Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

I 197.850(9)(a). We agree with petitioners--and respondents do not contest--that ordinary 2 principles of statutory construction apply.I Thus, our goal is to discern the code drafters' 3 intent, and our method of doing so is to examine "the text, context, and any helpful 4 enactment history." Sellwood-Moreland Improv. League v. City of Portland, 262 Or App 5 9, 17, 324 P3d 549 (2014); see also State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 6 (2009) (describing ordinary principles of statutory construction); PGE v. Bureau of Labor 7 and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611-12, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (same). In this case, the parties 8 have not identified any helpful enactment history, and we are unaware of any, so we rely 9 on text and context. 10 EC 9.2750 and EC table 9.2750 set forth the City of Eugene's residential 11 zone development standards. EC 9.2751 provides special development standards for 12 Table 9.2750. At issue in this case are EC 9.2751(1)(b) and (1)(c)(1), which state: 13 "(b) For purposes of this section, 'net density' is the number of 14 dwelling units per acre of land in actual residential use and reserved for the 15 exclusive use of the residents in the development, such as common open 16 space or recreation facilities. 17 "(c) For purposes of calculating net density: ORS 197.829(1) generally requires LUBA to affirm a local government's interpretation of its own comprehensive plan or land use regulation, unless it is inconsistent with the express language, purpose, or policy. Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 261-62, 243 P3d 776 (2010). However, that principle does not apply to the interpretations of a commission subordinate to the governing body. See Sellwood- Morelandlmprov. League v. City of Portland, 262 Or App 9, 16-17, 324 P3d 549 (2014). Here, it is undisputed that the planning commission is a subordinate body to which no Siporen deference is owed. 3