Eugene Planning Commission <br />January 4, 2017 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />be included in the lands to be annexed into a UGB unless the local government can affirmatively <br />demonstrate that, under the statute and applicable Goal 14 criteria, the higher priority land is <br />"inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed." Id. at 261. Once the priority of lands <br />has been established under the statute and applicable Goal 14 factors, the remaining Goal 14 <br />factors operate to make choices among land in the lowest rung of the priority scheme (all higher <br />priority lands must be included) and to justify the inclusion of the entire set of lands selected <br />under ORS 197.298. Id. at 265. <br />Consequently, the primary focus of the process is on the statute. ORS 197.298 sets out both the <br />priority and the permitted exceptions for including lands within an urban growth boundary. The <br />full text of ORS 197.298 is provided as Attachment C to this letter. The statutory priority of land <br />to be included within the urban growth boundary can be summarized as: <br />1. Urban reserve areas (Eugene does not have urban reserves) <br />2. Exception areas or nonresource land. May also include non-high-value farmland <br />completely surrounded by exception areas. <br />3. Marginal Lands (Lane County is a marginal land county) <br />4. Resource lands (with soils of lower capacity having higher priority than better soils). <br />Before the City decides to include resource lands (priority 4) in any UGB expansion proposal, it <br />must include all exception areas and nonresource lands that are adequate for the type of land <br />needed. <br />Caselaw Interpretations <br />Reviewing appellate bodies have consistently and rigidly adhered to the framework explained by <br />the McMinnville court. In its opinion, the court remanded the city's decision on several grounds <br />pertaining to the improper application of Goal 14 locational criteria to exclude higher priority <br />lands under the statute, and for filing to adequately explain why higher priority lands were <br />excluded in favor of lower priority lands. Id. at 287-88. <br />In 2010, LCDC took an equally strict position in its order to the City of Bend and Deschutes <br />County. See Exhibit G to Attachment B hereto. That order concluded that the City of Bend <br />improperly excluded a substantial amount of land planned and zoned as exception lands in favor <br />of including large amounts of lower priority lands, and it sent the decision back to the city and <br />county. As the LCDC order for Bend demonstrates, the hurdle for bypassing higher priority <br />lands altogether in favor of lower priority lands is extremely high. <br />And most recently, LUBA applied the statutory and Goal 14 framework, as explained by the <br />McMinnville court, and remanded the City of Coburg's UGB expansion proposal. LandWatch of <br />Lane County v. Lane County, Or LUBA (LUBA Nos. 2016-003/004, August 21, 2016), <br />aff'd Or App (CA-A162909, December 29, 2016). (Due to the City of Coburg's size, <br />appellate review of the decision was to LUBA instead of LCDC.) The LUBA decision regarding <br />Coburg is attached as Exhibit D to this letter; the Court of Appeal's decision affirmed LUBA. <br />