## Facts

- Jackson County adopted amendments to its comprehensive plan and zoning map to allow a proposed destination resort on land previously shown on the county’s Goal 8 exclusion map as excluded from the resort siting process.
- Objectors (including 1000 Friends of Oregon and individual petitioners) challenged the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment through Oregon’s land-use review process.
- LUBA concluded the plan amendment was not reviewable for compliance with Goal 8, but it found the amendment complied with statutes governing plan amendments.
- LUBA remanded the resort-siting decision to the county for further consideration of whether the proposal satisfied certain statutory and other criteria applicable to resort developments.
- LUBA also concluded the county was not bound by its original Goal 8 exclusion map.
- The Court of Appeals held the plan amendment was reviewable for Goal 8 compliance; it treated LUBA’s contrary view as harmless because the amendment complied with Goal 8 and implementing statutes, and it agreed the county was not bound by the original exclusion map.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a county’s post-acknowledgment comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment to site a destination resort is reviewable for compliance with the destination-resort statutes (ORS 197.435 et seq.) and Statewide Planning Goal 8.
2. Whether a county is legally bound by its original Goal 8 “areas excluded” map so that it cannot later amend the plan and map to allow a resort in an area previously excluded.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part on different grounds and affirmed LUBA in part on different grounds.
- The Court held the county’s plan and map amendment was reviewable for compliance with ORS 197.435 et seq. and Goal 8.
- The Court upheld the county’s authority to amend its Goal 8 exclusion map through lawful plan and zoning amendments; the original exclusion map was not irrevocably binding.
- The Court treated LUBA’s statement that Goal 8 review did not apply as harmless because the amendment, on the record, satisfied Goal 8 and the implementing statutes.
- LUBA’s remand requiring further county consideration of certain resort-siting criteria remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Post-acknowledgment comprehensive plan amendments may remain subject to Goal-based review when a specialized statutory scheme requires compliance with particular goals and statutes (including the destination-resort program and Goal 8).
- A local government cannot avoid statutory and Goal 8 requirements for destination resorts by characterizing its action as a plan or map “amendment” to an acknowledged plan.
- A Goal 8 “areas excluded” map is part of the comprehensive planning framework and may be amended through proper local legislative action, provided the amendment complies with applicable statutes and Goal 8 criteria.
- An error about the scope of review may be harmless where the reviewing tribunals can determine the challenged action substantively complies with the controlling statutes and statewide goal requirements.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that Jackson County’s post-acknowledgment plan and zoning map amendment to allow a destination resort was reviewable for compliance with the destination-resort statutes and Goal 8, and that the county was not permanently bound by its earlier Goal 8 exclusion map, though additional resort-siting criteria remained subject to further county review on remand.


Foland v. Jackson County, 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991)