LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC <br />OREGON LAND USE LAW <br />January 4, 2017 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Alissa Hansen <br />99 W. 10`h Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Lane County Planning Commission <br />c/o Lydia McKinney <br />125 E. 8`h Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: Eugene Urban Growth Boundary Metro Plan Amendments <br />Dear Planning Commissioners: <br />375 W. 4`h STREET, SUITE 204 <br />EUGENE, OR 97401 <br />TEL (541) 954-1260 <br />FAX (541) 343-8702 <br />E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM <br />We submit this letter and attached exhibits on behalf of Eugene Sand and Gravel Limited <br />Partnership (ES&G) for submission into the record for the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary <br />(UGB) Metro Plan Amendments. The attached exhibits include ES&G's submissions <br />concerning UGB expansion presented during the Envision Eugene process. See Attachment A, <br />Letter to Eugene City Council, January 20, 2015; Attachment B, Letter to Anne Davies, Eugene <br />City Attorney's Office, dated February 4, 2014. This letter summarizes the key points from <br />those materials. <br />The Eugene Sand and Gravel property lies just north of Beltline at Delta Highway and includes <br />approximately 35 developable acres of "nonresource" land that the City must include within the <br />highest priority category of lands for inclusion within the City's new UGB. In short, ORS <br />197.298 mandates that the City include the ES&G property within the UGB expansion proposal <br />before any lower priority lands are included. The proposal presently before the Planning <br />Commission is inconsistent with that statute. <br />The Statutory Priority Scheme for UGB Expansions <br />The Court of Appeals comprehensively explained the UGB expansion process, and the interplay <br />between ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 locational factors, in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC <br />(McMinnville), 244 Or App 239, 259 P3d 1021 (2011). And while that decision applies an older <br />version of Goal 14, the decision is still relevant with respect to the sequencing of activities and <br />the relationships between the statutory priority scheme set forth in ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 <br />provisions that remain. <br />The McMinnville court articulated a three-step process for UGB expansion that includes <br />identification of the amount of needed land, potential areas for expansion, and priority of lands <br />for inclusion into a new UGB. Id. at 255-66. Under that scheme, land of a higher priority must <br />