to Planning Commission zone changes, not SPAC site reviews.
- LUBA remanded, finding the city’s interpretation plausibly inconsistent with the express language or policy of the MLDC.
- Court of Appeals reversed LUBA, holding the city’s interpretation was plausible and not inconsistent with express language; the matter returned to Supreme Court.
- This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the city’s interpretation that SPAC reviews do not trigger 10.461/10.462.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 10.461/10.462 are 'applicable' to SPAC site plan review | Siporen argues they apply to development under SPAC. | Wal-Mart/City contend SPAC scope excludes broader traffic analysis; Planning Commission governs zone changes. | Yes, not applicable to SPAC site plan review |
| Standard of review for LUBA’s interpretation of MLDC | LUBA should assess plausibility but not substitute its own interpretation. | Court should defer to city's interpretation where plausible under ORS 197.829(1). | Affirm deference to plausible local interpretation |
| Consistency with express language/policy of MLDC | City interpretation inconsistent with the express language of MLDC provisions cited. | Interpretation harmonizes conflicting provisions and complies with purposes/policies. | City interpretation not inconsistent; affirmed |
| Role of SPAC vs Planning Commission in traffic adequacy determinations | Broad traffic impacts belong to Planning Commission at zone change. | Zone-change and site-review authorities are distinct; SPAC focuses on site-level impacts. | Authorities properly delineated; SPAC lacks 10.461/10.462 reach |
| Effect of ORS 197.829 on review of local interpretations | LUBA should not be constrained by Clark/197.829 framework to defer entirely. | Clark/197.829 provide proper deference to local interpretations. | Court applied Clark/197.829 framework; affirmed Court of Appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or. 508 (1992) (deference to local interpretation of ordinance inclines LUBA to affirm)
- Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or. 308 (1994) (foundation for ORS 197.829 deference standard)
- Foland v. Jackson County, 215 Or.App. 157 (2007) (plausibility standard applied in LUBA review under ORS 197.829)
- Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River Gorge Commission, 346 Or. 366 (2009) (illustrates need for considered choice between definitions in regulatory terms)
- Siporen v. City of Medford, 231 Or.App. 585 (2009) (LUBA must affirm city's interpretation if plausible when provisions conflict)