## Facts

- In 2010, the City of Coburg conducted an urbanization study to evaluate residential and employment land needs over a 20-year planning period and concluded the city needed to expand its urban growth boundary (UGB).
- In 2014, the city updated the study and again concluded that additional land was needed, including land suitable for employment-related growth.
- The city reviewed 11 potential UGB expansion areas and ultimately selected an expansion area that included about 106 acres of land zoned exclusive farm use (EFU) for employment purposes.
- Oregon law governing UGB expansions (including ORS 197.298 and statewide planning Goal 14) ranks land types for inclusion in a UGB, generally requiring higher-priority lands (such as exception land) to be used before lower-priority resource lands like EFU agricultural land.
- The city identified two alternative areas that were in a higher-priority category than EFU farmland but concluded those areas were not suitable for the employment uses the city sought.
- The Lane County Board of Commissioners coadopted two related ordinances: one authorizing a city transportation system plan to apply beyond city limits in future growth areas, and another redesignating more than 200 acres (including the 106-acre EFU tract) for inclusion in the UGB.
- LandWatch of Lane County appealed the ordinances to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), arguing the ordinances lacked adequate factual and legal support and that the local governments failed to justify adding lower-priority EFU land when higher-priority land remained.
- LUBA remanded both ordinances, concluding that the city’s and county’s findings were insufficient under ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 because they did not adequately explain why higher-priority lands could not reasonably accommodate the identified need.
- The city, county, and certain landowners sought judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing that LUBA misconstrued the governing law and failed to defer to local findings that were supported by substantial evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether LUBA erred as a matter of law in its construction and application of ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 when it required the city and county to justify, with adequate findings, the selection of lower-priority EFU land over higher-priority exception land.
2. Whether LUBA improperly reweighed the evidence, rather than evaluating whether the local findings and record support adequately explained the rejection of higher-priority alternatives.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s final order remanding the two ordinances.
- The court held that LUBA did not misinterpret ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 in requiring meaningful use of the statutory priority scheme when expanding a UGB.
- The court agreed that the city’s and county’s written findings did not sufficiently explain why the higher-priority exception areas could not reasonably accommodate the identified employment land need, given the priority ranking.
- The court rejected the argument that LUBA exceeded its review role, concluding that LUBA permissibly required findings that connect record evidence to the local governments’ conclusions about suitability and priority.

## Legal Principles

- ORS 197.298 establishes a binding priority ranking for land to be brought into an urban growth boundary; lower-priority agricultural land may be included only after the local government determines that higher-priority categories cannot reasonably accommodate the need.
- Goal 14’s UGB requirements operate together with ORS 197.298; a local government’s site-suitability judgments must be made within the statute’s priority order.
- When higher-priority lands are rejected, local governments must provide findings that do more than conclusory statements; the findings must explain why those lands cannot reasonably meet the identified need under the applicable standards.
- On judicial review, the Court of Appeals evaluates whether LUBA committed legal error and whether LUBA correctly applied substantial evidence and substantial reason review; LUBA may remand when the findings do not provide a reasoned link between the record and the decision.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA’s remand because Coburg and Lane County did not provide adequate findings under ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 to justify adding lower-priority EFU agricultural land to the UGB while higher-priority exception land remained available, and LUBA acted within its review role in requiring a clearer explanation grounded in the local record.


Land Watch of Lane County v. Lane County, 283 Or. App. 217 (2016)