## Facts

- Oregon’s statewide land-use program requires local comprehensive plans and zoning to comply with Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 4 (Forest Lands) and Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands).
- After several attempts, Lane County submitted a rural comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for acknowledgment in February 1984.
- LCDC identified deficiencies, continued the matter for revisions and additional support, and in September 1984 acknowledged the plan as complying with the statewide goals.
- The plan designated substantial areas as forest land and allowed certain dwellings and other nonforest uses on forest land as “necessary and accessory” to forest management.
- The plan’s forest-dwelling standard treated a residence as “necessary and accessory” when the lot met a minimum acreage threshold and the owner had an approved forest management plan meeting timber-stocking requirements.
- The plan also classified lands as agricultural, forest, or other categories and set minimum farm parcel sizes, relying heavily on a tax-lot survey and related data.
- 1000 Friends of Oregon challenged LCDC’s acknowledgment, arguing the plan unlawfully allowed nonforest residential use on forest lands and lacked substantial evidence for agricultural classifications and minimum parcel sizes.
- The Court of Appeals reversed LCDC on most challenged points; all major parties sought Oregon Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether Goal 4 categorically bars nonforest dwellings and other nonforest uses on designated forest lands, or instead permits limited nonforest uses compatible with conserving forest lands for forest use.
2. Whether Lane County and LCDC had a substantial-evidence basis for agricultural land decisions under Goal 3, particularly minimum farm parcel sizes derived largely from a tax-lot survey.
3. What level of judicial deference applies to LCDC’s interpretations of statewide planning goals and to LCDC’s evaluation of the evidentiary record at the acknowledgment stage.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to LCDC for further proceedings.
- The court rejected the view that Goal 4 automatically prohibits all nonforest uses on forest lands, and it upheld LCDC’s ability to approve forest-land standards that allow certain dwellings if consistent with conserving forest lands for forest use.
- The court concluded that Lane County’s minimum farm parcel sizes under Goal 3, based substantially on a tax-lot survey without adequate supporting evidence of agricultural viability, were inadequately supported, and LCDC’s approval of those choices could not stand on the existing record.
- The court held that deference to LCDC does not excuse the need for adequate findings and substantial evidence supporting an acknowledgment decision.

## Legal Principles

- Goal 4’s directive to conserve forest lands for forest use does not, by itself, forbid every nonforest use; the legal question is whether allowed nonforest uses are compatible with, and do not materially detract from, long-term forest use.
- Goal 3 and Goal 4 require land classifications and implementing standards to rest on a coherent factual basis tied to agricultural and forest capability, not solely on tax-administration or other indirect proxies.
- At plan acknowledgment, LCDC must ensure compliance with statewide goals through findings that connect record evidence to conclusions; the decision must be supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.
- Courts may give weight to LCDC’s goal interpretations, but will not accept interpretations or approvals that conflict with the goals’ text and purpose or that lack adequate evidentiary support.
- Local governments bear responsibility to develop goal-compliant plans and build an evidentiary record; objectors must identify deficiencies, and once raised, LCDC and the local government must justify the contested choices with findings and evidence.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court sustained LCDC’s general authority to acknowledge forest-land regulations that allow limited, goal-consistent dwellings, but required stronger evidentiary support and findings for Lane County’s agricultural parcel-size decisions, remanding to LCDC to correct the record and analysis under Goals 3 and 4.


1000 Friends of Or. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n (Lane Cnty.), 305 Or. 384, 752 P.2d 271 (Or. 1988)