DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls

Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), change to an Urban Growth Boundary must be based on both (1) a need to accommodate 20-year long range population forecasts, and (2) a need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks, or open spaces.

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) appealed the approval of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendment by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). DLCD assigned error to LUBA’s decision that Klamath Falls properly amended the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include another 22.7 acres without a demonstration that a 20-year need for the UGB subregion existed.  On appeal, DLCD argued that the approval of the UBG amendment was contrary to Statewide Planning Goal 14. In response, LUBA explained that because the city has a requisite 20-year plan, the amendment is justified.  “[W]hen a city amends its comprehensive plan, including any amendment to its UGB, the city must justify the change as being consistent with the already set goals...” 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 243, 259 P3d 1021 (2011). The Court held that because the newest version of Goal 14 requires demonstrated needs, LUBA erred in allowing Klamath Falls to amend the UGB without a justified forecasted 20-year reason to need the additional acreage.  Reversed and Remanded.