1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Hillsboro

When a local government prepares an economic opportunity analysis (EOA) as an update to its comprehensive plan under OAR 660-009-0015, the local government must consider vacant land as well as developed land that may be developed during the EOA’s planning period when evaluating whether there is enough land available to meet the local government’s forecasted economic development.

Petitioner appealed a City adoption of a new economic opportunity analysis (EOA) as an amendment to its comprehensive plan. The City had prepared an updated EOA, which projected an increase of 61,895 jobs in the city by the year 2040. As part of the EOA, the City inventoried available lands to determine whether it had sufficient land to meet the forecasted employment growth. The inventory found there were 5,800 acres of developed land and 3,090 acres of vacant land. The EOA concluded that 1,314 acres of the vacant land could potentially be developed during the planning period, and that additional 3,481 acres of land was required to meet the forecasted growth in employment. The City adopted the EOA and Petitioner appealed.

On appeal, LUBA’s analysis turned on the third subassignment of the second assignment of error: that the City’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the EOA considered only vacant lands in its inventory of buildable lands and failed to consider the potential redevelopment of developed lands to meet its projected demand.

Under ORS 197.712, a local government must adopt an EOA as part of its comprehensive plan. OAR 660-009-0015 specifies the purpose of the EOA is to “compare the demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land.” This includes an “inventory of vacant and developed lands within the planning area designated for industrial or other employment use." OAR 660-009-0015(3). “Vacant land” is “(1) any lot or parcel larger than one-half acre that is completely undeveloped, and (2) any lot or parcel larger than five acres with at least four and one-half acres undeveloped.” OAR 660-009-0005(14). “Developed land” is “non-vacant land that is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period.” OAR 660-009-0005(1).

LUBA sustained Petitioner’s subassignment of error, agreeing that while the City’s EOA did properly consider development of the vacant lands, the record indicated it did not consider whether the 5,800 acres of developed land could be redeveloped during the planning period as required under OAR 660-009-0015(3). LUBA concluded that the inventory of buildable lands in the EOA was not supported by substantial evidence.

Remanded.