Land Watch of Lane County v. Lane County

In 2010, the city of Coburg, Oregon (the city) (defendant) conducted an urbanization study to evaluate its land needs relative to future employment and residential growth for the next 20 years. The study concluded that the city needed to expand its urban growth boundary (UGB)—areas available for expansion and future urban uses. In 2014, an updated study concluded that there was still a need for expansion. The city considered 11 areas of land and ultimately recommended supporting employment-related growth by developing 106 acres of agricultural land that had been zoned for exclusive farm use. The city determined that two other areas of land were not suitable for employment-based development, even though those areas were in a land category prioritized higher for inclusion in the UGB than agricultural land under the applicable land-use standards. The city adopted the UGB expansion, and the board of county commissioners for Lane County (defendant) coadopted two ordinances: an ordinance that permitted a city-transportation-system plan beyond the city limits within the future growth areas and an ordinance that redesignated more than 200 acres of land, including the agricultural land, for UGB. Land Watch of Lane County (Land Watch) (plaintiff) appealed the ordinances to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), alleging that the ordinances were not factually or legally supported. The LUBA remanded both ordinances, concluding that the city’s and county’s findings were insufficient under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) § 197.298 and Goal 14, which governed changes to UGBs and set out the priorities for the types of land that could be included within a UGB. The city and county sought review, alleging that they had substantial evidence supporting the decision to include lower-priority land in the UGB and that the LUBA had erred in concluding that the county had erroneously construed the governing law.