Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland against a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which affirmed a Metropolitan Service District ordinance amending the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in Clackamas County. The amendment added 900 acres to accommodate a projected population increase beyond initial estimates. Home Builders argued that LUBA's findings on the land required for this growth lacked substantial evidence, thus violating Statewide Planning Goal 14. They contended that newer evidence should outweigh the older data used initially. However, LUBA and the court both found that the evidence supporting Metro's decision was substantial, meaning that it was evidence a reasonable person could accept as adequate. The court emphasized that its role was not to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for LUBA's but to ensure that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Despite acknowledging risks in relying on less statistically sound data, the court upheld the ordinance, affirming LUBA's decision based on the substantial evidence presented by Metro.
Legal Issues Addressed
Standard of Review for LUBA Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the LUBA decision by emphasizing that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of LUBA or reweigh the evidence, but must only determine if substantial evidence supports the decision.
Reasoning: The court upholds the LUBA decision, stating that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of LUBA or reweigh the evidence; it must only determine if substantial evidence supports the decision.
Statewide Planning Goal 14subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Home Builders argued that an inadequate urban land supply violated Statewide Planning Goal 14, but the evidence presented by Metro was found adequate to meet the legal requirements.
Reasoning: Home Builders contends that LUBA's findings regarding the land needed for projected population growth lack substantial evidence, resulting in an inadequate urban land supply, which they argue violates Statewide Planning Goal 14.
Substantial Evidence Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that substantial evidence supported Metro’s decision to amend the Urban Growth Boundary, as a reasonable mind could accept the evidence used as adequate.
Reasoning: Substantial evidence is defined as that which a reasonable mind could accept as adequate.
Urban Growth Boundary Amendmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ordinance that amended the Urban Growth Boundary was affirmed because the evidence supporting Metro's decision was deemed substantial despite conflicting data.
Reasoning: Ultimately, the court concluded that Metro's choice between conflicting data was supported by substantial evidence, thus affirming the ordinance.