Martin v. City of Central Point

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 09-22-2016
  • Case #: 2016-042
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

A city decision is considered to be supported by substantial evidence when the evidence is that which a reasonable person would rely on in making a decision. See Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179, 855 P2d 608 (1993).

     L. Calvin Martin (petitioner) appealed a decision approving a conditional use permit (CUP) for a Costco. Costco (intervenor) applied for a CUP to permit a warehouse and fuel station on property zoned Industrial (M-1). Both the planning commission and the city council approved the application.

     Petitioner first argued that the city improperly construed Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.76.040(B) by concluding that the affected roads were “adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic” from the proposed store. Specifically, petitioner argued that the city erred in approving the application because the relevant code provision prohibits development when the level of service is below level D, unless the developer makes the necessary improvements. Additionally, petitioner argued that the city’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record concerning construction of the Table Rock Road Widening Project. LUBA determined that the city properly relied on the evidence from the county in concluding that the project will occur and mitigate the identified impacts. LUBA followed the Dodd v. Hood River County standard, finding that “substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable person would rely on in making a decision.”

     Petitioner further argued that CPMC 17.76.040(B) does not allow “temporary failures of affected intersections” and the city failed to impose sufficient mitigation between the store opening and the 2020 road improvements. LUBA disagreed, concluding that the city’s findings that the temporary mitigation measures for the widening project will mitigate any traffic impacts from the store until the project is complete.

     Petitioner additionally argued that membership clubs are not listed as an allowed use in the zone under CPMC 17.48.020, and the city erroneously relied on Resolution 1217, allowing membership warehouse clubs as a permissible use. LUBA determined that the issue was waived because it was not raised below. AFFIRMED.