The Hearings Officer's approval of the proposed development was appealed by the Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association. Zoning Code Section 33.730.030.G provides that Type III land use review decisions may be appealed to City Council. A Type III land use review appeal is a quasi-judicial action.
Official proposal and impact statementReport2026-144
What is Portland deciding about consider appeal by Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association against the Hearings Officer’s decision to approve with conditions a Planned…
The Hearings Officer's approval of the proposed development was appealed by the Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association. Zoning Code Section 33.730.030.G provides that Type III land use review decisions may be appealed to City Council. A Type III land use review appeal is a quasi-judicial action.
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Consider appeal by Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association against the Hearings Officer’s decision to approve with conditions a Planned Development, Land Division and Environmental Review for the creation of 12 single-dwelling lots and 1 multi-dwelling lot in the Pleasant Valley Neighborhood (LU 23-003731 LDS EN PD)
Next appearanceNo future appearance is published yet.
Follow this matterWhat this proposal would actually do.
Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.
The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.
Official matter recordThis proposal concerns land use & permitting and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordThis is an appeal of a Type III quasi-judicial land use review, not legislation. The notification procedures for this Type III land use review followed the public notice requirements contained within the Portland Zoning Code, as adopted by the City Council.For Type III land use reviews, the Zoning Code requires public notice of the initial public hearing to be mailed to recognized neighborhood and business associations that are within 1,000 feet of the subject site and to neighbors within 400 feet of the site. In addition, signs notifying the public of the initial hearing were posted at the subject site. City Bureaus were also sent notice. Interested persons were encouraged to write and/or testify at the public hearing conducted before the Hearings Officer.The public hearing before the Hearings Officer took place on February 4, 2026. On February 19, 2026, the Hearings Officer issued a written decision on the proposal (approval with conditions).The City Council decision on the appeal will be the final decision of the City, per Zoning Code Section 33.730.030.I.9. However, the City Council's decision may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Official community impact statementWhat the record establishes and what it does not.
Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.
Meeting-level motion or recommendation
Recorded · 8–1
Read the exact motion or vote question
Motion to tentatively deny appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findings: Moved by Green and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (8): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Zimmerman; Nay (1): Dunphy; Absent (3): Clark, Avalos, Smith) Prepare findings for May 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. time certain.
Rationale review not yet published
We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.
The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.
This is an appeal of a Type III quasi-judicial land use review, not legislation. The City Council decision on this matter will not have financial or budgetary impacts on the City.Land use reviews and appeals are fee supported. City costs associated with this appeal are for staff time to process the appeal.
Official financial impact statement- The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
- What amendments, conditions, or new evidence could change the proposal before final action?
Can residents still participate?
Check the official Council agenda for current testimony instructions and deadlines; this guide is not official testimony.
Official Council agendaInspect the complete research record.
Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.
Official documents1 sources
Current proposal · not final actionReport 2026-144
The proposed legal text currently moving through Council.
Open at Portland.govRead the full official text
TO THE COUNCIL:The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief description of the land use review decision that was appealed, and which will be presented to you in a public hearing on April 23, 2026, at 2:00 pm. Site Location: Vacant parcel SW of 6925 SE 152nd AvenuePP&D Representative: Diane Hale, City Planner II Land Use Review Requested: Type III Planned Development, Land Division and Environmental Review for the creation of 12 single-dwelling lots and 1 multi-dwelling lot.Proposal: The applicant is proposing to divide a vacant, 10.3-acre site into 12 single-dwelling lots (Lots 1, 2 and 4-13) and 1 oversized lot for multi-dwelling development that will consist of nine detached units with a shared driveway and a common open area (Lot 3). The total developed area is 3.6 acres with a maximum of 33 total new dwelling units. A new public street (SE Bybee Drive) and a new private street (SE Odgen Ct.) are proposed to serve the new development. Most of the proposed single dwelling lots are slightly smaller than the zoning code standards for the R10 zone, so the applicant can cluster development outside of the environmental zones to better protect the environmental resources within those zones. Environmental Review is required because environmental standards for land divisions and planned developments are not met. The total proposed permanent disturbance in the Environmental Zones is 185 square feet. Tract C (6.77 acres) is an Environmental Resource tract that will be owned in common by the future homeowners in the subdivision. The Environmental Resource tract is required for environmental preservation; residential development is not allowed in the resource tract.Hearings Officer Decision: The Hearings Officer found that with the conditions of approval listed in the decision, the applicable approval criteria for the Planned Development, Land Division and Environmental Reviews were met. The Hearings Officer approved the proposal with conditions. Appeal: The Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association appealed the approval decision with the following statement: The Transportation Impact Study limited its crash analysis to subject intersections and did not evaluate SE Barbara Welch Road as the primary corridor serving the site. The City accepted this limited scope without explaining why corridor-level crash history was not relevant to 33.641.020's safety evaluation factor. The City's findings demonstrate reliance on Level of Service and capacity metrics but do not explain how documented corridor safety concerns raised in testimony were evaluated under the safety factor of 33.641.020.Alternatives Facing Council: Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findings.Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision, but with revised conditions and findings. Grant the appeal and overturn the Hearings Officer's decision to approve the application, with revised findings.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes2 meetings · 2 votes
Findings adoptedAgenda item 4
Tentatively deny appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findingsAgenda item 11
Read all 2 exact motions
Motion to deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the Hearings Officer, and adopt the findings: Moved by Ryan and seconded by Kanal.
Motion to tentatively deny appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findings: Moved by Green and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (8): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Zimmerman; Nay (1): Dunphy; Absent (3): Clark, Avalos, Smith) Prepare findings for May 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. time certain.
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Apr 23, 20268 yes · 1 no · 3 absent
Motion to tentatively deny appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findings: Moved by Green and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (8): Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Green, Zimmerman; Nay (1): Dunphy; Absent (3): Clark, Avalos, Smith) Prepare findings for May 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. time certain.
Recorded vote · Not yet scheduled8 yes · 1 no · 3 absent
Final action on 2026-144: Consider appeal by Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association against the Hearings Officer’s decision to approve with conditions a Planned Development, Land Division and Environmental Review for the creation of 12 single-dwelling lots and 1 multi-dwelling lot in the Pleasant Valley Neighborhood (LU 23-003731 LDS EN PD)
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Why technical findings are hidden above
Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.
Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats
This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.
Decision definition
CompleteThe official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official legal text
CompleteOfficial text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
Financial impact
CompleteThe official impact statement includes financial information.
Funding source
CompleteThe impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.
Supporting documents
UnknownNo linked attachments were found on the official page.
Referenced exhibit integrity
Not ApplicableNo explicit exhibit reference was detected in the official text.
Counterparty acceptance
Not ApplicableThe reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
Implementation
UnknownAn implementation owner or milestone was not found deterministically.
Document stability
UnknownStability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 1:05 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 13, 2026, 2:24 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- a9e98d93319d3818
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- SOURCE UPDATED
Findings adopted
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Findings adopted
- Council Action
Tentatively deny appeal and uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and conditions of approval, with revised findings