Graser-Lindsey v. City of Oregon City

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 11-22-2016
  • Case #: 2016-044
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Metro Code 3.07.1120(c)(1), the city’s plan must be “derived from and generally consistent with the boundaries of design type designations assigned by the Metro Council in the ordinance adding the area to the UGB,” as that ordinance is amended by Metro under MC 3.07.450.

     Petitioners appealed a city ordinance (Ordinance 15-1016) that adopted the Beavercreek Road Concept Plan (BRCP) for a 435-acre area of the city. The issue on appeal concerned 308 acres that have been included on Metro’s Employment and Industrial Land Maps, and have been designated for Industrial use. Prior to amendments, Metro applied Employment or Outer Neighborhood map designations to 145 acres in the same area. Together, the area is 453 acres designated Industrial, Employment, or Outer Neighborhood. The concept plan at issue requires a 175-acre North Employment Campus to satisfy the city’s obligations for the 308-acre industrial area.

     Following an appeal to LUBA and remand of the BRCP, Metro adopted Ordinance No. 10-1244B (2010 Ordinance), which amended Metro’s Employment and Industrial Areas Map to designate 121 net acres of industrial land in the North Employment Campus. Following further appeals, the city adopted Ordinance 15-1016 in 2016, which re-adopted the BRCP with new findings. The petitioners appealed, alleging three assignments of error. In its third assignment of error, petitioners argued that designating only 78 acres of the 121-acres added was not “derived from and generally consistent with the boundaries” in the original Metro ordinance.

     LUBA disagreed, finding that Metro Code (MC) 3.07.450 and MC 3.07.1120(c)(1) must be read in conjunction. MC 3.07.450 gives Metro the ability to amend its original map designations. Metro amended the map in 2010 to change the land designation in the BRCP to better reflect the reduction in industrial and employment land needs following an economic recession. LUBA interpreted MC 3.07.1120(c)(1), which requires the city’s plan be derived from and consistent with the Metro ordinance that originally added the area to the UGB, to include subsequent amendments to the initial ordinance’s designation. LUBA denied the first subassignment of error. AFFIRMED.