416 P.3d 326
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Klamath Falls approved a 2017 UGB amendment adding 22.7 acres owned by Badger Flats to the urban growth boundary.
- DLCD appealed to LUBA, arguing the amendment violated Statewide Planning Goal 14 because the city did not demonstrate a 20-year need for the land.
- The urban area inside Klamath Falls' UGB already had adequate capacity to meet the city’s 20-year urban land needs.
- LUBA partially agreed with DLCD but held that a demonstrated 20-year need inside the UGB is not a categorical prerequisite for correcting a short-term, subregional commercial land shortage.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed LUBA’s order on DLCD’s cross-petition, focusing on whether Goal 14 requires a demonstrated 20-year need before expanding a UGB.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goal 14 requires a demonstrated 20-year land need before a UGB amendment | DLCD: Goal 14 mandates a demonstrated 20-year need under subsection (1) (and subsection (2)) and local governments must show needs cannot be reasonably accommodated inside the UGB before expanding it. | City/Badger Flats: Baker allows consideration of subregional short-term needs even if the city has adequate 20-year supply; a 20-year need is not a categorical prerequisite. | Court: Reversed LUBA — Goal 14’s text requires demonstrated needs under both subsections (including a 20-year need); absence of a 20-year need precludes UGB expansion. |
| Whether LUBA correctly relied on Baker v. Marion County to permit amendment despite no 20-year need | DLCD: Baker is inapposite because it applied an earlier version of Goal 14 that treated factors as considerations, not as mandatory, conjunctive need requirements. | City/Badger Flats: Baker supports that a short-term/subregional need can justify amendment even if 20-year need is met inside UGB. | Court: Agreed with DLCD — Baker applied an older Goal 14 with different structure; the version applicable here separates mandatory land-need subsections from location factors, so Baker does not control. |
Key Cases Cited
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or. App. 239 (affirmed principles on Goal 14 and UGB amendments)
- Baker v. Marion County, 120 Or. App. 50 (discussed prior-goal framework where factors were considered together)
- Milne v. City of Canby, 195 Or. App. 1 (overruled Baker on other grounds; cited in briefing)
- Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River, 346 Or. 415 (interpretation of mandatory statutory language such as "shall")