The legislation is clear on its face. Indeed, it is the discretionary nature of some use determinations that makes the exemption necessary in the first place. Even if the statute were ambiguous, the city cites legislative history that is clearly contrary to petitioners' position. LUBA then turned to and rejected petitioners' contentions that the planner had misinterpreted and misapplied four specific terms in the city's zoning regulations, which she relied on in reaching her conclusion that the uses are permitted in the zone. Consequently, LUBA affirmed the city's decisions.
Petitioners now seek our review and advance two assignments of error.
Petitioners explain that the application for the use determinations, the notices of the proceedings that the city sent petitioners, and the planner's decisions themselves all referred to section 33.700.010 of the Portland City Code as the basis for the city's action. However, petitioners argue that the determinations here were discretionary and that certain specific provisions of the code other than section 33.700.010 are applicable to use determinations that involve the exercise of discretion. As important as the arguments that petitioners do make, however, are four that they do not. Next, petitioners do not argue that the city's giving notice of and purporting to act under a code provision that it did not in fact apply is reversible error in and of itself, apart from the procedural rights that petitioners assert they were entitled to under other provisions of the city code. And fourth, petitioners do not challenge LUBA's conclusions that the planner correctly interpreted and applied each of the substantive zoning provisions on which she based her determinations that the uses are permitted.