Residents of Rosemont v. Metro
2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 488, 173 Or. App. 321, 21 P.3d 1108 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a subregional need may, in some circumstances, contribute to satisfying the 'need' factors for an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion under Statewide Planning Goal 14, such a need must be identified and evaluated within the broader regional context, not in isolation.
Facts:
- On March 6, 1997, Metro designated 18,579 acres of land, including five urban reserve study areas (URSAs) 30-34 in Clackamas County, as urban reserves.
- In 1998, Metro began proceedings to consider expanding its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to comply with a state mandate to provide a 20-year supply of residential land.
- On December 3, 1998, the Metro Council voted to expand the UGB to include 830 acres of land in URSAs 31, 32, and 33, hereafter referred to as the 'Rosemont area.'
- Proponents of including the Rosemont area in the UGB developed a concept plan, the Rosemont Village Concept Plan (RVCP), proposing development.
- The 830-acre expansion area included approximately 762 acres of land zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU), with the soils predominantly Class III and IV.
- On December 17, 1998, the Metro Council adopted Ordinance No. 98-782C, officially approving the challenged UGB expansion.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Metro Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 98-782C, the City of Lake Oswego and the City of West Linn, among others, challenged the UGB expansion.
- The cities filed consolidated appeals with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), arguing that Metro erred by basing the UGB amendment on a 'subregional need' for affordable housing rather than a regional need.
- Rosemont Property Owners Assoc., Kuhl, and Eiselius (petitioners) intervened in the LUBA proceeding, generally supporting Metro's decision.
- LUBA partially sided with the cities but ruled against their specific contention that Metro erred by using a subregional need, finding that a subregional need could, in some circumstances, constitute a regional need.
- The cities then filed a cross-petition for review with the Oregon Court of Appeals, challenging LUBA's ruling on the subregional need.
- The petitioners also sought review from the Oregon Court of Appeals, challenging LUBA's adverse rulings on other aspects of Metro's decision, including the use of population growth projection reports and the direct application of statewide planning goals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Statewide Planning Goal 14 permit a regional planning body to expand its Urban Growth Boundary based solely on a subregional need for housing and urban facilities, without considering that need within the larger regional context or explaining how that specific subregion was identified?
Opinions:
Majority - Deits, C. J.
No, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not permit a regional planning body to expand its Urban Growth Boundary based solely on a subregional need without considering that need in the broader regional context. The court agreed with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that a subregional need may, in some circumstances, constitute a 'need' for purposes of Goal 14 factors 1 and 2 (demonstrated need for population growth and need for housing/employment). However, such a subregional need must be identified and evaluated in the context of the overall regional needs. Metro's decision to expand the UGB was flawed because it was based solely on subregional considerations, such as affordable housing within a six-mile radius of the Stafford-Rosemont intersection, without any consideration of other parts of the regional planning territory or an explanation of why that specific area was identified as a subregion or its needs viewed in isolation. The court also clarified that ORS 197.298(3), which provides exceptions to land priority requirements for UGB inclusion, does not independently authorize Metro's action or excuse compliance with Goal 14's fundamental requirements. The court further affirmed LUBA's findings that Metro erred by relying on population growth projections not part of its adopted Functional Plan, that Goals 2 and 14 directly apply to UGB amendments, and that Metro's exception for EFU land was invalid under OAR 660-004-0010(l)(c)(B)(ii).
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical requirement that regional planning authorities, when considering Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansions, must always evaluate localized or subregional needs within the broader regional context. It reinforces the paramount importance of Statewide Planning Goal 14 as the overarching framework for UGB changes, preventing a patchwork approach based on isolated local demands. The decision ensures that UGB amendments are data-driven, regionally integrated, and do not inadvertently undermine broader planning objectives, especially regarding the retention of agricultural land.
