Case ID: or-app_149/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      DEITS, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted August 1,
    affirmed September 10,1997
    Rebecca CENIGA, Petitioner, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY and Mark Wattles, Respondents.
    
    (LUBA No. 96-150; CA A98200)
    945 P2d 96
    Charles Swindells argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
    D. Daniel Chandler argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Mark Wattles.
    No appearance for respondent Clackamas County.
    Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.
    DEITS, C. J.
   DEITS, C. J.

Petitioner seeks review of LUBA’s dismissal of her appeal from Clackamas County’s issuance of a grading permit. LUBA concluded that the county’s action is excluded from the definition of “land use decision,” and hence from LUBA’s jurisdiction, by ORS WT.OlSClOXhXA). We agree with LUBA’s conclusion and consider no discussion of petitioner’s arguments that challenge the conclusion directly to be necessary. We write briefly, however, to address a peripheral matter raised by petitioner.

Petitioner asks us to take judicial notice of a pending circuit court proceeding, State ex rel Rebecca Ceniga v. Clack-amas County, Clackamas County Circuit Court No. CCV 96-12-168. That case had not reached the stage of final judgment at the time that petitioner filed her brief, but the trial court had issued a letter opinion which, petitioner represents, reaches the conclusion that LUBA rather than the circuit court “had jurisdiction to review the issuance of the building permit for the same residence for which the challenged grading permit was issued.” Petitioner’s implication is that LUBA’s decision here is inconsistent with the circuit court’s decision. We take judicial notice of the circuit court case. However, that case is not before us for review and, to the extent petitioner implicitly suggests that the trial court’s opinion might bear on our disposition here, we do not have the record in or the necessary information about the circuit court case to know how it and this case are related or might affect one another.

Affirmed. 
      
       ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A) provides that a land use decision does not include a local decision:
      “Which is made under land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment.”