# Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Development Commission

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · February 20, 2014 · 261 Or. App. 259

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8127053

## Case

- **Full name:** BARKERS FIVE, LLC Sandy Baker City of Tualatin City of West Linn Carol Chesarek Cherry Amabisca Save Helvetia Robert Bailey 1000 Friends of Oregon Dave Vanasche Bob VanderZanden Larry Duyck Springville Investors, LLC Katherine Blumenkron David Blumenkron Metropolitan Land Group Chris Maletis Tom Maletis Exit 282A Development Company, LLC LFGC, LLC Elizabeth Graser-Lindsey and Susan McKenna v. LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Metro, Washington County, Clackamas County, Multnomah County, State of Oregon, and City of Hillsboro
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** February 20, 2014
- **Citations:** 261 Or. App. 259; 323 P.3d 368; 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 208; 2014 WL 662329
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Haselton
- **Judges:** Deits, Haselton, Sercombe
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8127053

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, "although the designation of land as urban reserve must be based on consideration of * * * factors, which requires, among other things, that the factors are weighed and balanced as a whole" and "although Metro and the counties need not demonstrate 'compliance' wi…
- noting that an LCDC decision indicating that a county decision was supported by substantial evidence was unlawful in substance where, although LCDC recognized that there was "weighty, countervailing evidence," it disregarded that evidence by relying upon "speculative reasoning"
- discussing development of the reserve factors

## Opinion text

*262 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction................................................................................. 264
II. Statutory and Regulatory Framework...................................... 265
A. Senate Bill 1011 (2007)....................................................... 266
B. The Statutory Framework (ORS 195.137 - 195.145).............. 271
1. Process for Designation of Urban Reserves................. 271
2. Process for Designation of Rural Reserves.................. 273
3. Intergovernmental Coordination and Cooperation..... 275
4. LCDC Rulemaking Authority....................................... 276
C. The Regulatory Framework (OAR chapter 660, division 27)......................................................................................... 276
III. Procedural History...................................................................... 282
IV. Preliminary Contentions: “Clearing the Decks”........................ 287
V. Unlawful in Substance Contentions: Compliance with “Amount of Land Standard” and Statewide Planning Goals................... 288
A. “Amount of Land Standard” in OAR 660-027-0040(2)....... 288
B. Statewide Planning Goals................................................... 288
1. Application of Economic Development Goal (Goal 9).......................................................................... 288
2. Use of Urban Growth Report to Project Land Needs (Goals 2 and 14)............................................................ 292
3. Assessment of Carrying Capacity (Goals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,10,12, and 14)........................ 292
VI. Unlawful in Substance Contentions: “Consideration” and “Application” of the Reserve Factors and the Meaning and Application of the “Best Achieves Standard”............................. 293
A. Validity of LCDC’s Legal Premises: “Consideration” and “Application” of the Reserve Factors.................................. 293
1. “Consideration” of “Factors” in the Manner of Goal 14 .. 295
2. Application of the Factors to “Areas”............................ 301
3. Application of the Factors to Alternative Areas within a County........................................................................ 306
4. Application of Rural Reserve Factors, Urban Reserve Factors, or Both to Each Area...................................... 308
5. Determination Whether to Designate an Area As Urban or Rural Reserves or to Leave It Undesignated.. 309
B. Validity of LCDC’s Legal Premises: The “Best Achieves Standard”............................................................................ 311
1. Standard Is Qualitative Not Quantitative.................. 312
*263 2. Standard Applies to Designation “In Its Entirety” Not to Designation of Individual Properties or Areas........................................................................... 313
3. “Best Achieves Standard” Allows for a Range of Permissible Regional Designations........................... 314
4. Satisfaction of Standard Is Demonstrated through Findings Concerning Application of the Reserve Factors........................................................................ 317
VII. Petitioners’ Particularized Challenges.................................... 319
A. LCDC Properly Understood That Designation Was Not a “Political” Decision......................................................... 319
B. Washington County........................................................... 320
1. Misapplication of Rural Reserve Factors................... 320
2. Effect of Washington County’s Misapplication of the Rural Reserve Factors................................................ 333
C. Clackamas County............................................................. 334
1. Application of OAR 660-027-0060(4), aka the “Safe Harbor Provision,” to Area 4J and Clackamas County’s Revised Rural Reserve Findings on Remand....................................................................... 334
2. Clackamas County’s Application of the Rural Reserve Factors........................................................................ 336
D. Multnomah County........................................................... 337
1. “Balancing” of the Factors.......................................... 337
2. Adequacy of Multnomah County’s Consideration of Rural Reserve Factors Pertaining to Area 9D.......... 338
VIII. Unlawful in Substance Contentions: LCDC’s Substantial Evidence Review....................................................................... 347
A. Standard of Review for Substantial Evidence................. 347
B. LCDC’s Understanding of Substantial Evidence Review.. 348
C. Petitioners’ Particularized Challenges............................. 350
1. Washington County.................................................... 350
2. Clackamas County...................................................... 350
a. Designation of Area 4J As Rural Reserve........... 350
b. Designation of Areas 4A to 4D As Urban Reserve.................................................................. 355
c. Remaining Contentions........................................ 363
3. Multnomah County..................................................... 363
IX. Conclusion................................................................................. 363
HASELTON, C. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the designation of urban and rural reserves in the Portland metropolitan area that will guide its growth until 2060. 1 Metro, in conjunction with Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties, designated such reserves under a new process that had been established by the legislature in 2007, and, in June 2010, they submitted their designation to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for review. See generally ORS 197.626(l)(c), (f) (providing for LCDC review of urban and rural reserves). Ultimately, in August 2012— approximately one year after LCDC voted to acknowledge a revised submittal — LCDC issued its 156-page, single-spaced acknowledgment order.
Twenty-two petitioners — including property owners, nonprofit and citizen groups, and municipalities — seek judicial review of that order. In hundreds of pages of briefing, they raise 25 assignments of error that are predicated on a record that consists of approximately 36,000 pages. 2 Collectively, petitioners’ assignments of error range from fundamental methodological issues pertaining to LCDC’s understanding and application of the legal principles that govern the designation of reserves to the correctness of LCDC’s substantial evidence review of Metro and the counties’ designation of particular land as either urban or rural reserves. Simply stated, petitioners contend that LCDC’s order is unlawful in substance because, in reviewing Metro and the counties’ designation, LCDC misapplied the legal principles governing the designation of urban and rural reserves and circumscribing its review.
*265 As explained in greater detail below, we reject petitioners’ contentions pertaining to, among other things, (1) the validity of the rules governing the designation of urban and rural reserves in this case (OAR chapter 660, division 27); (2) Metro’s authority to designate reserves outside of its service district boundary; (3) whether too much land was designated as urban reserve under OAR 660-027-0040(2); and (4) whether the designation complies with particular Statewide Planning Goals. We also uphold nine fundamental legal premises underlying LCDC’s review of the designation — that is, legal premises concerning Metro and the counties’ “consideration” and “application” of the reserve factors and the meaning and application of OAR 660-027-0005(2) (otherwise known as the “best achieves standard”). Further, we reject most of petitioners’ contentions concerning whether LCDC properly applied the substantial evidence standard of review.
Nevertheless, we conclude that LCDC erred in four respects. In particular, LCDC erred in (1) approving Washington County’s misapplication of the rural reserve factors pertaining to agricultural land; (2) concluding that Multnomah County had adequately “considered” the rural reserve factors pertaining to Area 9D; (3) concluding that it has authority to affirm a local government’s decision where its findings are inadequate if the evidence “clearly supports” the decision; and (4) failing to meaningfully explain why— even in light of weighty countervailing evidence — Metro and the counties’ designation of Areas 4A to 4D (commonly referred to as Stafford) as urban reserves is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, because LCDC’s order is unlawful in substance in various respects, we reverse and remand LCDC’s order for further action consistent with the principles expressed in this opinion. ORS 197.651(10)(a) (providing that “[t]he Court of Appeals shall reverse or remand the order only if the court finds the order is [,]” among other things, “[u]nlawful in substance”).
II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
To provide necessary context, before turning to the procedural history of this case and the parties’ specific *266 contentions on judicial review, we describe the general statutory and regulatory framework that governed the designation of urban and rural reserves in this case. That framework finds its origin in Senate Bill (SB) 1011 (2007). 3 We begin with the circumstances that precipitated the enactment of that framework.
A. Senate Bill 1011 (2007)
Metro is a metropolitan service district established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, ORS 197.015(14), that includes land in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties. Metro is responsible for coordinating land use planning in that tri-county region. ORS 195.025; ORS 268.385. Among Metro’s responsibilities is the adoption of a regional UGB. See generally ORS 268.380 - 268.390 (describing Metro’s planning and land use authority).
Before the 2007 legislative session during which SB 1011 was enacted, Metro — as well as others — identified deficiencies in the process by which Metro managed and expanded the regional UGB. Specifically, Randy Tucker, Legislative Affairs Manager for Metro, explained:
“*** [current] system [for managing the Portland region’s UGB] is dominated by two arbitrary numbers (20-year land supply requirement, [see generally ORS 197.296, and a] Metro-only five-year UGB evaluation cycle[, see generally ORS 197.299]) rather than by rules that are more responsive to the aspirations of the region. Today’s system requires perpetual UGB expansions, but the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of obvious and easy expansion areas is gone. The current system offers no way to protect critical farmland or natural resources over the long term, yet it also fails to consider factors related to efficient and effective urbanization when deciding where to expand the UGB. The existing ‘land hierarchy,’ [see generally ORS 197.298,] which directs UGB expansions based on the quality of *267 agricultural land may be too narrow; more criteria than soil type may be needed to decide what farmland is truly worth protecting and what areas are more logical to urbanize.
“As a result, current rules lead to UGB expansions where they are not wanted (especially for industrial use) and prevent expansions where they might be appropriate and desirable. For this reason and others, the current system, which requires Metro to start from scratch every five years, leads to conflict, uncertainty, and frustration for local governments, farmers, businesses, and individual citizens.”
Testimony, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, SB 1011, May 21, 2007, Ex C (statement of Randy Tucker).
To determine how to address those deficiencies in the current system, Metro — at some point before the 2007 legislative session — obtained partial funding from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and, in conjunction with DLCD, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties, conducted what has become known as the “Ag-Urban Study.” Id. That study examined land outside Metro’s UGB and focused on three overarching questions:
“• What lands are functionally critical to the agricultural economy (irrespective of soil type)?
“• What lands are critical in terms of ecological function (protecting water quality, plant and wildlife habitat, and key landscape features like steep slopes)?
“• What lands can most efficiently and effectively be integrated into the urban fabric of the region to create sustainable and complete communities?”
Id. (boldface in original). The answers to each of those questions were ultimately embodied in three documents— summaries of which Tucker provided to the House and Senate committees that considered SB 1011: (1) a January 2007 ODA report to Metro entitled “Identification and Assessment of the Long-Term Commercial Viability of Metro Region Agricultural Lands” (the ODA Report); (2) Metro’s February 2007 “Natural Landscape Features Inventory” (the Natural Landscape Features Inventory); and (3) the “Great Communities Final Report” (the Great Communities *268 Report). Because those three documents pertain to, and provide context for, certain of the parties’ contentions on review, we summarize their essential content at this point. 4
The ODA Report described an analysis of agricultural lands based primarily on “an examination of both the capability (ability of the land to produce an agricultural product) and the suitability (ability to conduct viable farm use) of any given tract of land to be utilized for farm use.” That examination focused, in turn, on particular subfactors related to capability (e.g., the quantity and quality of soils and water) and suitability (e.g., land use patterns; agricultural land use patterns; parcelization, tenure, and ownership patterns; agricultural infrastructure; zoning; location in relationship to adjacent lands zoned for nonresource development).
As a result of that analysis, ODA identified and mapped 20 agricultural subregions separated into three types of agricultural land categories — viz., “Foundation,” “Important,” and “Conflicted” — which the report defined as follows:
“Foundation Agricultural Lands are agricultural lands that provide the core support to the region’s agricultural base. These lands anchor the region’s larger agricultural base. They incubate and support the larger agricultural industry and are vital to its long-term viability. They have the attributes necessary to sustain current agricultural operations and to adapt to changing technologies and consumer demands.
“Important Agricultural Lands are agricultural lands that are suited to agricultural production and contribute to or have the capacity to contribute to the commercial agricultural economy. These lands maintain the ability to remain viable over the long-term. They have the potential to be Foundation Agricultural Lands, but tend to be not utilized to their full potential. Trends in regional agricultur[e] could lead to a greater development of the agricultural capacity of these areas.
*269 “Conflicted Agricultural Lands are agricultural lands whose agricultural capacity (soils/water) is more times than not considered excellent but whose suitability is questionable primarily due to questions of integrity and ability to operate. These questions lead to issues of long-term viability. These lands are influenced by factors that diminish long-term certainty, which in turn tends to limit investment in agricultural operations by area farmers. These lands could become Important Agricultural Lands with changes in circumstances and trends in the industry. There may be individual or multiple operations within these areas that are conducting efficient, effective and viable operations.”
(Boldface in original.)
Metro’s Natural Landscape Features Inventory examined an area that “extended from north of Salem to the North Fork of the Lewis River on a north-south axis and from the Cascade foothills to the Coast Range on the east-west axis.” The inventory identified 26 “features of the landscape that influence the sense of place for the greater region and ultimately will help define the future urban form of the greater region.” Examples of natural landscape features identified in the inventory include (1) the “Cascade Foothills,” which, among other things, provide “a scenic panorama for Portland and the eastside of the region” and “drinking water for the majority of the population of the region” and (2) “Forest Park Connections” — that is, the area that “provides protection to key watersheds like Balch, Miller, Ennis and Agency Creeks and secures the integrity of the ‘big game’ corridor that links the park with habitat in the northern Coast Range.”
Finally, the Great Communities Report identified and described “eight essential characteristics” that “are the most important in making urbanization decisions” — viz., (1) community design, (2) complete communities, (3) ecological systems, (4) optimization of public investments, (5) governance, (6) finance, (7) economy, and (8) education and workforce development. As an example, the report explained that “community design” recognizes that
“ [d] ensity, connectivity and legibility are considered essential characteristics in attaining cohesive community interaction, active populations and thriving business districts. *270 To support the characteristic of walkability, the area should have high enough densities and a diverse enough mix of uses within a quarter mile radius of centers to support walkability. A minimum of 12 to 16 dwelling units per acre in these areas is recommended. Additionally, the area should have the capacity to provide connectivity to and within the area for all automobiles, business-related trips, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Legibility refers to areas that have rich, distinctive and site-specific attributes and forms that fit the natural environment and capitalize on unique and significant natural features. It also focuses on how people inside the area perceive the region as they move through it, in other words, how they define its sense of place. Features may include views of natural ordering elements such as Mount Hood, the presence of and visual access to significant local landmarks, the ability to create edges to the community and pathway systems throughout an area, to create districts, nodes or centers and to develop gateways into/out of the area.”
SB 1011 emerged from the Ag-Urban Study process and, consequently, incorporated some of the principles expressed in the ODA Report, the Natural Landscape Features Inventory, and the Great Communities Report. Audio Recording, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, SB 1011, May 21, 2007, at 24:28 - 25:31 (statement of Randy Tucker), https://olis.leg.state.or.us (accessed Feb 6, 2014). Of particular significance, the urban reserve factors specified in SB 1011 derived from the Great Communities Report and the rural reserve factors derived from the ODA Report. 5 In sum, “SB 1011 [was] an attempt to align the law with the region’s goals both for urbanization and for protection of areas that should not be urbanized.” *271 Testimony, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, SB 1011, May 21, 2007, Ex C (statement of Randy Tucker).
During the course of the legislative hearings, a coalition that represented diverse interests continued to meet to refine SB 1011 and propose amendments to its provisions. 6 As ultimately enacted, SB 1011 — which is codified at ORS 195.137 to 195.145 7 — authorized the designation of urban and rural reserves to provide “greater certainty” to commerce, industry, private land owners, and providers of public services by “facilitating] long-range planning” for both urban and rural uses. ORS 195.139.
B. The Statutory Framework (ORS 195.137 -195.145)
Four salient aspects of the existing (post-SB 1011) statutory framework are most pertinent to the designation of urban and rural reserves in this case.
1. Process for Designation of Urban Reserves
ORS 195.145(l)(b) authorizes a new, alternative process for the designation of urban reserves. Before the enactment of SB 1011, a process existed for the designation of such reserves. In determining which land to include as urban reserve, that existing process required that relative priorities be given to various types of lands. See generally OAR 660-021-0000 - 660-021-0080 (the division 21 rules). Of particular significance, OAR 660-021-0030(2) provides, inter alia, that the “[inclusion of land within an urban reserve shall be based upon the locational factors of [Statewide Planning] Goal 14 [(Goal 14)] and a demonstration that *272 there are no reasonable alternatives that will require less, or have less effect upon, resource land.” Further, OAR 660-021-0030(2) provides that, once determined to be suitable, land may be designated as urban reserve only according to a set of priorities in OAR 660-021-0030(3) related to the agricultural quality of the land.
Although SB 1011 continued to provide for designation of urban reserves under that existing process, ORS 195.145(l)(a), it also established a new, alternative process, ORS 195.145(l)(b), under which the reserves in this case were designated. As Representative Jackie Dingfelder explained, this “new process for designating urban reserves,” which “are the first in line when land needs to be brought into the UGB,” is
“based on a set of factors that consider how well land can be woven into the urban fabric of the region rather than the current approach of selecting urban reserves based on factors that are related to their quality as farm land. In effect, this will make it easier to urbanize land that may have good soil but is not necessarily critical to the agricultural economy.”
Audio Recording, House Floor Debate, SB 1011, June 11, 2007, at 1:48:58 - 1:49:40 (statement of bill’s carrier Rep Dingfelder), https://olis.leg.state.or.us (accessed Feb 6,2014). 8
Central to that alternative designation process is a nonexclusive set of six urban reserve factors — derived from the Great Communities Report — that Metro and a county must “consider” in designating urban reserves under ORS 195.145(l)(b). Specifically, ORS 195.145(5) provides:
“[Metro] and a county shall base the designation of urban reserves under subsection (l)(b) of this section upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, whether land proposed for designation as urban reserves, alone or in conjunction with land inside the [UGB]:
*273 “(a) Can be developed at urban densities in a way that makes efficient use of existing and future public infrastructure investments;
“(b) Includes sufficient development capacity to support a healthy urban economy;
“(c) Can be served by public schools and other urban-level public facilities and services efficiently and cost-effectively by appropriate and financially capable service providers;
“(d) Can be designed to be walkable and served by a well-connected system of streets by appropriate service providers;
“(e) Can be designed to preserve and enhance natural ecological systems; and
“(f) Includes sufficient land suitable for a range of housing types.”
(Emphasis added.)
In addition, the amount of land that Metro and a county can designate as urban reserves under ORS 195.145(l)(b) is limited. ORS 195.145(4) provides:
“Urban reserves designated by [Metro] and a county pursuant to subsection (l)(b) of this section must be planned to accommodate population and employment growth for at least 20 years, and not more than 30 years, after the 20-year period for which [Metro] has demonstrated a build-able land supply in the most recent inventory, determination and analysis performed under ORS 197.296.”
Stated simply, ORS 195.145(4) establishes an “urban reserves planning period” — that is, a period between 20 and 30 years beyond the 20-year UGB planning period. Urban reserves designated under ORS 195.145(l)(b) “must be planned to accommodate population and employment growth” during the urban reserves planning period. ORS 195.145(4).
2. Process for Designation of Rural Reserves
ORS 195.141 authorizes the designation of a new type of reserves — viz., rural reserves. “These are the lands that are critical to the functioning and long-term viability of the agricultural industry irrespective of soil quality, and *274 rural reserves can also be established to protect important natural areas.” Audio Recording, House Floor Debate, SB 1011, June 11, 2007, at 1:49:47 - 1:50:05 (statement of Rep Dingfelder), https://olis.leg.state.or.us (accessed Feb 6, 2014). Before the enactment of SB 1011, there had been “no legal authorization to protect th[o]se lands over the long term.” Testimony, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, SB 1011, May 21, 2007, Ex C (statement of Randy Tucker).
Unlike with urban reserves, the legislature did not impose a limitation on the amount of land that may be designated as rural reserves. Instead, the legislature imposed a temporal restriction on the development of such reserves. Specifically, land that is designated as rural reserve (1) must be outside of a UGB, (2) “[m]ay not be designated as an urban reserve during the urban reserve planning period,” and (3) may not be included in a UGB during the urban reserve planning period. ORS 195.141(2). In practical terms, this means that land designated as rural reserve is essentially not subject to urban development for up to a total period of 40 to 50 years — that is, the 20-year UGB planning period plus the 20- to 30-year urban reserves planning period.
As with the designation of urban reserves, the process for designating rural reserves requires the “consideration” of a nonexclusive list of factors, which were derived from the ODA Report. Specifically, ORS 195.141(3) provides:
“When designating a rural reserve under this section to provide long-term protection to the agricultural industry, a county and [Metro] shall base the designation on consideration of factors including, but not limited to, whether land proposed for designation as a rural reserve:
“(a) Is situated in an area that is otherwise potentially subject to urbanization during the [urban reserves planning period], as indicated by proximity to the [UGB] and to properties with fair market values that significantly exceed agricultural values;
“(b) Is capable of sustaining long-term agricultural operations;
“(c) Has suitable soils and available water where needed to sustain long-term agricultural operations; and
*275 “(d) Is suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations, taking into account:
“(A) The existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land with a concentration or cluster of farms;
“(B) The adjacent land use pattern, including its location in relation to adjacent nonfarm uses and the existence of buffers between agricultural operations and nonfarm uses;
“(C) The agricultural land use pattern, including parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns; and
“(D) The sufficiency of agricultural infrastructure in the area.”
(Emphasis added.)
3. Intergovernmental Coordination and Cooperation
The designation of urban and rural reserves requires coordination and agreement between Metro and the counties. To that end, ORS 195.143(1) provides that Metro and a county “must consider simultaneously the designation and establishment” of rural reserves pursuant to ORS 195.141 and urban reserves pursuant to ORS 195.145(l)(b). As Tucker explained, the direction “to consider the establishment of rural and urban reserves simultaneously” ensures “coordination of the planning of both types of reserves and consideration of the relationships between them.” Testimony, House Committee on Energy and the Environment, SB 1011, May 30, 2007, Ex D (statement of Randy Tucker).
Ultimately, the designation of reserves occurs through agreements between Metro and a county. 9 As Representative Dingfelder explained on the floor of the House, under the new process established in SB 1011, “neither urban reserves *276 nor rural reserves can be created * * * unless Metro and a county agree about both urban and rural reserves. This provides a greater degree of protection and accountability.” Audio Recording, House Floor Debate, SB 1011, June 11, 2007, at 1:50:10 - 1:50:25 (statement of Rep Dingfelder), https://olis.leg.state.or.us (accessed Feb 6, 2014).
Of particular significance, the coalition in support of SB 1011 agreed that urban reserves may not be designated in a county unless rural reserves are designated in that county as well. 10 To that end, ORS 195.143(3) provides:
“A county and [Metro] may not enter into an intergovernmental agreement to designate urban reserves in the county pursuant to ORS 195.145(l)(b) unless the county and [Metro] also agree to designate rural reserves in the county.”
4. LCDC Rulemaking Authority
The legislature authorized LCDC to engage in rule-making concerning the designation of urban and rural reserves. ORS 195.145(6) (“[LCDC] shall adopt by goal or by rule a process and criteria for designating urban reserves pursuant to subsection (l)(b) of this section.”); ORS 195.141(4) (“[LCDC] shall, after consultation with [ODA], adopt by goal or by rule a process and criteria for designating rural reserves pursuant to this section.”).
C. The Regulatory Framework (OAR chapter 660, division 27)
In response to that rulemaking authorization, LCDC promulgated the rules in OAR chapter 660, division 27 (the division 27 rules), which governed the designation of *277 urban and rural reserves in this case. 11 OAR 660-027-0005(2) establishes the objective of the division 27 rules— which has become known as the “best achieves standard.” That rule provides, in pertinent part:
“The objective of [division 27] is a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves livable communities, [12] the viability and vitality of the agricultural and forest industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.”
(Emphasis and boldface added.)
To achieve the “best achieves” objective, “[w]hen evaluating and designating land for urban reserves,” OAR 660-027-0040(8) provides that Metro and a county “shall apply the factors of OAR 660-027-0050.” In turn, in promulgating OAR 660-027-0050, LCDC incorporated the urban reserve factors from ORS 195.145(5), see 261 Or App at 272-73, and also established two additional factors — i.e., OAR 660-027-0050(7) and (8). 13 Specifically, OAR 660-027-0050 provides:
“When identifying and selecting lands for designation as urban reserves under this division, Metro shall base its decision on consideration of whether land proposed for designation as urban reserves, alone or in conjunction with land inside the UGB:
“(1) Can be developed at urban densities in a way that makes efficient use of existing and future public and private infrastructure investments;
*278 “(2) Includes sufficient development capacity to support a healthy economy;
“(3) Can be efficiently and cost-effectively served with public schools and other urban-level public facilities and services by appropriate and financially capable service providers;
“(4) Can be designed to be walkable and served with a well-connected system of streets, bikeways, recreation trails and public transit by appropriate service providers;
“(5) Can be designed to preserve and enhance natural ecological systems;
“(6) Includes sufficient land suitable for a range of needed housing types;
“(7) Can be developed in a way that preserves important natural landscape features included in urban reserves; and
“(8) Can be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on farm and forest practices, and adverse effects on important natural landscape features, on nearby land including land designated as rural reserves.”
Consistently with the quantitative “cap” on urban reserve designations prescribed by ORS 195.145(4), LCDC also promulgated OAR 660-027-0040(2) — which is known as the “amount of land standard.” Specifically, that rule provides:
“Urban reserves designated under this division shall be planned to accommodate estimated urban population and employment growth in the Metro area for at least 20 years, and not more than 30 years, beyond the 20-year period for which Metro has demonstrated a buildable land supply inside the UGB in the most recent inventory, determination and analysis performed under ORS 197.296. Metro shall specify the particular number of years for which the urban reserves are intended to provide a supply of land, based on the estimated land supply necessary for urban population and employment growth in the Metro area for that number of years. The 20 to 30-year supply of land specified in this rule shall consist of the combined total supply provided by all lands designated for urban reserves in all counties that have executed an intergovernmental agreement with Metro in accordance with OAR 660-027-0030.”
*279 With respect to the designation of land for rural reserves, OAR 660-027-0040(9) provides that, “[w]hen evaluating and designating land” for such reserves, Metro and a county “shall apply the factors of OAR 660-027-0060.” In promulgating OAR 660-027-0060, LCDC incorporated the rural reserve factors from ORS 195.141(3), see 261 Or App at 274-75, that pertained to protection of the agricultural industry but also extended their application to the forest industry. Specifically, OAR 660-027-0060(2) provides:
“When identifying and selecting lands for designation as rural reserves intended to provide long-term protection to the agricultural industry or forest industry, or both, a county shall base its decision on consideration of whether the lands proposed for designation [:]
“(a) Are situated in an area that is otherwise potentially subject to urbanization during the [urban reserves planning period] as indicated by proximity to a UGB or proximity to properties with fair market values that significantly exceed agricultural values for farmland, or forestry values for forest land;
“(b) Are capable of sustaining long-term agricultural operations for agricultural land, or are capable of sustaining long-term forestry operations for forest land;
“(c) Have suitable soils where needed to sustain long-term agricultural or forestry operations and, for agricultural land, have available water where needed to sustain long-term agricultural operations; and
“(d) Are suitable to sustain long-term agricultural or forestry operations, taking into account:
“(A) [F] or farm land, the existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land with a concentration or cluster of farm operations, or, for forest land, the existence of a large block of forested land with a concentration or cluster of managed woodlots;
“(B) The adjacent land use pattern, including its location in relation to adjacent non-farm uses or non-forest uses, and the existence of buffers between agricultural or forest operations and non-farm or non-forest uses;
“(C) The agricultural or forest land use pattern, including parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns; and
*280 “(D) The sufficiency of agricultural or forestry infrastructure in the area, whichever is applicable.”
Further, during rulemaking, LCDC established factors for the designation of rural reserves to protect important natural landscape features. Specifically, OAR 660-027-0060(3) provides:
“When identifying and selecting lands for designation as rural reserves intended to protect important natural landscape features, a county must consider those areas identified in Metro’s February 2007 ‘Natural Landscape Features Inventory’ and other pertinent information, and shall base its decision on consideration of whether the lands proposed for designation:
“(a) Are situated in an area that is otherwise potentially subject to urbanization during the [urban reserves planning period];
“(b) Are subject to natural disasters or hazards, such as floodplains, steep slopes and areas subject to landslides;
“(c) Are important fish, plant or wildlife habitat;
“(d) Are necessary to protect water quality or water quantity, such as streams, wetlands and riparian areas;
“(e) Provide a sense of place for the region, such as buttes, bluffs, islands and extensive wetlands;
“(f) Can serve as a boundary or buffer, such as rivers, cliffs and floodplains, to reduce conflicts between urban uses and rural uses, or conflicts between urban uses and natural resource uses [;]
“(g) Provide for separation between cities; and
“(h) Provide easy access to recreational opportunities in rural areas, such as rural trails and parks.”
In addition to amplifying the substantive standards for designating urban and rural reserves, the division 27 rules — consistently with the statutory directive, see ORS 195.143 — also require intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. For example, OAR 660-027-0040(10) provides that “Metro and any county that enters into an agreement with Metro under this division shall apply the factors in OAR 660-027-0050 [(concerning urban reserves)] and OAR 660-027-0060 [(concerning rural reserves)] concurrently and in *281 coordination with one another.” In addition, Metro and the counties with which Metro has entered into an agreement
“shall adopt a single, joint set of findings of fact, statements of reasons and conclusions explaining why areas were chosen as urban or rural reserves, how these designations achieve the objective stated in OAR 660-027-0005(2) [(the ‘best achieves standard’)], and the factual and policy basis for the estimated land supply determined under [OAR 660-027-0040(2) (the ‘amount of land standard’)].”
OAR 660-027-0040(10).
Finally, there are two substantial exceptions to the overarching mandates of OAR 660-027-0040(10). The application (if any) of each is vehemently disputed by the present parties.
The first exception is OAR 660-027-0060(4) — the so-called “safe harbor provision.” The “safe harbor provision” dispenses with the requirements that a county apply the factors in OAR 660-027-0060(2) in designating certain land as rural reserves and the requirement that Metro and the county explain why that land was selected as rural reserves. Specifically, OAR 660-027-0060(4) provides:
“Notwithstanding requirements for applying factors in OAR 660-027-0040(9) and [OAR 660-027-0060(2)], a county may deem that Foundation Agricultural Lands or Important Agricultural Lands [14] within three miles of a UGB qualify for designation as rural reserves under [OAR 660-027-0060(2)] without further explanation under OAR 660-027-0040(10).”
The second exception is OAR 660-027-0040(11). That provision imposes additional requirements on Metro to the extent that it seeks to designate Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserve. Specifically, OAR 660-027-0040(11) provides:
“Because the [ODA report] indicates that Foundation Agricultural Land is the most important land for the viability and vitality of the agricultural industry, if Metro designates such land as urban reserves, the findings and *282 statement of reasons shall explain, by reference to the factors in OAR 660-027-0050 and 660-027-0060(2), why Metro chose the Foundation Agricultural Land for designation as urban reserves rather than other land considered under this division.”
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2010, Metro and Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties made the initial designation of urban and rural reserves that are at issue in this case. We take the undisputed procedural facts concerning the designation from LCDC’s order.
“Metro’s initial decision to designate urban reserves in the three-county region was made on June 3, 2010. Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties made their initial final decisions to designate rural reserves in their counties, respectively, on May 13, 27 and June 15, 2010. The four governments submitted their joint and concurrent decision to [DLCD] on June 23, 2010. The initial submittal established a system of urban and rural reserves in the three-county region to guide long-term planning to the year 2060. The initial submittal designated 28,615 acres of urban reserves to accommodate urban growth to 2060, and 266,954 acres of rural reserves to protect agricultural land, forest land and important natural landscape features from urbanization for 50 years. The initial submittal included changes to the counties’ comprehensive plans and Metro’s [Regional Framework Plan (RFP)] and [Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP)], including plan maps that depict the urban and rural reserves.”
The director of DLCD referred Metro and the counties’ initial submittal — that is, Metro Ordinance No. 10-1238A — to LCDC for review in the manner provided for periodic review. See generally ORS 197.626(l)(c), (f) (providing for LCDC review of urban and rural reserves “in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633”); ORS 197.628 -197.650 (governing periodic review process); OAR chapter 660, division 25 (the division 25 rules) (rules implementing periodic review process). 15
*283 Pursuant to OAR 660-027-0080(4), LCDC was required to review the submittal for
“(a) Compliance with the applicable statewide planning goals. Under ORS 197.747 ‘compliance with the goals’ means the submittal on the whole conforms with the purposes of the goals and any failure to meet individual goal requirements is technical or minor in nature. To determine compliance with the Goal 2 requirement for an adequate factual base, [LCDC] shall consider whether the submittal is supported by substantial evidence. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding;
“(b) Compliance with applicable administrative rules, including but not limited to the objective provided in OAR 660-027-0005(2) [(‘the best achieves standard’)] and the urban and rural reserve designation standards provided in OAR 660-027-0040; and
“(c) Consideration of the factors in OAR 660-027-0050 or 660-027-0060, whichever are applicable.”
In October 2010, LCDC held a hearing concerning the initial submittal. At that hearing, LCDC (1) “approve [d] the urban and rural reserve designations as submitted in Clackamas and Multnomah counties” and “approve [d] the urban reserves in Washington County, with the exception of two areas”; (2) reversed the urban reserve designation of one of those excepted areas and remanded the designation of the other for further findings; and (3) “remand[ed] the rural reserve designations in Washington County for further consideration in light of changes made on remand” to those two areas.
In response to LCDC’s ruling at the conclusion of the hearing, Metro and Washington County adopted amendments to their planning documents to revise the reserve designations. “The Metro and Washington County re-designations,” which were submitted on May 13, 2011, “adjusted the urban and rural reserve designations in *284 Washington County” in several ways. 16 The net effect of those adjustments “was to decrease the amount of urban reserves designated by 299 acres, to decrease the amount of rural reserves designated by 120 acres, and to increase the amount of undesignated lands in Washington County by 419 acres.” In addition, “[t]he re-designations also added findings addressing more specifically both the urban and rural reserve factors in cases where Metro designated Foundation Agricultural Land in Washington County for urban reserves.” In sum,
“[following the re-designations and with the adoption of Metro Ordinance No. 11-1255, Metro has designated 28,256 gross acres as urban reserves throughout the three-county region. Clackamas County Ordinance No. ZDO-233 designates 68,713 acres as rural reserves. Multnomah County Ordinance No. 20-10-1161 designates 46,706 acres as rural reserves. Washington County Ordinance No. 740 designates 151,209 acres of rural reserves. The total of rural reserves throughout the three counties is 266,628 [acres].”
*285 Ultimately, LCDC issued an acknowledgment order “approving the 2010 initial submittal [(Metro Ordinance No. 10-1238A)], as revised through the 2011 re-designation submittal [(Metro Ordinance No. 11-1255)], which together constitute the Metro Urban and Rural Reserves Submittal.” This judicial review followed. ORS 197.626(2) (providing that a final order of LCDC concerning the designation of urban and rural reserves under ORS 195.137 to 195.145 “may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.650 and 197.651”); ORS 197.650(2) (“Jurisdiction for judicial review of a final order of [LCDC] issued pursuant to * * * ORS 197.626 * * * is conferred upon the Court of Appeals”).
On review, 22 petitioners challenge LCDC’s order. 17 Petitioners’ myriad contentions range from the sublime to the arcane to the mundane — that is, from fundamental methodological issues pertaining, inter alia, to LCDC’s understanding and application of the legal principles that govern the designation of urban and rural reserves and the review of such designations to fact-specific challenges relating to the evidentiary sufficiency of Metro and the counties’ submittal.
As framed by the parties’ contentions, we review LCDC’s order to determine whether it is “[u]nlawful in substance.” ORS 197.651(10)(a). 18 In conducting that review, we *286 are confined to the record (albeit gargantuan) of LCDC’s action. ORS 197.651(9)(a).
Further, in analyzing petitioners’ contentions, we note that, consistently with our typical practice, we will generally identify the proponent of a particular contention. However, given the large number of parties, the fundamental nature of many of the contentions on review, and the fact that many parties adopted arguments articulated by others, we will, in some instances, occasionally address a contention without identifying its particular proponent or proponents.
With those “ground rules” established, we turn to the merits of the parties’ contentions on review. We begin by addressing, and rejecting, several threshold “systemic” challenges, which, if accepted, would necessitate a remand without any further consideration of petitioners’ remaining contentions. See 261 Or App at 287-88. Next, we consider petitioners’ particularized contentions concerning whether LCDC’s order is “unlawful in substance.” Those contentions relate to five transcendent matters:
(1) Compliance with the “amount of land standard” in OAR 660-027-0040(2), see 261 Or App at 288;
(2) Compliance with statewide planning goals, see 261 Or App at 288-93;
(3) The proper consideration and application of the urban reserve factors in OAR 660-027-0050 and the rural reserve factors in OAR 660-027-0060, see 261 Or App at 293-311;
(4) The meaning and application of the “best achieves standard” in OAR 660-027-0005(2), see 261 Or App at 311-18; and
*287 (5) LCDC’s substantial evidence review, see 261 Or App at 347-63.
IV. PRELIMINARY CONTENTIONS: “CLEARING THE DECKS”
At the outset, we “clear the decks” by rejecting, without extended discussion, two preliminary contentions either of which, if correct, would have obviated the need to consider the parties’ remaining contentions. First, we reject without discussion petitioner Springville’s first assignment of error in which it contends that the division 27 rules are invalid in their entirety.
Second, in his third assignment of error, petitioner Maletis contends that Metro lacked authority to designate reserves outside of its service district boundary. That is so, Maletis asserts, because ORS 195.137 to 195.145 do not “explicitly extend the geographic scope of Metro’s governing authority outside of [that boundary].”
However, as LCDC noted, a provision of Metro’s charter provides, “‘The Metro Area of governance includes all territory within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Service District * * * and any territory * * * subjected to Metro governance under state law!” (First omission and emphasis in LCDC’s order.) Here, the text of the statutory scheme, as a whole, clearly demonstrates that Metro is authorized to designate reserves outside its district boundary. Thus, the statutes subject such lands to Metro’s governance at least for the purpose of designating them as reserves. Further, legislative history supports that understanding of the statutory scheme. The following exchange occurred during the floor debate in the House:
Representative Krummel: “Can Metro designate lands outside of their boundaries as rural reserves?”
Representative Dingfelder: “Yes, and that’s part of the point of the bill. However, if you read the bill, it has to be in conjunction with the counties, so it has to be in conjunction with the counties for approval.”
Audio Recording, House Floor Debate, SB 1011, June 11, 2007, at 1:51:42 -1:52:05, https://olis.leg.state.or.us (accessed *288 Feb 6, 2014). Although that question and response referred to rural reserves, it is clear from the exchange that the SB 1011 was intended to authorize Metro and the counties to do exactly what they did here.
Having rejected those preliminary contentions, we proceed to petitioners’ more focused challenges pertaining to whether LCDC’s order is unlawful in substance because, in reviewing Metro and the counties’ submittal, LCDC misunderstood and misapplied the legal principles governing the designation of urban and rural reserves and circumscribing its review. We begin by rejecting four contentions pertaining to the first two pervasive challenges identified above, 261 Or App at 286 — viz., compliance with the “amount of land standard” and particular statewide planning goals.
V. UNLAWFUL IN SUBSTANCE CONTENTIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH “AMOUNT OF LAND STANDARD” AND STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
A. “Amount of Land Standard” in OAR 660-027-0040(2)
We begin with the contentions pertaining to whether too much land is designated as urban reserve. Specifically, in her third assignment of error, petitioner Chesarek contends that LCDC erred in approving “an amount of acres for urban reserves that exceeds the statutory 30-year limit,” in violation of the quantitative “cap” on urban reserve designations prescribed by ORS 195.145(4) and the amount of land standard in OAR 660-027-0040(2). 19 We have considered that contention and reject it without discussion.
B. Statewide Planning Goals
1. Application of Economic Development Goal (Goal 9)
In his fourth assignment of error, Maletis contends that LCDC erred in concluding that Goal 9, which pertains to economic development, was not applicable to the designation of urban and rural reserves and, alternatively, in concluding that, to the extent that the goal was implicated, there was substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate compliance. That goal is designed “[t]o provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of *289 economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.” Among Goal 9’s implementing rules is OAR 660-009-0010(1), which expressly provides that the rules £,” id. at 813. Those abstract and generic definitions provide limited guidance concerning the particular meaning and employment of the terms “consideration” and “factors” in this context. Further, the legislative history does not provide explicit direction.
Nevertheless, in the order on review, LCDC correctly reasoned that, because “consideration of factors” has a particular meaning in related land use contexts, the legislature intended for it to have the same meaning here. Specifically, as explained above, 261 Or App at 295-96, LCDC ratified the workgroup’s view that, because the term “consideration of factors” had been previously used by LCDC and the courts in the related Goal 14 context and there had been “precedent set by both LCDC and the courts regarding the interpretation and employment of ‘factors,’” the urban and rural reserve “factors” “under SB 1011 are intended to be employed and interpreted in the same manner as the UGB factors in Goal 14.” (Emphasis added.)
Consistently with that legislative intent, LCDC referred to our precedents addressing the application of the Goal 14 boundary location factors to determine the legal principles circumscribing the “consideration of factors” in this context. To that end, LCDC identified three pertinent principles from our decisions in Ryland Homes and Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth .
First, the factors are to be “applied” by Metro and the counties in evaluating and selecting land to designate as urban or rural reserve. In other words, in making its decisions, Metro and the counties must actually make use of — or employ — the factors. See generally Ryland Homes, 174 Or App at 408 (concerning, in part, whether Metro *300 properly applied the boundary location factors of Goal 14); see also Webster’s at 105 (defining “apply” to mean, among other things, “to make use of as suitable, fitting, or relevant ” and “to put to use esp. for some practical purpose ”).
Second, the urban and rural reserve “factors” are not independent approval criteria such that each factor must be satisfied before a designation may be made. See Ryland Homes, 174 Or App at 409 (noting that the Goal 14 “locational factors are not independent approval criteria”); Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth, 179 Or App at 17 (reasoning that “[n]o single [Goal 14] factor is of such importance as to be determinative in a UGB amendment proceeding, nor are the individual factors necessarily thresholds that must be met”; explaining that “Metro properly did not apply the factors individually as make-or-break mandatory approval criteria”).
Third, “consideration” of the factors requires that the local government (a) apply and evaluate each factor, (b) weigh and balance the factors as a whole, and (c) meaningfully explain why a designation as urban or rural reserves is appropriate. As we succinctly explained in Ryland Homes, “consideration” means that a local government “has an obligation to consider each of the [applicable] factors and to articulate its thinking regarding the factor and the role that each factor played in balancing all of the factors.” 174 Or App at 416 .
In sum, the new, alternative process of designating urban and rural reserves at issue here was not intended to be “congruent” with the process of designating urban reserves under the division 21 rules or the process of amending a UGB under ORS 197.298 and Goal 14. Had that been the intention, the new, alternative process developed in SB 1011 — and embodied in the statutes at issue in this case — would not have been functionally new and different. Nevertheless, relying on the statute’s text and context, LCDC correctly reasoned that, when designating urban reserves under ORS 195.145(l)(b) and rural reserves under ORS 195.141, the statutory term “consideration of factors” means that the reserve factors are to be considered in the manner o/" the boundary location factors of Goal 14. In other words, *301 Metro or a county must (a) apply and evaluate each factor, (b) weigh and balance the factors — which are not independent approval criteria — as a whole, and (c) meaningfully explain why a designation as urban or rural reserves is appropriate.
2. Application of the Factors to “Areas”
Having determined the meaning of “consideration” of the urban and rural reserve “factors,” LCDC turned its attention to a subsidiary issue — that is, the appropriate unit of land to which the factors are to be applied — and concluded “that [the] division 27 [rules] require!] Metro and the counties to apply the factors to areas, not to individual properties, and not to the entire region” (Emphasis added.) Specifically, LCDC reasoned:
“[The Goal 14 locational] factors are applied to alternative locations for expanding an urban growth boundary to decide which one(s) to select to include within the expanded UGB. [.Ryland Homes], 174 Or App at 417 . Similarly, under the Commission’s division 21 urban reserve rules, the Goal 14 factors are applied to proposed urban reserve areas. D. S. Parklane Development, Inc. v. Metro, [ 165 Or App 1 , 994 P2d 1205 (2000) (Parklane)]. The Commission intends, and construes that the legislature intended, that in deciding which lands to designate as urban and rural reserves, Metro and the counties are to apply the factors to selected areas to decide which ones to include as urban reserves, and which areas to include as rural reserves. Furthermore, because SB 1011 and division 27 require Metro and a county to jointly decide upon urban and rural reserves, the factors are applied to alternative areas within a county to decide which ones to designate as urban or rural reserves.
“OAR 660-027-0040(10) requires Metro and the counties to ‘adopt a single, joint set of findings of fact, statements of reasons and conclusions explaining why areas were chosen as urban or rural reserves, how these designations achieve the objective stated in OAR 660-027-0005(2), and the factual and policy basis for the estimated land supply determined under section (2) of this rule.’ (Emphasis added.) The rule specifically requires Metro and the counties to apply the factors to ‘areas’ rather than specific properties or to the region or a county as a whole. OAR 660-027-0040(11) expands the requirements of OAR 660-027-0040(10) by requiring Metro to make additional *302 findings if it designates ‘Foundation Agricultural Land,’ as defined in OAR 660-027-0010(1), as urban reserves. The findings and statement of reasons required under subsection (11) for Foundation Agricultural Lands do not alter the geographic unit that Metro and the counties must adopt findings for — the findings must still be by ‘area’ rather than on a property-by-property or region-wide basis. What this means is that if Metro designates some portion or all of an area as urban reserve, and that area includes Foundation Agricultural Land, then the joint findings must explain why the area was selected as an urban reserve by applying both the urban and rural factors to that area and explaining why that area is more suitable as an urban reserve than other lands within Metro’s study area that are not Foundation Agricultural Lands.”
Unlike the meaning of “consideration of factors,” which derived from the governing statutes, the correctness of the remaining legal premises underlying LCDC’s reasoning are predicated on LCDC’s interpretation of its division 27 rules that were promulgated to implement the statutes governing the designation of urban and rural reserves in this case. As we have previously explained, the governing statutes created a new process for the designation of suitable land as urban and rural reserves. To that end, the governing statutes require that the designation of urban reserves under ORS 195.145(1) (b) be based on the “consideration of factors” in ORS 195.145(5) and that the designation of rural reserves under ORS 195.141 be based on the “consideration of factors” in ORS 195.141(3). The statutes further require intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. Beyond that, however, the legislature authorized LCDC to “adopt by goal or by rule a process and criteria for designating” the reserves at issue in this case. ORS 195.141(4); ORS 195.145(6). Thus, the particulars of that process are embodied in LCDC’s division 27 rules.
We will defer to LCDC’s “plausible interpretation of its own rule[s], including an interpretation made in the course of applying the rule, if that interpretation is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule, its context, or any other source of law.” DeLeon, Inc. v. DHS, 220 Or App 542, *303 548 , 188 P3d 354 (2008) (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132 , 881 P2d 119 (1994)); see also 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 305 Or 384, 390 , 752 P2d 271 (1988) (explaining that the legislature’s entrustment of an agency “both with setting standards and with applying them can imply that the agency’s view of its standards (assuming that they are within their authorizing law and consistently applied) is to be given some appropriate respect by the courts”). For reasons that we will explain, LCDC’s interpretation of its rules to require that Metro and the counties apply the factors to “areas”— sometimes referred to as “study areas” — as opposed to specific properties or a county or the region as a whole is plausible.
In concluding that its rules require that the factors be applied to “areas,” LCDC pointed to the requirement in OAR 660-027-0040(10) that Metro and the counties “shall adopt a single, joint set of findings of fact, statements of reasons and conclusions explaining,” inter alia, “why areas were chosen as urban or rural reserves.” (Emphasis added.) According to LCDC, the use of the term “areas” in that rule evinces its intent that Metro and the counties apply the reserve factors to “areas” and then explain why particular “areas” were chosen as urban or rural reserves. Further, LCDC noted that factors are applied to “areas” — as opposed to other units of land — in related contexts. See Parklane, 165 Or App at 9-10 (describing the use of “areas” to determine the suitability of land for designation as urban reserves under the division 21 rules); see also City of West Linn v. LCDC, 201 Or App 419, 425 , 119 P3d 285 (2005) (West Linn) (describing the use of “areas” to determine the suitability of land for inclusion within an amended UGB); Residents of Rosemont v. Metro, 173 Or App 321, 324-25 , 21 P3d 1108 (2001) (same).
LCDC’s interpretation of OAR 660-027-0040(10) is not inconsistent with the pertinent statutes or other division 27 rules. Nothing in the statutes prohibits Metro and the counties from employing “areas” as the unit of land to which the factors are to be applied or expressly requires the *304 application of the factors to specific properties or a county or the region as a whole. 28
Moreover, LCDC’s interpretation of OAR 660-027-0040(10) is not inconsistent with the pertinent statutes or other division 27 rules that define urban and rural reserves as “land” or “lands” and require that Metro and the counties base the designation of reserves on “consideration” of factors as to the “land” proposed for designation. 29 That is so because, as LCDC noted in its order, a “portion * * * of an area” may be designated as urban or rural reserve. In other words, in applying its rules, LCDC recognized that, even though the factors are applied to “areas” and the justification for the designation of land is framed in terms of those “areas,” an entire “area” need not be designated as either urban or rural reserve.
The distinction between the application of factors to “areas” and the designation of “land” is significant because, as to the latter, the governing statutes require that Metro and the counties base their designations on consideration of the reserve factors. As noted, consistently with the division *305 27 rules, Metro and the counties identified “areas” that they used to study the land. There is no reviewable challenge in this case concerning the use of “areas” per se or the legal permissibility of the initial inclusion of land within a particular “study area.” Instead, we are confronted with challenges by landowners contending that their “land” was improperly designated as urban or rural reserves solely because of its inclusion within an “area” that was similarly designated. The gravamen of those challenges is that Metro and the counties inadequately considered the reserve factors with regard to the land that was actually designated as either urban or rural reserves. 30 Resolution of those challenges requires an examination of the adequacy of the local government’s consideration of the factors as to the “land” that was ultimately designated under the standards described above. 261 Or App at 298-301 (describing “consideration”).
In other words, when a landowner contends that his or her property was improperly designated as urban or rural reserves solely because of its inclusion within an “area,” our task is to determine whether LCDC properly determined that the local government adequately considered the factors in making the designation that included that land. As we have explained, 261 Or App at 300-01, 303-05, legally sufficient “consideration” requires that the local government meaningfully explain why a designation as urban or rural reserves is appropriate by reference to the totality of the land encompassed within that designation. In that regard, to the extent that a property owner challenges the inclusion of his or her property within a designated area, the local *306 government is obligated to have explained why its consideration of the factors yields, as to the totality of the designated land, a result that includes that property.
In sum, LCDC’s interpretation of its rules to require Metro and the counties to apply the factors to “areas” as opposed to specific properties or a county or the region as a whole and to frame their justification for the designation of land in terms of those “areas” is plausible and is not inconsistent with the division 27 rules in context or with any other source of law. Accordingly, we defer to it.
3. Application of the Factors to Alternative Areas within a County
In explaining that the factors are to be applied to “areas,” 261 Or App at 301-06, LCDC also concluded that, generally, Metro and the counties must apply the factors “to alternative areas within a county to decide which ones to designate as urban or rural reserves.” (Emphasis added.) In reaching that conclusion, LCDC relied on its rules that require Metro and a county to jointly designate reserves. 31 (Emphasis added.)
However, LCDC recognized that, when Metro designates Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserves, a different alternative lands analysis is required. Specifically, OAR 660-027-0040(11) provides, in part, that,
*307 “if Metro designates [Foundation Agricultural Land] as urban reserves, the findings and statement of reasons [in OAR 660-027-0040(10)] shall explain, by reference to the factors in OAR 660-027-0050 and 660-027-0060(2), why Metro chose the Foundation Agricultural Land for designation as urban reserves rather than other land considered under this division.”
(Emphasis added.) LCDC interpreted the italicized provision of that rule to mean that,
“if Metro designates some portion or all of an area as an urban reserve, and that area includes Foundation Agricultural Land, then the joint findings must explain why the area was selected as an urban reserve by applying both the urban and rural factors to that area and explaining why that area is more suitable as an urban reserve than other lands within Metro’s study area that are not Foundation Agricultural Lands”
(Emphasis added.)
In sum, LCDC concluded that, generally, Metro and the counties are to apply the factors to “alternative areas” within a county but that, when Metro designates Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserve, it must explain why it selected that land rather than other land within the regional study area that is not Foundation Agricultural Land. That conclusion is essentially predicated on LCDC’s interpretation of its division 27 rules. Because that interpretation is “plausible” and “not inconsistent with the wording of the rule[s], [their] context, or any other source of law,” we defer to it. DeLeon, Inc., 220 Or App at 548 (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com., 320 Or 132 ).
Without belaboring the point, LCDC’s interpretation of its implementing rules is not inconsistent with the governing statutes, which do not prescribe any particular alternatives analysis. Moreover, LCDC’s interpretation of OAR 660-027-0040(11) to impose more stringent requirements when evaluating and designating Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserve is consistent with one of the underlying purposes of SB 1011 — viz., making it easier to urbanize land that is not necessarily critical to the long-term viability of the agricultural industry while at the *308 same time providing long-term protection to lands that are critical. 32
4. Application of Rural Reserve Factors, Urban Reserve Factors, or Both to Each Area
LCDC’s interpretation of OAR 660-027-0040(11) also played a role in its determination of whether OAR 660-027-0040(10) requires that both sets of factors be applied to every area. As pertinent to that issue, OAR 660-027-0040(10) provides that “Metro and any county that enters into an agreement with Metro under this division shall apply the factors in OAR 660-027-0050 [(¿.e., the urban reserve factors)] and 660-027-0060 [(¿.e., the rural reserve factors)] concurrently and in coordination with one another.” (Emphasis added.)
Relying in part on the juxtaposition of OAR 660-027-0040(10) with OAR 660-027-0040(11) — and contrasting the content of those subsections — LCDC concluded that the “concurrently and in coordination” requirement in OAR 660-027-0040(10) “does not require both urban and rural reserve factors to be considered for each and every property, or for each and every area.” Specifically, LCDC reasoned:
“The Commission interprets the ‘simultaneous consideration’ requirement in OAR 660-027-0040(1 [0]) to mean that the county and Metro must consider urban and rural reserve designations in the entire county and region at the same time and adopt a single, joint set of findings, reasons and conclusions for its designations. It does not imply any particular outcome and does not require both urban and rural reserve factors to be considered for each and every property, or for each and every area. In contra [s]t, in OAR 660-027-0040(11), [LCDC] has expressly required that if *309 Metro designates Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserves, it must explain under both the urban and rural reserve factors why such land was chosen. Thus, the context of the regulatory scheme establishes that a requirement to apply both urban and rural reserve factors to a particular [area] will be expressly stated.”
In other words, we understand LCDC to have concluded that the “concurrently and in coordination” requirement in OAR 660-027-0040(10) refers to the overall process of designating reserves and requires that Metro and the counties concurrently consider the designation of both urban and rural reserves in coordination with one another. Stated differently, except when Foundation Agricultural Land is involved, the “concurrently and in coordination” requirement does not mean that both urban and rural reserve factors must be applied to every area.
LCDC’s interpretation of the “concurrently and in coordination” requirement of OAR 660-027-0040(10) appears to be its reflection of the statutory mandate in ORS 195.143(1), which requires that Metro and a county “must consider simultaneously the designation and establishment” of rural reserves pursuant to ORS 195.141 and urban reserves pursuant to ORS 195.145(l)(b). 33 Further, although ORS 195.145(5) and ORS 195.141(3) require that Metro and a county base the designation of urban reserves on consideration of one set of factors and the designation of rural reserves on another set of factors, nothing in those statutes requires that the both sets of factors be applied to land before designating it as either urban or rural reserves. Because that interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the text or context of the rule or the governing statutes, we defer to it. See DeLeon, Inc., 220 Or App at 548 .
5. Determination Whether to Designate an Area As Urban or Rural Reserves or to Leave It Undesignated
Finally, LCDC concluded that, if Metro and the counties properly consider and apply the factors, the decision *310 whether to designate particular land as urban reserves or rural reserves or to leave it undesignated is left to the local government. In particular, LCDC concluded that, even though “many areas could have been[] designated either as an urban or rural reserve,” the division 27 rules and the governing statutes “grant substantial discretion to Metro and the counties in deciding which lands to designate as urban and rural reserves” and that, except when Metro designates Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserve, if the factors are properly considered and applied, the statutes and rules do not require a demonstration “that an area is better suited as an urban reserve than as a rural reserve before [Metro] designates any land as urban reserve.” With regard to Metro’s designation of Foundation Agricultural Land as urban reserve, LCDC interpreted OAR 660-027-0040(11) to require that “the joint findings * * * explain” why the Foundation Agricultural Land “is more suitable as an urban reserve than other lands within Metro’s study area that are not Foundation Agricultural Lands.” (Emphasis added.)
LCDC’s understanding is again unexceptionable. The governing statutes provide that Metro and a county may enter into intergovernmental agreements to designate reserves and require that Metro and a county base the designation of urban reserves on consideration of one set of factors and the designation of rural reserves on another and that, if urban reserves are designated, some rural reserves must be designated as well. The statutes do not, however, require the designation of particular land as urban or rural reserve or a determination of relative suitability — that is, a determination that land that is suitable for both urban and rural reserve designation is better suited as urban reserve before Metro designates it as such. Accordingly, because LCDC’s interpretation of its rules is plausible and not inconsistent with their text or context or with the governing statutes, we, once again, defer to it.
In sum, we conclude that the five fundamental legal premises undergirding and informing LCDC’s review of the consideration and application of the reserve factors are individually and collectively valid. We turn, then, to the *311 four premises informing LCDC’s review of the meaning and application of the “best achieves standard.”
B. Validity of LCDC’s Legal Premises: The “Best Achieves Standard”
As noted, 261 Or App at 276-77, the “best achieves standard” was established by LCDC in OAR 660-027-0005(2). Specifically, that rule provides, in pertinent part, that
“[t]he objective of this division is a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves livable communities, the viability and vitality of the agricultural and forest industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.”
(Emphasis and boldface added.)
The construction and application of that rule was central to LCDC’s review of the submittal. As amplified below, we understand LCDC’s reasoning concerning the meaning and employment of the best achieves standard in OAR 660-027-0005(2) to be predicated on the following four legal premises:
First, the best achieves standard is a qualitative standard rather than a quantitative one.
Second, the standard applies to Metro and the counties’ joint designation “in its entirety” and not to the designation of individual properties or areas.
Third, the best achieves standard allows for a range of permissible designations.
Fourth, Metro and the counties must explain how the designation satisfies the best achieves standard through their findings concerning the application of the urban and rural reserve factors.
Again, because many of petitioners’ contentions on review are predicated, expressly or implicitly, on challenges to the correctness of one or more of those four premises, we begin by addressing the correctness, as a matter of law, of those four premises — all of which are predicated on LCDC’s *312 interpretation of its division 27 rules, including OAR 660-027-0005(2). Accordingly, we will defer to LCDC’s interpretation of its rules if it is “plausible” and “is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule[s], [their] context, or any other source of law.” DeLeon, Inc., 220 Or App at 548 .
1. Standard Is Qualitative Not Quantitative
In the order on review, LCDC reasoned that OAR 660-027-0005(2) requires “a qualitative balance in terms of long-term trade-offs between the further geographic expansion of the Portland metro urban area and the conservation of farm, forest and natural areas that surround the metro area.” In other words, in LCDC’s understanding, “[t]his is not a balance in terms of the quantitative amount of urban and rural reserves, but a balance between encouraging further urban expansion versus land conservation.”
As support for that interpretation, LCDC referred to a transcript of a January 2008 hearing concerning the adoption of the division 27 rules. During that hearing, Commissioner Worrix, who chaired the workgroup that considered the adoption of the division 27 rules, explained that, “even though there was an attempt to keep the process fluid some people felt there just simply was not enough direction and there wasn’t a measurement of any kind.” She explained that the best achieves standard was seen as “the best solution” for the agricultural industry that had expressed “a strong concern * * * that there needed to be something that highlighted the importance of foundation land and gave them that little extra bit of scrutiny.” In sum, according to Worrix, the work group intended the best achieves standard “to serve as a guidepost” that reflected “the overall objective *** to create a process that was consensus building and a product that was a balance of protecting farm, forest and natural landscapes at the same time creating livable communities.”
To that end, the best achieves standard expressly requires the balancing of three competing objectives that underscore the designation of urban and rural reserves under the division 27 rules — that is, “livable communities, the viability and vitality of the agricultural and forest *313 industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.” OAR 660-027-0005(2). Those objectives are qualitative in nature. Moreover, nothing in the text of OAR 660-027-0005(2) — or the division 27 rules generally — suggests that there must be a quantitative balance in the amount of land designated as urban reserves and the amount of land designated as rural reserves.
Thus, LCDC’s interpretation of the best achieves standard to require a qualitative balance between urban expansion and conservation is plausible and is not inconsistent with the text of OAR 660-027-0005(2), its context, or any other source of law. Accordingly, we defer to it.
2. Standard Applies to Designation “In Its Entirety” Not to Designation of Individual Properties or Areas
LCDC also construed the best achieves standard as applying to the designation “in its entirety” and not to the designation of individual properties or areas. LCDC’s interpretation is consistent with Worrix’s statements at the January 2008 rulemaking hearing as well as the report that Rindy submitted to LCDC before that hearing — described above at 261 Or App at 295. In that report, Rindy noted that the workgroup “agreed that the ‘best’ standard applies to the designation ‘in its entirety,’ rather than to individual areas or parcels.”
Suffice it to say, by its terms, the best achieves standard applies to the designation “in its entirety.” Nothing in the text of the rule — or its enactment history — suggests that it was intended to apply to the designation of individual properties or areas as urban or rural reserve. Rather, as we have described, 261 Or App at 293-311, Metro or a county’s decision to designate particular land as urban or rural reserve is governed by other provisions under division 27. See generally OAR 660-027-0040(8) - (11) (concerning the application of the urban and rural reserve factors in determining whether to designate land as urban or rural reserves).
Thus, LCDC’s interpretation of the best achieves standard to apply to the designation “in its entirety” — as *314 opposed to the designation of individual properties or areas — is plausible and is not inconsistent with the text and context of OAR 660-027-0005(2) or any other source of law. DeLeon, Inc., 220 Or App at 548 (citing Don’t Waste Oregon Com., 320 Or 132 ). Again, we defer to it.
3. “Best Achieves Standard” Allows for a Range of Permissible Regional Designations
LCDC further reasoned that the best achieves standard does not require a ranking of alternative areas. Specifically, LCDC explained:
“In adopting division 27, the Commission intended that this ‘best achieves’ standard would require less scrutiny for the reserves decision than the requirements for locational decisions involved in urban growth boundary expansions (to consider and apply factors to alternative candidate areas ***). The standard applies to the designation ‘in its entirety,’ it does not require Metro or a county to rank alternative areas. * * *
“* * * The Commission interprets the standard to apply in such a manner that concerns about one or more areas could result in a determination that the standard is not met (i.e., the submittal in its entirety could fail to meet this standard because of problems with one or more particular designations).”
It follows from LCDC’s construction that, because the best achieves standard “does not require Metro or a county to rank alternative areas,” the standard is not satisfied by a single, optimal designation. Instead, under LCDC’s reasoning, the standard allows for a range of permissible designations.
At first blush, LCDC’s understanding appears contrary to the plain meaning of the word “best.” As we have noted, the best achieves standard in OAR 660-027-0005(2) requires “a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves” the competing objectives underlying the designation of such reserves. (Emphasis added.) In that context, the word “best” is a superlative of the adverb “well” and connotes a designation that achieves the underlying objectives to the highest degree or the fullest extent. See Webster’s at 208 (defining “best” to mean, among other things, “to the highest degree : *315 to the fullest extent”). Stated differently, the plain meaning of the word “best” suggests that a comparative alternatives analysis is required to determine the highest ranked — and therefore the “best” designation.
Nevertheless, LCDC endorsed a different construction of its own rule, based primarily on the function of the best achieves standard in the context of the statutory scheme and the division 27 rules as whole. As noted, the division 27 rules implement the governing statutes, which established a new, alternative process under which Metro and a county may designate suitable land as urban and rural reserves based on their consideration of factors rather than on the application of a priorities hierarchy essentially predicated on the agricultural quality of land.
Consistently with the enabling statutes, the division 27 rules permit Metro and a county to determine which land is suitable for designation as urban or rural reserve. In particular, the rules permit Metro and a county to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to designate urban and rural reserves in that county. Further, the rules generally require that, in designating such reserves, Metro and the county must apply the reserve factors to alternative areas within a county to determine whether and how to designate land. See 261 Or App at 306-07 (describing alternatives analysis).
Ultimately, the designations made by Metro and each county with which it has entered into an agreement are compiled into a single, joint designation that is submitted to LCDC for its review. The best achieves standard applies to that regional designation of urban and rural reserves in its entirety.
In light of that regulatory scheme, LCDC construed the best achieves standard to allow for a range of permissible regional designations, rather than to require a comparative analysis so as to identify a single, permissible — that is, “optimal” — designation. In other words, consistently with the statutory design and the concomitant consideration of the reserve factors, “best achieves” partakes of legally circumscribed discretion such that Metro and the counties can properly reach a range of joint, regional designations.
*316 LCDC’s construction of the best achieves standard is consistent with appellate decisions addressing the concept of discretion in a variety of contexts. Those cases demonstrate that the essence of discretion requires the decision-maker— as opposed to a reviewing agency or court — to resolve evidentiary conflicts and draw inferences consistent with the record and to ultimately weigh and apply the various factors in reaching its ultimate decision. See, e.g., Sjomeling v. Lasser, 251 Or App 172 , 285 P3d 1116 , rev den, 353 Or 103 (2012) (explaining that “best interests” of the child is a discretionary standard).
Further, LCDC’s construction essentially ratified the workgroup’s understanding of the standard. As Rindy noted in his report, the best achieves standard was “not intended to necessitate a numeric ‘ranking’ of alternatives for reserve designation in order to determine the highest ranked, and therefore ‘the best’ alternative.” Further, Worrix explained:
“[Ilt’s important to recognize that the workgroup never saw that best requirement as being something that would require a detailed parcel to parcel type analysis. And there was real worry that it would even be construed that way because that was the opposite of the kind of fluid creative process we were hoping to be able to create. And that instead of being a process that would require exactitude found in like a parcel to parcel comparison that this best concept is supposed to focus on the collective overall regional process. It would be looking for the best fundamental balance between the competing areas. [I] t would not require a ranking best, second best, third best it’s much more general than that. *** [T]his process was never designed to be did you touch all the bas[e]s, did you double check all your maps, did you calculate the right area on this particular parcel. [E]verybody[’s] been there, that’s not where we wanted to go. We wanted to say how about good rational thinking supported by strong findings that make a reasonable balance between the needs to protect agriculture], forest and the natural landscapes and the need to create livable communities.”
Richard Whitman, the director of DLCD when the division 27 rules were promulgated, also spoke at the *317 January 2008 hearing. Consistently with Worrix’s explanation, Whitman explained that the best achieves standard is not an “optimization standard” such that “there’s only one best” regional designation. (Emphasis added.) Whitman explained that “best” is used in the context of a “balance” in the designation of urban and rural reserves that “in its entirety looking at the region as a whole * * * best achieves three different things” — that is, “livable communities, viability and vitality of agricultural and forest industries and protection of important natural landscape features.” As Whitman explained, “[t]hose three things are in some tension obviously and so the balancing in between those is going to require a fair amount of judgment []” — that is, “there is substantial discretion initially for Metro and [the] counties to make their decisions.” Thus, according to Whitman, “because of the context” in which “best” is used, the standard allows for “a range of possible outcomes that Metro and the counties can come to.”
Thus, LCDC’s interpretation of the best achieves standard to permit a range of permissible designations by Metro and the counties is plausible and is not inconsistent with the division 27 rules, their context, or other sources of law. Accordingly, we defer to it.
4. Satisfaction of Standard Is Demonstrated through Findings Concerning Application of the Reserve Factors
Finally, LCDC concluded that “best achieves” is “a standard that Metro and the counties must demonstrate has been met, through their findings.” Specifically, LCDC reasoned:
“[T]here is a relationship between the ‘factors’ that Metro and the counties must consider for urban reserves under OAR 660-027-0050 and rural reserves under OAR 660-027-0060, and the overall objective in OAR 660-027-0005(2). Metro and the counties must explain how the overall objective is met through their findings applying the urban and rural reserve factors to determine which areas to designate as urban and rural reserves.”
*318 Reduced to its fundamental core, LCDC’s reasoning appears to be predicated on its understanding that “best achieves” is a standard that ultimately allows for a range of permissible joint designations. As we understand LCDC’s reasoning, Metro and the counties’ discretion is not unbridled but, consistently with the statutory and regulatory scheme, is guided by their consideration of the urban and rural reserve factors and the need for “a balance in the designation of urban and rural reserves that, in its entirety, best achieves livable communities, the viability and vitality of the agricultural and forest industries and protection of the important natural landscape features that define the region for its residents.” OAR 660-027-0005(2). Thus, LCDC’s interpretation of the best achieves standard to require Metro and the counties to demonstrate that the standard has been satisfied — that is, that the joint designation in its entirety falls within the range of permissible designations — through their findings concerning the application of the reserve factors is plausible and not inconsistent the statutory or regulatory schemes. Further, that interpretation is consistent with the plain text of OAR 660-027-0040(10), which requires that Metro and the counties’ findings concerning the application of the reserve factors must explain not only “why areas were chosen as urban or rural reserves” but also “how these designations achieve the objective stated in OAR 660-027-0005(2).” Accordingly, because LCDC’s interpretation of its rules is plausible and not inconsistent with their text or context or with the governing statutes, we, once again, defer to it.
In sum, we conclude that the four legal premises informing LCDC’s review of the best achieves standard are individually and collectively valid — as were the five premises informing LCDC’s review of the consideration and application of the reserve factors. Thus, to the extent that petitioners’ contentions hinge on the abstract invalidity of those legal premises, we reject them.
Nevertheless, several petitioners raise other challenges to LCDC’s review of particular aspects of Metro and the counties’ designation. We turn now to those particular (often site-specific) “as-applied” challenges.
*319 VII. PETITIONERS’ PARTICULARIZED CHALLENGES
A. LCDC Properly Understood That Designation Was Not a “Political” Decision
Before addressing the parties’ particularized contentions on a county-by-county-basis, we begin by rejecting an overarching contention — pertaining to LCDC’s application of the principles circumscribing its review — that was raised by several petitioners. Specifically, they contend that LCDC erroneously understood the designation of urban and rural reserves to be a “political” decision materially unconstrained by legal requirements — and, as a result, impermissibly deferred to Metro and the counties in its review of the urban and rural reserves submittal. That contention finds ostensible support in the following statement from a 2010 DLCD report that LCDC quoted in its order: With the exception of the “best achieves” and “amount of land” standards, “‘[DLCD] believes that the statutes and rules that guide this effort replaced the familiar standards-based planning process with one based fundamentally on political checks and balances[.Y” (Emphasis added.)
That emphasized language notwithstanding, it is evident from the totality of the context of LCDC’s review, including its construction of the governing statutes, ORS 195.137 - 195.145, and its own implementing rules, OAR 660-027-0005 - 660-027-0080, that LCDC fully and correctly understood that the designation of urban and rural reserves is not a “political” decision, materially unconstrained by legal requirements. As we have already explained in detail, 261 Or App at 293-318, LCDC identified nine legal principles circumscribing its review of the designation of urban and rural reserves. Although (as we will now proceed to explain) particular aspects of LCDC’s review and analysis— including its application of those legal principles — are susceptible to reasoned challenge, petitioners’ “political” deference complaint is unavailing. Accordingly, we proceed to petitioners’ more focused challenges.
*320 B. Washington County
1. Misapplication of Rural Reserve Factors
Because our resolution of petitioner Friends’ second assignment of error obviates the need to consider petitioners’ remaining contentions pertaining to Washington County’s designation of reserves, we begin there. In that assignment, Friends contends that LCDC erred in approving Washington County’s misapplication of the rural reserve factors. As explained below, we agree with Friends.
In setting the stage for our consideration of Friends’ specific contentions, we describe the process by which Washington County applied the rural reserve factors. The county first conducted a suitability assessment in which it applied the urban reserve factors, ORS 195.145(5); OAR 660-027-0050, and the rural reserve factors, ORS 195.141(3); OAR 660-027-0060, to “all areas potentially suitable for designation as either Urban or Rural Reserves.” That area consisted of approximately 171,000 acres in Washington County within a five-mile band adjacent to the existing UGB.
To assess suitability, Washington County identified “land attributes” that “represent[ed] or define [d] the LCDC factors identifying Urban and Rural Reserves.” Many of those attributes reflected principles embodied in the ODA Report (e.g., ODA’s identification of land as Foundation, Important, or Conflicted and soil classifications). The county then mapped those attributes using a geographic information system (GIS) application. Washington County further explained that the
“attributes [were] ranked based on their relative ability to support the intended use. A numeric value representing this ranking was then applied. Once all of the layers were selected and assigned they were weighed based on their relative importance and then added together to generate a suitability layer that was mapped.”
Ultimately, land was assigned a numeric value from 1.7 (least suitable) to 8.4 (most suitable) indicating its suitability for designation as rural reserves. In the end, the suitability assessment indicated that all the studied lands “remain [ed] candidates for potential Rural Reserves.”
*321 For that reason, Washington County “began more detailed evaluations” to identify candidate rural reserve areas for the protection of the agricultural industry. Noting that the ODA Report was the basis for its evaluation of such land, Washington County explained that most of the land that it sought to study was identified as either Foundation Agricultural Land or Important Agricultural Land. Further, Washington County explained that, because “the majority of the existing UGB [in Washington County] abuts Foundation Agricultural Land,” there “will be serious consideration of adoption of Urban Reserves on the valley floor near existing cities.” For those reasons, the county concluded that it was “necessary” to evaluate “additional characteristics (beyond the [ODA Report]) for each [f]actor.”
In general terms, Washington County divided the “entire reserve study area *** into 41 sub-areas” and, in applying the factors, assessed four attributes: (1) “[t]he degree to which the sub-area was subject to urbanization”; (2) “[t]he productivity rating of the area”; (3) “[t]he degree to which the area has multiple parcels”; and (4) “[t]he physical features of each area.” 34 Ultimately, based on that assessment, the county assigned all sub-areas “into one of four tiers based on their suitability as rural reserve.”
In sum, contrary to the county’s apparent assertions on review, we do not understand that its initial suitability assessment — which incorporated principles from the ODA Report — played any role in its eventual identification of candidate rural reserve areas — which was fundamentally predicated on the assessment of the four attributes described above. As a practical matter, the county used those four, narrowly focused attributes as inexact surrogates for the statutorily prescribed rural reserve factors. Thus, the attributes functioned as “pseudo” factors.
The county’s use of those attributes (or pseudo factors) is at the heart of Friends’ contentions on review. Accordingly, we describe in detail Washington County’s employment of those attributes in relation to its application of two of the statutorily prescribed rural reserve factors.
*322 As to the statutory factor pertaining to whether land has “suitable soils and available water where needed,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), 35 the county identified four potential rating systems. The first two systems — “[s] oil-capability classifications” and “[h]igh-value farmland” — were based on the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) classifications of “agricultural capability” and “importance.” The third rating system — the ODA Report — was also based on the NRCS classifications. However, the fourth system— “[agricultural productivity ratings for soils” — was based on a report authored by J. Herbert Huddleston entitled Agricultural Productivity Ratings for Soils of the Willamette Valley, Oregon State University Extension Service - Circular 1105 (1982) (the Huddleston Report). As the county explained,
“[t]his rating system was developed by J. Herbert Huddleston, an OSU Extension Service Soil Specialist. This system divides soils into three categories: Native Productivity, Maximum Productivity for Dryland farming, and Irrigated farming. This rating system is based on actual yields for indicator crops and provides a ratings-based system for dryland and irrigated maximum crop productivity. One of the intended uses of the report is to help planners make difficult decisions when choosing among competing uses for agricultural land. It also highlights the importance of water * *
(Footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted.)
Even though the statutory factor pertaining to soil suitability and water availability was derived from the ODA Report and its concomitant reliance on the NRCS classifications, the county discounted the first three rating systems (which were all predicated on NRCS classifications), primarily because — in the county’s view — they were not useful tools for determining which Foundation Agricultural Land in the county was most suitable for designation as rural reserves. Instead, the county determined that the rating *323 system described in the Huddleston Report was the most useful because “future water availability will be a significant limiting factor” and that this ranking system “highlights the importance of irrigation” and allows for a more refined analysis. Thus, as a practical matter, the county’s analysis of “suitable soils and available water where needed,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), essentially reduced to a single attribute (or pseudo factor) — that is, whether land is irrigated (i.e., whether land is in an irrigation district or has an existing agricultural water right based on “place of use”). As the county explained,
“[a] 11 parcels throughout the study area were assessed for agricultural productivity based on the availability of water. This method of determining productivity is based on Huddleston’s 1982 soil productivity study * * *. As shown in this report, irrigation increases the productivity rating of most soils, including significant increases in the productivity rating of moderately rated soils. Soils that were in the [Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID)] or had an existing water right were given the Irrigated productivity rating. Remaining soils were given the Dryland productivity rating. GIS data layers were then mapped to reveal those areas where maximum productivity was attainable. Sub-areas were rated higher for productivity if a majority of the parcels were at or above 90 on the productivity rating scale. Parcels were rated lowest for agricultural productivity if they had no access to water for agriculture.”
The county then turned to the statutory factor concerning whether land is “suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations” taking into account, among other things, “[t]he existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land with a concentration or cluster of farms” and “ [t]he agricultural land use pattern, including parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns.” ORS 195.141(3)(d). As to that statutory factor, the county explained:
“Data is currently not available for several attributes that could assist farmland analysis, such as information on leased or rented farmland that could be used to determine types and sizes of farm operations. The only information that can be easily analyzed is ownership and parcel sizes.
«Hí ‡ ‡ ❖ ❖
*324 “Parcelization of a sub-area was used in the analysis given Staffs belief that commercial agricultural production is more easily facilitated in areas where parcel size is large enough to viably farm, given economies of scale, and the input cost of agricultural infrastructure such as drainage tile, machinery, etc. Additionally, the degree of parcelization tends to correlate with residential dwelling density. Conflicts *** between agricultural and non-agricultural users can increase as a result. Areas of high parcelization were therefore rated comparatively low for rural reserve designation. *** Staff considered a sub-area to be parcelized if a majority of the tax lots in the areas were generally 35 acres or less.”
In sum, although the statutory “suitability” factor contemplates the assessment of a variety of attributes, the county’s analysis essentially reduced to a single attribute (or pseudo factor) — that is, the degree to which an area was parcelized.
Before LCDC, Friends objected to the reserves designation, asserting that Washington County’s analysis of the rural reserve factors was “legally flawed” and resulted in their misapplication. Specifically, Friends asserted:
“The County analysis brought in elements not in the law, and used various weighting schemes to measure these and other elements, resulting in an analytical system that in some cases is actually contrary to both the purpose and factors of the Reserve statute and rule.
“Metro appears to have incorporated most or all of this analysis in its decision, resulting in a flawed final reserves decision for the Washington County portion of the regional reserves decision.”
(Footnote omitted.)
Friends notes that “the legislative and administrative records demonstrate” that the rural reserve factors in ORS 195.141(3) and OAR 660-027-0060(2) “are derived from the [ODA Report]” and reflect the “substantive policy” reflected therein. For that reason, Friends explained that, in analyzing the factors, Metro and the county cannot “undermine” the policy reflected in the ODA Report.
Stated simply, Friends contended that, because the statutorily prescribed rural reserve factors derive their *325 meaning from the ODA Report — which was based on particular assumptions and the use of particular methodologies— the principles embodied in that report circumscribe the application of the factors and, to the extent that Washington County departed from those principles, its application of the factors was legally erroneous. According to Friends, Washington County did just that in assessing whether land “[h]as suitable soils and available water,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), and whether the land “[i]s suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations” by taking into account “[t]he existence of a large block” of agricultural land, ORS 195.141(3)(d)(A).
LCDC rejected Friends’ contentions. Specifically, LCDC reasoned:
“Contrary to ODA’s and 1000 Friends’ arguments, [36] the Commission finds that the reserves decisions findings do not consider elements not contemplated by the statute or rule. While the interpretations and application of the rule are not those ODA and 1000 Friends would prefer, the findings establish that Metro and Washington County considered each of the factors and reached conclusions based on substantial evidence in the record, with an adequate factual base.”
On review, Friends contends that LCDC erred in approving “Metro’s use” of Washington County’s “alternate agricultural analysis to evaluate land for rural reserves designation,” which was “simply a misapplication of the factors * * * under another name.” Friends, essentially reiterating its contentions before LCDC, challenges, in particular, the county’s application of the two rural reserve factors that were foreshadowed above.
Friends first points to ORS 195.141(3)(c), the “suitable soils and available water” factor. With regard to the county’s analysis of soil suitability, Friends contends that the county used an “alternative ranking system for this factor.” Specifically, Friends emphasizes that the county assessed land using the agricultural productivity methodology reflected in the Huddleston Report — rather than the *326 methodology underlying the ODA Report, which was predicated on NRCS classifications concerning “agricultural capability” and “importance.” As to the county’s analysis of water availability, Friends asserts that the county — contrary to the assumptions and methodology underlying the ODA Report — erroneously equated “available water where needed” in ORS 195.141(3)(c) with a qualitatively distinct attribute — viz., whether land is irrigated — and, as a result, the county’s analysis of land failed to consider whether water was “needed” as required by both statute and administrative rule. As we understand it, Friends’ fundamental challenge is that “available water where needed,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), and whether land is irrigated are not congruent concepts because, as noted in the ODA Report, there are capable agricultural lands with available water that do not need irrigation to produce an agricultural product.
Friends also points to ORS 195.141(3)(d), which concerns whether land is “suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations” by taking into account various considerations, including “[t]he existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land with a concentration or cluster of farms,” ORS 195.141(3)(d)(A). Specifically, Friends contends that, contrary to the substantive policy embodied in the ODA Report, the county “equates large block’ with large ‘parcel,’ and ‘parcelization’ with ‘ownership’” and “considered an area ‘parcelized,’ and therefore too small for farming, if the ‘majority of tax lots * * * were generally 35 acres or less,’ regardless of whether the ‘parcels’ were in agricultural use, or part of a larger farming area.” 37 (Emphasis and omission in Friends’ brief.)
Washington County remonstrates that, because much of the land in the county is Foundation Agricultural Land, it was “justified” in further refining its analysis “to explore other qualities not noted in the [ODA Report].” Moreover, the county emphasizes that its “analysis did not replace the factors; it enhanced the level of detail so that *327 [it] could make more refined determinations as it applied the factors. Thus, the analysis was more rigorous, and not irrelevant, inaccurate, or contrary to the factors as Friends states.” As amplified below, we disagree with Washington County and conclude that LCDC erred in approving a designation that was predicated on the county’s legally flawed application of ORS 195.141(3)(c) and ORS 195.141(3)(d).
At the outset, we reemphasize two points. First, the rural reserve factors in ORS 195.141(3) were derived from the ODA Report. 261 Or App at 270-71, 270 n 5. Second, in promulgating OAR 660-027-0060(2), LCDC simply incorporated the rural reserve factors from ORS 195.141(3) that pertained to protection of the agricultural industry. 261 Or App at 279. Thus, resolution of the parties’ competing contentions depends on the proper construction of the statutory factors in ORS 195.141(3). Accordingly, we apply, the familiar methodology in PGE, 317 Or 606 , as amplified in Gaines, 346 Or 160 , which requires an examination of “the text and context of the statute and any legislative history that appears to be helpful * * * ” Bell, 353 Or at 540 .
We begin with the text of the statutorily prescribed rural reserve factors. Again, ORS 195.141(3) provides:
“When designating a rural reserve under this section to provide long-term protection to the agricultural industry, a county and [Metro] shall base the designation on consideration of factors including, but not limited to, whether land proposed for designation as a rural reserve:
“(a) Is situated in an area that is otherwise potentially subject to urbanization during the [urban reserves planning period], as indicated by proximity to the [UGB] and to properties with fair market values that significantly exceed agricultural values;
“(b) Is capable of sustaining long-term agricultural operations;
“(c) Has suitable soils and available water where needed to sustain long-term agricultural operations; and
“(d) Is suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations, taking into account:
*328 “(A) The existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land with a concentration or cluster of farms;
“(B) The adjacent land use pattern, including its location in relation to adjacent nonfarm uses and the existence of buffers between agricultural operations and nonfarm uses;
“(C) The agricultural land use pattern, including parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns; and
“(D) The sufficiency of agricultural infrastructure in the area.”
Although we generally turn to dictionary definitions to determine the ordinary meaning of undefined statutory terms such “capable” and “suitable,” doing so here would be of limited usefulness. 38 That is so because the factors were derived from the ODA Report. Accordingly, we turn to the ODA Report itself to determine the essential content of those statutory factors.
As previously explained, 261 Or App at 268, the ODA Report described an analysis of agricultural lands based primarily on “an examination of both the capability (ability of the land to produce an agricultural product) and the suitability (ability to conduct viable farm use) of any given tract of land to be utilized for farm use.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, in the context of the ODA Report, “capability” and “suitability” are qualitatively distinct concepts whose content derives from ODA’s use of particular methodologies and assumptions in examining agricultural lands.
“Capability” refers to the “[t]he physical ability of land to produce an agricultural product.” (Emphasis added.) According to ODA, the “capability” of land “is a key and dominant factor in any assessment.” Further, ODA explained *329 that, in assessing “capability,” the “[q]uantity and quality of soils and water play a significant role.”
Turning first to the quantity and quality of soils, ODA relied on NRCS classifications concerning “agricultural capability” and “importance.” In terms of “agricultural capability,” NRCS places soils into eight agricultural capability classes. As ODA noted, “[t]he better the agricultural capability (decreasing from I-VIII), the less management (input) is required by the operator to produce a crop.” In terms of “importance,” NRCS classifies farmland as “prime” (i.e., “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops”) or “unique” (i.e., “land other than prime farmland used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops”). In turn, NRCS’s agricultural capability and importance classifications are used to define “high-value farmland.” ORS 215.710; OAR 660-033-0020(8). As ODA summarized, “high-value farmland” is “land in a tract composed predominantly (50.1%) of certain specified soils,” including those classified by NRCS as “Prime, Unique, Capability Class 1, or Capability Class 2 not irrigated” or “Prime Unique, Capability Class 1, or Capability Class 2 if irrigated M” (Underscoring in original.)
In addition to capable soils, ODA noted that the availability of water is “key to the production of many high-value crops.” Nonetheless, although acknowledging the importance of available “water for irrigation of agricultural crops and livestock watering,” ODA explained that “many crops, including high-value crops, can be produced using dryland agricultural practices,” which are “most feasible where precipitation is adequate to allow economic return on a nonirrigated crop.” In other words, ODA’s assessment of water availability was predicated on its understanding that the need for water is a function of the type of agricultural activity occurring on the land, and, for that reason, capable agricultural lands do not necessarily require irrigation.
By contrast, “suitability” does not concern the physical capability of land (e.g., whether the land has suitable soils and available water). Instead, “suitability” refers to the ability of a tract of land to be utilized for long-term farm use *330 based on other factors (e.g., adjacent and area land use patterns; agricultural land use patterns; parcelization, tenure, and ownership patterns; agricultural infrastructure; zoning; location in relationship to adjacent lands zoned for non-resource development; location and availability of edges and buffers to insulate and protect agriculture operations from nonfarm uses). In particular, with regard to “parcelization,” ODA explained that,
“[i]n analyzing suitability, parcelization is important, but not always as a stand-alone factor. All other factors being equal, smaller parcels under multiple ownerships are less favorable for long-term commercial farm use. The practice of renting or leasing smaller (and larger) parcels is very common in the region and needs to be taken into account. Long term, if the smaller parcels are protected for farm use, they frequently become available for rent, lease or acquisition for farm use, especially if they do not contain dwellings.”
Ultimately, ODA explained:
“Most of the suitability factors can be related to the position of farming operations as part of a large block of agricultural land or other resource lands. Protecting and maintaining large blocks of agricultural land is key to maintaining the integrity of working lands. Integrity involves many issues including the ability to operate with limited conflicts, curtail speculative land values and maintain a critical mass of land sufficient to leverage the infrastructure needs of the industry.”
In sum, the principles articulated in the ODA Report circumscribe the essential content of three of the four statutory factors. In particular, the concept of “capability”— the physical ability of the land to produce an agricultural product — is reflected in two of the statutory factors — viz., ORS 195.141(3)(b) (whether land “[i]s capable of sustaining long-term agricultural operations”) and ORS 195.141(3)(c) (whether land “[h]as suitable [39] soils and available water where needed to sustain long-term agricultural operations”). By contrast, the qualitatively distinct concept of “suitability”— the ability of a tract of land to be utilized for long-term *331 farm use based on a variety of considerations unrelated to its physical ability — is reflected in ORS 195.141(3)(d) (whether land “ [i] s suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations, taking into account,” inter alia, “[t]he existence of a large block of agricultural or other resource land” and “[t]he agricultural land use pattern, including parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns”).
With that understanding of the ODA Report and its relationship to the statutory factors, we turn to Friends’ specific challenges concerning the county’s application of two of the rural reserve factors — that is, ORS 195.141(3)(c) and ORS 195.141(3)(d). As explained below, we agree with Friends that the county misapplied those factors.
Friends first contends that the county’s analysis of “suitable soils and available water where needed,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), was contrary to meaning of that factor as reflected in the methodology underlying the ODA Report. We agree. The ODA Report demonstrates that an examination of “suitable soils and available water where needed to sustain long-term agricultural operations,” ORS 195.141(3)(c), refers to an evaluation of the quantity and quality of soils by reference to NRCS classifications concerning “agricultural capability” and “importance” and the availability of water needed for the type of agricultural activity occurring on the land. However, the county essentially rejected the ODA Report as well as its predicate underpinnings (i.e., the NRCS classifications and the recognition that capable agricultural lands do not necessarily require irrigation). Instead, the county used a productivity ranking system identified in the Huddleston Report, which, in turn, equated the assessment of “suitable soils and available water where needed” with a single attribute — that is, whether land is irrigated. The county’s singular focus on irrigation effectively read the words “where needed” out of the statute and was contrary to the principles reflected in the ODA Report — and, in turn, the meaning of ORS 195.141(3)(c). Thus, the county misapplied that factor.
Friends also contends that, in determining whether land “[i]s suitable to sustain long-term agricultural operations,” ORS 195.141(3)(d), the county impermissibly assessed *332 the existence of “large block[s]” of agricultural land, ORS 195.141(3)(d)(A), by analyzing a single attribute — viz., the degree to which an area was parcelized. Again, we agree with Friends. Simply stated, pursuant to ORS 195.141(3)(d), the legislature clearly intended that an examination of “parcelization” for purposes of ORS 195.141(3)(d)(C) was distinct from an examination of “[t]he existence of a large block of agricultural land” for purposes of ORS 195.141(3)(d)(A). Moreover, as the ODA Report demonstrates, those two concepts are qualitatively different. The concept of “large blocks” refers to the functional relationship of agricultural land to other agricultural or resource lands and the identification of large, intact agricultural areas. By contrast, evaluating “parcelization” — that is, the number and size of parcels within an area — does not concern the functional relationship of a parcel to other lands. Thus, the county misapplied ORS 195.141(3)(d).
The county’s attempt to “justif[y]” its application of those factors on the ground that it was necessary “to explore other qualities not noted in the [ODA Report]” because much of the land in the county is Foundation Agricultural Land is unavailing. Because the meaning of the statutory factors derives from the ODA Report, the county may permissibly evaluate quantitative attributes that are consistent with the assumptions, principles, and methodologies described in that report. See Parklane, 165 Or App at 24 (affirming LUBA’s rejection of Metro’s reliance on URSA-matic data— that

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8127053. Public record. Not legal advice.