Truth in Site v. City of Bend

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 06-08-2015
  • Case #: LUBA No. 2014-098
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

Plats are not “land use regulation[s]” under ORS 197.015(11), and are therefore are not reviewable by LUBA under ORS 197.828(2)(b) because challenges based thereupon provide no basis for reversal or remand of the decision.

Truth in Site Coalition, Truth in Site, LLC, Scott Morgan, Marie R. Matthews, John B. Matthews, and Judy Heck (“petitioners”) appealed a City of Bend decision approving an Oregon State University site plan and design review application. The application was for a new undergraduate college campus on a 10.44-acre parcel that included several academic buildings, student housing, a dining hall, and a parking lot with secondary access via a private street subject to a public access easement. Petitioners assigned as error seven aspects of the city’s approval decision (the third, fifth, and seventh assignments of error are omitted here).

First, petitioners argued that Bend Development Code (“BDC”) 3.4.200(C) required amendment of the Century Washington Center Subdivision plat before a new private street could be created. LUBA found the city’s interpretation of BDC 3.4.200(C) not requiring an amendment plausible, and denied the first assignment of error. Second, petitioners argued that a “No Vehicle Access” strip in the plat prohibited the city from approving the new access. LUBA determined that because the plat is not a land use regulation nor part of the BDC, petitioners’ argument provided no basis for reversal or remand and therefore denied the second assignment of error. Fourth, petitioners challenged the approval of the Parking Management Plan (“PMP”), which petitioners deemed inadequate. LUBA found the city reasonably relied on the PMP in its approval decision and denied that assignment of error. Sixth, petitioners argued that intersection sight distances were insufficient to meet BDC requirements, and that the intersections with the private street were “public facilities” with inadequate capacity. LUBA denied that assignment of error, having determined that the city’s conclusion on sight distances was supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that intersections are not “public facilities” within the meaning of the BDC. AFFIRMED.