Anne Davies <br />February 4, 2014 <br />Page 6 <br />Or App 239, 259 Pad 1021 (2011). Although it was applying the old version of Goal 14 in that <br />case, the Court of Appeals decision is still relevant in that the sequencing of activity and the <br />relationships between ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 provisions that remain in the new version of the <br />Goal is the same. In that decision, the Court of Appeals described a three-step process for UGB <br />expansion. Step one is to determine the land need (if any) for UGB expansion. 244 Or App at <br />255-57. Step two is to determine the adequacy of candidate lands under ORS 197.298(1) and <br />(3), and Goal 14 factors that do not have more restrictive counterparts under the statute. M. at <br />257-65. Step three is for the local government to determine which candidate lands are to be <br />included under Goal 14. M at 265-66. <br />Under the scheme outlined by the Court of Appeals, land under a higher priority must be <br />included in the lands to be annexed into a UGB unless the local goverrunent can affirmatively <br />demonstrate under the statute and applicable Goal 14 criteria that the higher priority land is <br />"inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed." Id at 261. Once land is identified that <br />could be added to the UGB, Goal 14 works in two ways - both to make choices among land in <br />the lowest rung of the priority scheme and to justify the inclusion of the entire set of lands <br />selected under ORS 197.298. Id. at 265. <br />In the end, the Court of Appeals in 1000 Friends of Oregon v LCDC (11clllinnville) remanded on <br />several grounds generally pertaining to the improper application of Goal 14 locational criteria <br />(such as the cost of transportation or water services) to exclude higher priority lands under the <br />statute, and for failure to adequately explain why certain higher priority lands were excluded in <br />favor of lower priority lands or to explain the selection between equal priority lands. Id at 287- <br />88. <br />Also, in a decision issued just this year, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, for the <br />second tirne, an LCDC order pertaining to the City of Woodburn. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. <br />LCDC (Woodburn II), _ Or App _ P3d _ (No. A148592, Jan. 2, 2014). In this most <br />recent opinion, the Court of Appeals never even reached the issue raised by petitioners about <br />whether the City improperly included high value farmland over lower priority lands. Rather, the <br />court concluded that LCDC did not adequately explain why the city's expansion of its UGB to <br />include additional land for industrial use was consistent with pertinent law. That is, the analysis <br />of how much additional land the city needed to include in the UGB was insufficient for review. <br />Id. Slip op at 2. Until the city justified how much land it needed, the court could not even review <br />whether the lands selected to fill the stated "need" were appropriate. <br />As the City moves forward on the matter of which lands to include within an expanded UGB, it <br />should be cognizant of the priority requirements spelled out under ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 and <br />the need to frilly justify the city's rationale, if the decision is to pass muster- in Salem. <br />Facts Relevant to the Discussion: <br />As one can see from the discussion above, the process to expand a UGB operates under severe <br />constraints, and local decision-makers are limited in the discretion they can exercise. <br />