Housing Land Advocates v. LCDC

Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), the totality of the circumstances may be considered when determining whether a local government has taken steps to “reasonably accommodate” housing needs within an existing urban growth boundary.

Housing Land Advocates (HLA) sought judicial review of a decision by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) that allowed Metro to expand its urban growth boundary (UGB). HLA argued that the LCDC incorrectly interpreted and applied OAR 660-015-0000(14), Goal 14. On appeal, HLA argued that Goal 14 required governments to take steps to “reasonably accommodate” housing needs through more efficient land use within existing boundaries, something Metro did not do. In response, LCDC argued that Metro took steps to accommodate their housing needs within their existing UGB, and by “reasonably accommodating” the vast majority of their needs within the UGB, they complied with Goal 14. Under OAR 660-015-0000(14), the totality of the circumstances may be considered when determining whether a local government has taken steps to “reasonably accommodate” housing needs within an existing urban growth boundary. The Court held that the text of Goal 14 does not require local governments to accommodate all shortfalls within an existing UGB. The Court noted that the term “reasonable” means the accommodations need only be “fair,” “proper,” and “sensible” and not “extreme” or “excessive.” The Court reasoned that this was a consistent interpretation within the context of ORS 197.296 and administrative rules that implement Goal 14. Because the LCDC determined Metro’s accommodations were reasonable, they complied with Goal 14. Affirmed.