Watts v. Metro

For purposes of ORS 197.015(10)(a), important considerations for determining the finality of a decision include whether it is an exercise of the local government’s land use planning authority and the extent to which it is binding on the local government and others.

Petitioner appeals a Metro resolution resolving a dispute between the cities of Tualatin and Wilsonville regarding a proposed concept plan. In 2004, Metro expanded the Portland metropolitan area’s urban growth boundary (UGB) to include a 646-acre planning area between the cities in order to accommodate growth in industrial employment. In 2011, the cities, Washington County, and Metro entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) requiring the parties to agree upon a concept plan for the planning area before it could be annexed and developed by the cities. In 2016, the City of Tualatin proposed that a 52-acre portion of the planning area be designated as residential, not industrial, leading to a stalemate between the cities.  In 2017, the cities, Washington County, and Metro entered into a second IGA, binding themselves to arbitration by Metro. In 2018, Metro adopted a resolution that the disputed area be planned for industrial and employment purposes. This appeal followed.

The threshold issue in this matter is whether LUBA has jurisdiction over the appeal of Metro’s resolution. Metro’s comprehensive land use planning document is referred to as the Regional Framework Plan (RFP). Under ORS 197.015(10)(a) and ORS 197.274(1), a Metro decision is subject to LUBA’s review if it is a final decision that (1) adopts or amends the RFP or one of its components, or (2) otherwise concerns the application of the statewide planning goals. Metro argues that, because the resolution is not a “final” decision, it is not a land use decision appealable to LUBA. For purposes of ORS 197.015(10)(a), important considerations for determining the finality of a decision include whether it is an exercise of the local government’s land use planning authority and the extent to which it is binding on the local government and others. Because Metro’s arbitration was not an exercise of its own land use authority, and because the obligation of the cities and county to accept Metro’s resolution was contractual rather than statutory, LUBA agrees with Metro that the resolution is not a final decision and is therefore not a land use decision over which LUBA has jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.