Ct'iterion <br />Analysis <br />Lot is zoned EFU-TRB with 23 acres of <br />The capability of soils on commercial <br />high value soils when irrigated OR zoned <br />farm parcels becomes relevant only if and <br />EFU-UAL with 36 acres of high value soils <br />what (a) all suitable exception parcels <br />when irrigated. <br />have been added, (b) some amount of 20- <br />year land need remains, (c) the cite goes <br />to the next highest priority under ORS <br />197.298(1), which is agriculture or forest <br />land, (d) lower capability agriculture or <br />forest parcels have been given priority <br />over higher capability resource parcels per <br />ORS 197.298(2), (e) lower capability <br />resource parcels are not suitable for the <br />identified need, or there is not enough <br />lower capability resource land to meet that <br />remaining need, and (t) lowest priority <br />high value resource land must be <br />considered. <br />By excluding a large amowrt of adjacent exception lands as "unsuitable" based on <br />suitability criteria that are not tied to a specific identified need for housing or <br />employment, or are not based in the general criteria allowed under OAR 660-024-0060; <br />the city and county have not complied with Goal 14, ORS 197.298; and OAR 660, <br />division 24. The analysis creates an artificial shortage of first priority exception lands, <br />and then uses that shortage to ,justify including lolvet' priority resource land; effectively <br />undermining the statutory priorities in ORS 197.298.67 <br />67 111 D.S. Parklane Development, Inc, r. Metro, 35 Or LUBA 516 (1999); rfPcI as modified 165 Or App t <br />(2000). LUBA found that A,Ictro, ill part, created its own inadequacy of higher priority lands to <br />accommodate urban land need. LUBA concluded that this error undermined the urban reserve rule's <br />priority scheme "and hence the Urban reserve rule." "[11']e conclUdc that Metro's failure to study enough <br />higher priority lancis created in part the inadequacy that IMetro relied upon to designate lower priority lands, <br />and further that rNletro's application of Subsections 2; 3 and 4 [of OAR 660-021-0030] as described above <br />effectively undermines the urban reserve rule's priorit}' scheme and hence the urban reserve rule." Id. at <br />554. <br />"The relationship between the elements of ORS 197.298( l) through (3) is essentially the same as the <br />relationship between the elements of OAR 660-021-0030(3) and (4), and LUBA's and the Court of <br />Appeals' intet'pretation of the latter should guide the interpretation of the former." Resickmis ol'Rosemonl <br />Moro, 38 Or LUBA 199, 2449 (2000), gffd in part, recd acrd rent's on mhergromidy 173) Or App 321 <br />(2001). The statutory exceptions to the priorities to add land to a 1;(,'B in ORS 197.298(3); enacted in 1995, <br />were based on the statutory exceptions to the priorities to add land to urban reserves in OAR 660-021- <br />0030(4), which LCDC had previously adopted in 1992. Therefore, interpretations of the OAR 660-021- <br />0030(44) priority exceptions in Parklrure apply to Bend's use of the ORS 19.298(3) priority exceptions in <br />this UGB amendment, including the magnitude of error caused by iilipropef use of both the priorities and <br />the exceptions to the priorities. <br />Bend UGB Order 001775 122 of 156 January 8, 2010 <br />