Deumling v. City of Salem

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 08-09-2017
  • Case #: 2016-126
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

ORS 197.835 (9)(a)(C) states that LUBA shall remand decisions not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record. OAR 664-004-0018(4) provides that when local governments adopt a reasons exception to a goal, “plan and zone designations must limit uses, density, public facilities and activities to only those justified in the exception.”

This appeal challenges the city of Salem’s approval of a third vehicular bridge over the Willamette River. In 2006, the city evaluated how to reduce congestion, provide alternative routes for emergency responders, and for regional traffic trips. The city decided to create a four-lane bridge north of the existing Marion Street Bridge with Resolution 2016-35, which amended the Salem Area Comprehensive Policies Plan and Transportation System Plan to incorporate the new bridge. Along with the Keizer City Council, Polk County Board of Commissioners, and Marion County Board of Commissioners, the city enacted Ordinance No. 14-16, which amended the Salem Keizer Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to add 35 acres of land in Polk County and zoned exclusive farm use to the city’s UGB, adopted an exception to the Goal 15 to site portions of the bridge within the greenway, and amended the SACP and the TSP in connection with the new bridge. Petitioners subsequently appealed.

Petitioners argued that the city’s decision failed to comply with OAR 660-004-0018(4). The land subject to the Goal 15 exception is entirely within the city’s UGB as it existed prior to the ordinance adoption. All the land subject to the Goal 15 exception is also subject to the Willamette Greenway Overlay Zoning district provisions at SRC Chapter 600. The city argues that the existing plan and zoning designations will be maintained for the land subject to the Goal 15 exception. Because the city fails to explain why “existing plan and zoning designations” limit the uses, public facilities and services to only those justified in the exception, LUBA remands the decision to allow the city to explain why the existing and zoning designations for the land subject to the Goal 15 exception satisfy OAR 660-004-0018(4)(a). REMANDED.