259 P.3d 1021
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Oregon case reviewing LCDC approval of a large McMinnville UGB expansion, mostly on prime agricultural land, amid Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 challenges.
- Petitioners argued LCDC misapplied ORS 197.298, prioritized land improperly, and relied on land lacking suitability; respondents defended integrated use of Goal 14 with ORS 197.298.
- The MGMUP proposed four Neighborhood Activity Centers and added 663 gross acres to the UGB, including some high‑quality agricultural land and several exception areas.
- DLCD initially approved, LCDC affirmed on reconsideration, and petitioners sought judicial review alleging errors in land need quantification and land selection under the statutes and goals.
- Court held LCDC erred in applying ORS 197.298, requiring a remand to re‑quantify needs and reassess lands under a correct interpretation of the governing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did LCDC misapply ORS 197.298 Step One by not separately quantifying needs by land use type? | 1000 Friends contends needs should be quantified by low-density, higher-density, and mixed-use separately. | LCDC/City treated NACs as a defined need within ORS 197.298(1) and applied priorities accordingly. | Yes; Step One must quantify needs by type before applying ORS 197.298. |
| Should Goal 14 be integrated with ORS 197.298 in Step Two, and how are locational factors applied? | Goal 14 factors must govern adequacy of higher-priority lands and not be displaced by ORS 197.298(3). | ORS 197.298(3) limits use of lower-priority lands and Goal 14 factors guide adequacy. | Not fully integrated; Goal 14 factors 5 and 7 align with Goal 2 except that 197.298(3) limits must govern; integration must be partial and sequential. |
| Did LCDC properly exclude certain exception and resource lands under ORS 197.298 based on Step Two/Goal 14 analysis? | Exclusions like Old Sheridan, Riverside North, Booth Bend were inadequately justified under ORS 197.298(1) and 3/Goal 14. | Exclusions were supported by EESE/place compatibility and urban form analyses under Goal 14 and Goal 2 exceptions. | No; several exclusions lacked adequate justification under the proper application of ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 and require remand. |
| Does the case require remand to LCDC for a correct interpretation and application of ORS 197.298 and Goal 14? | Remand is needed to re‑quantify needs and re‑evaluate lands with correct standards. | Remand not necessary if findings could be cured on the existing record. | Remand granted to apply correct interpretation of governing standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Not of Oregon v. Yamhill County, 240 Or.App. 285 (2010) (describes exceptions to Goal 2 and the need for proper goal exception analysis)
- Residents of Rosemont v. Metro, 173 Or.App. 321 (2001) (Goal 14 factors interdependence; need to consider but not require threshold satisfaction of every factor)
- City of West Linn v. LCDC, 201 Or.App. 419 (2005) (integration of Goal 14 locational factors with ORS 197.298(1) considerations)
- Hildenbrand v. City of Adair Village, 217 Or.App. 623 (2008) (integration of Goal 14 with ORS 197.298 considerations)
- Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 179 Or.App. 12 (2002) (Goal 14 factors are to be considered and balanced, not gating determinative)
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 237 Or.App. 213 (2010) (requires reasoning connecting facts to conclusions; informs standard of review and integration)