DLCD v. City of Klamath Falls

In order to amend a UGB, there must be a demonstrated need for land under both of the Goal 14 land-need subsections.

Petitioner appeals a city decision approving an urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment that adds 22.7 acres of land to the urban area that is included within the city’s UGB. Intervenor-respondent owns about 130 acres zoned Forest Range, presently in agricultural use, and located adjacent to but outside the city’s UGB. Intervenor applied for a UGB amendment to add 22.7 acres to the UGB for future commercial development on the property. It is undisputed that the urban area within the city’s UGB has adequate capacity to satisfy the city’s urban land needs for the next 20 years.

In a prior decision, LUBA concluded that the text of Goal 14 did not support a conclusion that a UGB amendment is possible only where the city has demonstrated the lack of a 20-year land supply under the first Goal 14 “need factor”. LUBA’s decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeals who agreed with petitioner that the express language of Goal 14 “requires that, to change a UGB, there must be a demonstrated need for land under both of the land-need subsections [of Goal 14].” Relying on the authority of the Court of Appeals, LUBA finds that Goal 14 prohibits the city from amending its UGB because the city has adequate capacity to satisfy the city’s 20-year land needs and the city’s decision is therefore REVERSED.