Filed: November 8, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

GUNDERSON, LLC,

Petitioner on Review,

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND,
Respondent on Review, and

FRIENDS OF CATHEDRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Respondents below.

(LUBA 2010039)

________________________________________________________________ WORKING WATERFRONT COALITION,

Petitioner on Review,

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND,
Respondent on Review, and

FRIENDS OF CATHEDRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Respondents below.

(LUBA 2010040)________________________________________________________________

SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Petitioner on Review,

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND,
Respondent on Review, and

FRIENDS OF CATHEDRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Respondents below.

(LUBA 2010041) (CA A147803; SC S059735)

En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted June 12, 2012.
Phillip E. Grillo, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the joint brief for petitioners on review. With him on the joint brief were Roger A. Alfred, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, for petitioner on review Working Waterfron t Coalition; Robyn Ridler Aoyagi, Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland, for petitioner on review Gunderson, LLC; and Steven L. Pfeiffer, Perkins Coie LLP, Portland, for petitioner on review Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.
Linly F. Rees, Deputy City Attorney, Portl and, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. With her on the brief was Kathryn S. Beaumont, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Portland.
Maja K. Haium, Salem, filed the brief for amicus curiae League of Oregon Cities.

LANDAU, J

.The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The final order of the Land Use

Board of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Land Use Board of Appeals for further proceedings.

*Judicial Review from th e final order of the Land Use Board of Appeals. 243 Or App 612, 259 P3d 1007 (2011).1 LANDAU, J. 1
At issue in this case is the lawfulness of a portion of the City of Portland's 2

Willamette River Greenway Plan that regulates uses of industrial and other urban land 3
along a portion of the Willamette River known as the "North Reach." Specifically, the 4

issue is whether the City of Portland (city) has authority to regulate development within 5

the North Reach. Petitioners , who represent various industrial interests within the 6

affected area of the city's plan
, contend that the law permit s the city to regulate only 7
"intensification" or "changes" to existing uses and otherwise does not permit the 8
regulation of existing industrial or other urban uses or other changes to such uses within 9
the North Reach. The Land Use Board of Appeals rejected that argument, and the Court 10
of Appeals affirmed. For the reasons that follow, we likewise reject petitioners' argume nt 11
and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. 12

I. BACKGROUND 13

A. Legislative C reation of the Willamette River Greenway 14
In 1973, the Oregon Legislative Assembly established the Willamette River 15
Greenway , a corridor of protected land located along the banks of the river. The 16
legislature found that the development and maintenance of such a g reenway is necessary 17
"to protect and preserve the natural, scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the 18

Will amette River," as well as "to preserve and restore historical sites, structures, facilities 19
and objects on land along the Willamette River for public education and enjoyment [

. ] " 20

ORS 390.314(1). 21
The legislature expressed recognition of "the need of the people of this state 222

for existing residential, commercial and agricultural use of lands along the Willamette 1
River" and also the need "to permit the continuation of existing uses of lands that are 2
included within such greenway [

. ] " ORS 390.314(2)(b). At the same time, the legislature 3
recognized the need "to limit the intensification and change in the use of such lands so 4
that such uses shall remain, to the greatest possible degree, compatible with the 5
preservation of the natural, scenic, historical and re creational qualities of such lands." Id. 6
The legislature placed primary responsibility for the coordination of the 7
development and maintenance of the Greenway with the State Parks and Recreation 8

Department (department) . ORS 390.314(2)(d). The legislat ure then charged the 9
department, in cooperation with the local governments that have g reenway lands within 10
their boundaries, to prepare a plan for the development and management of the 11
Greenway . ORS 390.318(1). Among other things, the plan is required to specify the 12

boundaries of the Greenway , which must include all lands situated within 150 feet of the 13
ordinary low

- water line on each side of the Willamette River, as well as all islands, state 14
parks, and state recreation areas located along the river. Id

. 15
The department was required to submit the plan

-- either as a whole or as 16
individual plan segments

-- for approval by the Land Conservation and Development 17

Commission (LCDC or commission). ORS 390.322(1). The commission was authorized 18

either to app rove the plan, revise it, or require revision by the department or the affected 19
local governments. Id

. 20

B. Adoption of Goal 15 21
In 1975, the department, in cooperation with nine counties and other local 223

governments along the Greenway , submitted to LCDC a preliminary greenway plan, a 1
greenway goal, and policies for a completed greenway plan. On December 6, 1975, the 2
commission adopted the Willamette River Greenway Program, consisting of an order 3
adopting a Preliminary Willamette River Greenway Plan and S tatewide Planning Goal 15 4

(Goal 15)

. 5

Goal 15 declares that "[ t ] he qualities of the Willamette River Greenway 6
shall be protected, conserved, enhanced and maintained consistent with the lawful uses 7
present on December 6, 1975 [
, ] " the date that LCDC adopted the goal. OAR 660

- 015

- 8

0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph A(1). It further provides that "[i]ntensification of uses, 9
changes in uses or developments may be permitted " after that date only so long as they 10
are consistent with, among other things, the Willamet te River Greenway statute
, Goal 15
, 11
and other statewide planning goals. Id

. Goal 15 defines "change of use" to mean 12
"making a different use of the land or water than that which existed on December 6, 13

1975." OAR 660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph K(1). A "change of use" does not 14
include "a change of use of a building or other structure which does not substantially alter 15
or affect the land or water upon which it is situat ed ." Id

. Goal 15 also defines 16
"intensification" of existing uses. That term means "a ny additions which increase or 17
expand the area or amount of an existing use
, or the level of activity." OAR 660

- 015

- 18

0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph K(3). It does not include " [ m ] aintenance and repair usual and 19
necessary for the continuance of an existing use [

. ] " Id

. Goal 15 does not define the term 20
"developments" as it is used in the goal. 21
Goal 15 provides that each city and county in which the Greenway is 224

located must incorporate portions of the Willamette River Greenway Plan into its 1
comprehensive plan, im plementing ordinances, and other implementing measures. OAR 2

660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph E. Among other things, each comprehensive plan 3
must designate "the uses to be permitted for the rural and urban areas of each 4
jurisdiction," which must be consistent with the Willamette River Greenway Plan. OAR 5

660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph E(2). 6

Th ose comprehensive plans and implementing measures must provide for 7
protection of agricultural lands, protection of recreational needs and adequate public 8
access to the river, protection of significant fish and wildlife habitats, preservation of 9
scenic qual ities and viewpoints, protection of public safety, and enhancement of a 10
"vegetative fringe" along the river. OAR 660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15 , Paragraph C(3). Goal 11
15 provides that developments 12
"shall be directed away from the river to the greatest possible de gree; 13 provided, however, lands committed to urban uses within the Greenway 14 shall be permitted to continue as urban uses, including port, industrial, 15 commercial and residential uses, uses pertaining to navigational 16 requirements, water and land access needs and related facilities [

. ] " 17

OAR 660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph C(3)(j). 18

M easure s for managing uses within the Greenway include exclusive farm

19
use zoning of agricultural lands within the Greenway , flood plain zoning, and open

- space 20
zoning. OAR 660

- 015

- 00 05; Goal 15
, Paragraph F. Cities and counties are also required 21

to "establish provisions by ordinance for the review of intensifications, changes of use or 22
developments to ensure their compatibility with the Willamette River Greenway." OAR 23

660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph F(3). Those ordinances must include " [ t ] he review of 245

intensification, changes of use and developments as authorized by the Comprehensive 1
Plan and zoning ordinance to insure their compatibility with the Greenway statutes and to 2

insure th at the best p ossible appearance, landscaping and public access are provided." 3

OAR 660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15
, Paragraph F(3)(b). The review must include findings that 4
the intensification, change of use, or development "will provide the maximum possible 5

landsc aped area, open space or vegetation between the activity and the river [

. ] " OAR 6

660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15, Paragraph F(3)(b)(1). 7

C. The City of Portland 's North Reach River Plan 8

In 19 7 9 , the City of Portland adopted its Willamette River Greenway Plan, 9
which included amendments to the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code. LCDC 10
acknowledged the plan in 1981, as part of its acknowledgement of the city's 11
comprehensive plan. In 1987, the city amended the plan, which LCDC acknowledged as 12

a post

- acknowl edgment plan amendment. In brief, t he city's plan established Willamette 13

River Greenway Plan boundaries and applied "greenway overlay zones" to land within 14

the boundaries , including River Industrial, River General, and River Recreational 15
overlays. Develo pment within the overlay zones was required to comply with certain 16
standards, including setbacks and landscaping. In addition, any development within a 17
prescribed distance from the river banks was subject to a Greenway Review process. 18

In 2004, the cit y initiated a process by which it intended to update and 19
amend its Willamette Greenway Plan. One phase of that process involved the segment of 20
the Greenway located along the 12

- mile stretch of the Willamette River from 21
approximately the Broadway Bridge to the confluence with the Columbia River. The 226

area, described as the "North Reach," includes approximately 5,500 acres of industrial 1
area known as the Portland Harbor, which contains a significant portion of the city's 2

industrial land base. The North Reac h also contains remnant bottomland hardwood 3
forests, upland forests, wetlands, streams, riparian corridors, beaches, and islands. The 4
river within the North Reach has been designated as a special habitat for several species 5
of endangered salmon that spawn in the area. 6
The "North Reach River Plan," which the parties refer to as the "NRRP," 7
amends the existing plan in a number of ways, two of which are of particular significance 8
to this litigation. 9
The first of the two pertinent amendments in the NRR P is the creation of a 10
new "River Environmental" (RE) overlay zone that applies to approximately 423 acres of 11
riverfront property within the North Reach. The new overlay zone does not change the 12
uses allowed by the underlying base zones , b ut it does alter the manner in which 13
development is allowed to occur in the overlay zone. 14
Development within the overlay zone must comply with a "River Review" 15

process , which generally requires the development applicant to mitigate any unavoidable 16

natural

- resource los ses that will occur as a result of that development. The NRRP states a 17
preference for mitigation by planting new vegetation elsewhere on the development site

. 18

But, if on

- site mitigation is not feasible, it permits mitigation by planting new vegetation 19

of f site at an approved "River Restoration Site." In the alternative, the plan allows an 20
applicant to pay a fee in lieu of planting vegetation or to buy "mitigation credits" from a 21
certified mitigation bank. 227 The second of the two pertinent amendments in t he NRRP is the imposition 1
of "vegetation enhancement standards" on all River O verlay property in the North Reach, 2
not just property located in the RE overlay zone. The vegetation enhancement standards 3
appl y to new development and exterior alteration s within the River Overlay zones. 4
Applicants for such development or alteration may satisfy the standards by spending an 5
amount equal to one percent of the development or enhancement project value

-- up to a 6
maximum of $200,000

-- on one of three options: (1) planting vegetation on an area of 7
the site that is within the River Overlay zone; (2) construct ing an "ecoroof " on the site; or 8
(3) contributing to the River Restoration Fund for planting vegetation on city

- owned 9
property in the North Reach. The NRRP also sets a cap on the amount of vegetation 10
required equal to 15 percent of the total site area that is located within a River Overlay 11

zone. 12

D. This Litigation 13
After the city adopted the NRRP, petitioners appealed the decision to the 14

Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). They advanced a number of challenges to the 15
lawfulness of the NRRP, two of which are pertinent to this appeal. 16
First, petitioners contended that the NRRP unlawfully subjects 17
development of existing industrial uses to the River Review p rocess. They argued that, 18
under Goal 15, existing industrial uses are to be preserved from regulation and that only 19
"intensification" or "changes of use" may be regulated under the Willamette River 20
Greenway Plan. Second, and in a related vein, petitioner s argued that the NRRP's 21
vegetation enhancement standards effectively establish setback requirements that prohibit 228

lands currently lawfully committed to urban uses from being used for those purposes. 1
Although LUBA agreed with some of petitioners' other contentions, it 2
rejected the two that we have just described. LUBA concluded that Goal 15 c ould not be 3
read as broadly as petitioners urge d to preclude the imposition of a review process for 4
development of existing industrial uses. In addition, LUBA con cluded that petitioners 5
failed to explain persuasively how the vegetation enhancement standards necessarily 6
impose a setback requirement

. 7
Petitioners sought review in the Court of Appeals, challenging LUBA's 8
decision in a number of respects, including it s rejection of their contention that Goal 15 9
precludes regulation of all but intensification or changes in use of industrial and other 10

urban uses

. The Court of Appeals agreed with some of petitioners' contentions, and 11
reversed in part on those grounds, wh ich are not relevant here. It also rejected both of 12
their Goal 15 arguments. Gunderson, LLC v. City of Portland , 243 Or App 612, 627, 259 13

P3d 1007 (2011)

. The court explained that pe titioners' contention that Goal 15 preserves 14
all existing urban use s that do not constitute " intensification s " or " change s " of such uses 15
is undercut by the wording of Goal 15 itself, which expressly authorizes regulation of 16
"development" of those uses , as well

. Id

. at 629. Moreover, the court explained, the 17
statutory context for Goal 15

-- in particular, the statement of legislative findings in ORS 18

390.314(2)

-- makes clear that the purpose of the Greenway "is to preserve the natural
, 19

scenic, and recreati onal qualities of land and historical sites, rather than to preserve 20

industrial and other urban uses of land [

. ] " Id

. at 630. The court further noted that 21

p etitioners' reading of Goal 15 conflicts with " the basic framework of Oregon's land use 229

planning sy stem [
, ] " which provides that "local government is the rule, and statewide 1
planning goals and objectives are the exception" in the area of land use planning. Id

. at 2

630

- 31. The court concluded that, 3
"[w]ithout more information as to relevant legislative intent, which 4 petitioners do not provide, * * * we will not infer that ORS 390.314(2) and 5 Goal 15 were intended to prohibit the city from regulating development of 6 land committed to urban uses in ways that are consistent with, but different 7 from, the state's mandate to the city to ensure that intensifications or 8 changes of use on such land are compatible with preservation of natural, 9 scenic, historical and recreational qualities of the lands to the grea test 10 extent possible." 11

Id

. at 632. According to the Court of Appeals, to demonstrate that a provision of the 12
NRRP violates the portion of Goal 15 that requires that lands currently committed to 13
urban uses be permitted to continue to be used for urban us es, petitioners must show 14
more than the fact that a use is not an intensification or a change of use; rather they must 15
show "that provisions in the NRRP will not permit urban uses, in the language of the 16
goal, 'to continue as urban uses.'" Id

. at 633. 17

II. ANALYSIS 18
On review, petitioners advance three arguments. First, they contend that 19
the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting their contention that, under both the g reenway 20
legislation and Goal 15, "existing urban uses are protected and allowed to continue ," and 21
other modifications to existing urban uses are not subject to regulation "unless those 22
modifications constitute either an 'intensification' or a 'change of use,' as those terms are 23

defined in Goal 15 ." Second, they challenge the Court of Appeals' c onclusion that
, to 24
demonstrate that the NRRP violates Goal 15's guarantee that existing urban uses can 2510

continue, they must show more than that it app lies to development other than 1
intensification or changes of those uses. Third, they argue that, even if the Court of 2
Appeals was correct about that, the vegetation enhancement standards contained in the 3
NRRP do preclude a continuation of urban uses, because they effectively require large 4
portions of land curre ntly committed to urban use to be devoted to vegetation 5

enhancement. 6
In response, the city argues that nothing in the wording of Goal 15 limits 7
the city's authority to the regulation of "intensifications" or "changes" of existing urban 8

uses. To the co ntrary, the city notes, Goal 15 expressly authorizes the city to regulate 9
"development" that does not amount to intensification or change of existing urban uses. 10
Moreover, the city argues, Goal 15 sets forth only a set of minimum requirements that it 11

must impose under the law and says little, if anything, about what additional 12
requirements the city may impose to further the purposes of the g reenway law. As for the 13
vegetation enhancement standards, the city contends that, because petitioners raised no 14

such argument before LUBA or the Court of Appeals, they may not assert it before this 15
court. In any event, the city argues, th at argument is built on a false premise that the 16
NRRP requires land committed to urban use to be devoted to vegetation, when the plan 17

makes clear that such is not the case. 18

A. City Authority to Regulate "Development" U nder Goal 15 19

Petitioners' first argument pertain s to the city's authority to regulate 20

industrial or other urban use s under the NRRP that do not amount to intensificati on or 21
change to existing use s . According to petitioners, 2211

"the text, context, and legislative history of Goal 15 all affirm that the 1 economic quality of the Greenway is as vital as its other qualities, that the 2 Greenway statute and Goal 15 protect the con tinuation of existing 3

econom ic uses, and that the Greenway S tatute and Goal 15 are only 4 intended to limit 'intensifications' and 'changes of use' within the 5 Greenway." 6
Petitioners' textual argument is predicated on several provisions within Goal 15. F irst, 7
they observe that Goal 15
, Paragraph A(1)
, requires that "[t]he qualities of the Willamette 8

River Greenway shall be protected, conserved, enhanced and maintained consistent with 9
the lawful uses present" on the date the goal was adopted. Petitioners reason that, 10
obviously, one of the "qualities" that must be protected is the range of economic uses that 11

exist ed as of the date the goal was adopted. Moreover, they note, Goal 15
, Paragraph 12
C(3)(j)
, guarantees that "lands committed to urban use s "

-- which include lands 13

committed to industrial and commercial use s

-- "shall be permitted to continue as urban 14

uses [

. ] " Finally, they note that the only uses that the rule expressly mentions as being 15
subject to regulation are "intensification" and "changes" to th ose uses. 16

Petitioners' contextual argument relies principally on ORS 390.314 (2)
, 17
which they read as recognizing the importance of existing commercial and other 18
economic uses. Petitioners reason that, because the legislature apparently considered 19
existing uses to be compatible with the law at the time it was enacted, it makes sense th at 20
the law would permit regulation of only intensification or changes to such uses
, 21
particularly given that intensification or changes to such uses are the only categories of 22

use that the statute expressly acknowledges are subject to regulation

. 23

As for the "legislative" history of Goal 15, petitioners recite excerpts of 2412

documents in the LCDC file on the adoption of the goal, including letters from parties 1
concerned about the protection of existing uses in the Greenway . They also rely on 2
testimony from witnesses at hearings before LCDC concerning the need to pr otect 3
existing uses within the Greenway . That history, petitioners conclude, shows that LCDC 4
was responding to concerns raised by members of the public about how to pr otect 5
existing uses within th e Greenway

. 6
Because petitioners' arguments implicate the authority of the city, we begin 7
with general principles concerning the authority of such local governments. The city's 8
authority to adopt ordinances is governed by provisions of the Oregon Const itution that 9
provide "home rule" for cities and towns that adopt municipal charters. Under Article XI, 10

section 2, of the Oregon C onstitution, 11
"[t]he Legislative Assembly shall not enact, amend or repeal any charter or 12 act of incorporation for any municip ality, city or town. The legal voters of 13 every city and town are hereby granted power to enact and amend their 14 municipal charter, subject to the Constitution and criminal laws of the State 15 of Oregon [

. ] " 16
The purpose of that provision was "to allow the peop le of the locality to decide upon the 17
organization of their government and the scope of its powers under its charter without 18
having to obtain statutory authorization from the legislature [

. ] " LaGrand e /Astoria v. 19

PERB , 281 Or 137, 142, 576 P2d 1204 (1978)
, aff'd on reh'g , 284 Or 173, 586 P2d 765 20

(19 78 ). 21
This court has explained that such home

- rule municipalities possess 22
authority to enact substantive policies
, even in areas also regulated by state law, so long 23
as the local enactment is not "incompatible" w ith state law: 2413

"In such cases, the first inquiry must be whether the local rule in truth is 1 incompatible with the [state] legislative policy, either because both cannot 2 operate concurrently or because the legislature meant its law to be 3 exclusive. It is r easonable to interpret local enactments, if possible
, to be 4 intended to function consistently with state laws, and equally reasonable to 5 assume that the legislature does not mean to displace local civil or 6 administrative regulation of local conditions by s tatewide law unless that 7 intention is apparent." 8

Id

. at 148

- 49. 9

This court's decision in State ex rel Haley v. City of Troutdale , 281 Or 203, 10
576 P2d 1238 (1978), illustrates that principle. In that case, the issue was whether a city's 11
building code, which required double

- wall construction, was preempted by the state 12
building code, which imposed a "basic" standard that required only single

- wall 13

construction. Id

. at 205. This court held that, given the authority of home

- rule 14
municipalities to enact substantive policies, it was reasonable to construe the state 15
building code as merely establishing a minimum standard that the city was free to exceed: 16
"We are reluctant to assume that the legislature meant to confine the 17 protection of Oregon residents exc lusively to construction standards which 18 it described as 'basic' * * * and to place these beyond the power of local 19 communities to provide additional safeguards for themselves. Certainly 20 that intention is not unambiguously expressed. Until it is, we conc lude that 21 local requirements compatible with compliance with the state's standards 22 are not preempted [

. ] " 23

Id

. at 211. 24
With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to Goal 15 to determine 25
whether it unambiguously preempts the city from regulating any in dustrial or other urban 26

use s under the NRRP that do not amount to an intensification or change to an existing 27
use. In brief, we find no such unambiguous preemption. 2814 Beginning with the text of Goal 15, we note that nothing in its wording 1
remotely sugge sts that the authority of local governments to regulate is limited to 2

"intensification" of or "changes" in industrial or other urban uses and does not include 3
"developments," as the NRRP provides. In fact, the text of the goal expressly refers to 4
the regu lation of "developments" in addition to "intensification of use" and "changes in 5

use

. " Petitioners briefly acknowledge that the text of the goal does refer to 6
"developments" in addition to "intensifications of use" and "changes in use," and they 7

remark th at "it is not immediately obvious exactly what 'developments' does refer to." 8
They simply assert that, contrary to the ordinary meaning of the term, it could refer 9
narrowly to only "new developments on undeveloped sites." Petitioners cite no 10
justificatio n for conferring on the term such a narrow definition. 11
But, even assuming for the sake of argument that the term "development" 12
has the narrow meaning that petitioners suggest, the fact remains that Goal 15 does not by 13
its terms limit the authority of local governments to regulate only those items listed. As 14
we have noted above, the goal provides that "[i]ntensification of uses, c hanges in use or 15
developments may be permitted" after the date the rules were adopted only when they are 16
consistent with the Willamette Greenway Statute, the goal itself, and other relevant laws. 17

OAR 660

- 015

- 0005; Goal 15, Paragraph A(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the goal states 18
what local governments may permit and the conditions under which they are authorized 19
to do so. Nothing in the goal reasonably can be read to establish that local governments 20

must permit such intensifications in uses, changes of use , or developments, as petitioners 21

contend. 2215 Similarly, while Goal 15
, Paragraph C(3)(j)
, provides that "urban uses 1
within the Greenway shall be permitted to continue as urban uses," nothing in that 2
wording suggests

-- much less unambiguously expresses

- - that intensifications of those 3
urban uses, or changes in such uses, or developments
, are shielded from all local 4

government regulation. Petitioners appear to assume that local government regulation of 5
such alterations in existing use somehow precludes t he continuation of the underlying 6
urban uses, an assumption that simply does not necessarily follow. 7
The statutory context is similarly unavailing to petitioners. ORS 8

390.314 (2) contains no wording that expresses unambiguously a legislative intention to 9
limit local government authority to the regulation of "intensifications" of industrial or 10
other urban uses or "changes" of such uses. To the contrary, the statute declares that, 11
"Recognizing the need of the people of this state for existing 12 residenti al, commercial and agricultural use of lands along the Willamette 13 River, [the legislature] finds it necessary to permit the continuation of 14 existing uses of lands that are included within such greenway; but, for the 15 benefit of the people of this state, als o to limit the intensification and 16 change in the use of such lands so that such uses shall remain, to the 17 greatest possible degree, compatible with the preservation of the natural, 18 scenic, historical and recreational qualities of such land s ." 19

ORS 390.314(2)(b) (emphasis added). Thus, the legislative findings contained in ORS 20
390.314(2)(b) do not state a policy of limiting local government authority at all ; rather, 21
they state a policy of limiting the intensification and changes in existing resident ial, 22
commercial, and agr icultural uses of lands in the G reenway. 23
At best, petitioners' argument concerning ORS 390.314(2) amounts to a 24
negative inference, i.e. , that
, because the legislature mentioned an intention to limit 2516

"intensification" and "change " in residential, commercial, and agricultural uses in the 1

G reenway, we may infer that it intended to preclude limitations on those uses to the 2
extent that an "intensification" or "change" is not involved. But even assuming for the 3
sake of argument that s uch an inference were plausible, it is not the only inference that is 4
plausible
, and, as such, it remains insufficient to constitute the unambiguous expression 5
of preemptive intention that is required under LaGrande/Astoria and Haley

. 6
Finally, turn ing to the adoption history of Goal 15, we first pause to address 7
a statement in the opinion of the Court of Appeals that, "[w]ithout more information as to 8
relevant legislative intent, which petitioners do not provide," the court was disinclined to 9

read G oal 15 as petitioners urged. Gunderson
, LLC , 243 Or App at 632. The meaning of 10
an administrative rule is a question of law, governed by the same principles that apply to 11
the interpretation of statutes. See State v. Hogevoll , 348 Or 104, 109, 228 P3d 569 (2010) 12
("In construing an administrative rule, we apply the same analytical framework that 13
applies to the construction of statutes."); Tye v. McFetridge , 342 Or 61, 69, 149 P3d 1111 14
(2006) ("In interpreting an administrative rule * * * our task is the same as that involved 15
in determining the meaning of a statute, which is to discern the meaning of the words 16

use d , giving effect to the intent of the bod y that promulgated the rule."). In construing 17
statutes and administrative rules, we are obliged to determine the correct interpretation, 18
regardless of the nature of the parties' arguments or the quality of the information t hat 19
they supply to the court. See, e.g.
, Dept

. of Human Services v. J. R. F. , 351 Or 570, 579, 20

273 P 3 d 87 (2012) (referring to obligation of courts "to interpret the statutes correctly, 21
which includes an obligation to consider relevant context, regardless of whether it was 2217

cited by any party"); Stull v. Hoke , 326 Or 72, 77, 948 P2d 722 (1997) ("In constru ing a 1
statute, this court is responsible for identifying the correct interpretation, whether or not 2
asserted by the parties."). 3
As for the history on which petitioners rely in this case, suffice it to say that 4
we find nothing in it that provides the sort of unambiguous indication of preemptive 5
intent for which they contend. At best, that history consists of statements of some 6
members of the public and other parties who complained about the need to protect 7
existing industrial, agricultural, and other uses near the Willamette River. Even assuming 8
for the sake of argument that the portions of the history on which petitioners rely 9

constitute fairly representative samples of the comments that were re ceived, the fact 10

remains that it simply do es not necessarily follow from those general comments that 11

LCDC, in acknowledging Goal 15, intended to preempt local government authority to 12
regulate development of uses that do not constitute an "intensification" of or "change" in 13
those uses. Nothing that petitioners cite mention s that particular issue. 14
In short, nothing in the text of Goal 15, its relevant context, or its adoption 15
history supports the conclusion that the goal unambiguously expresses an intention to 16
preclude local governments from regulating developmen ts of industrial and other urban 17
uses that do not constitute "intensifications" of or "changes" to those uses. The Court of 18
Appeals did not err in rejecting petitioners' challenge to the city's NRRP on that ground. 19

B. Continuation of Urban Uses 20

Petition ers' second argument is that, once they "demonstrate that 21
modifications to existing urban uses do not constitute either an 'intensification' or 'change' 2218

of use," they have established the invalidity of the NRRP. According to petitioners, the 1
Court of Appe als erred in concluding that they are "required to additionally prove that the 2

[c] ity's NRRP regulations will altogether preclude the continuation of urban uses on land 3
committed to urban use," to be excluded from the River Review process. 4
The argument is largely predicated on the argument that we have just 5
rejected, namely, that Goal 15 permits the local governments to require submission to the 6
River Review process only in cases in which there has been an "intensification" of or 7
"change" in an industri al or other urban use. The Court of Appeals, in likewise rejecting 8
the argument and concluding that "petitioners must demonstrate that provisions in the 9
NRRP will not permit urban uses," Gunderson , 24 3 Or App at 633, did no more than 10
paraphrase the goal i tself

-- specifically, Goal 15, Paragraph C(3)(j), which provides that 11
"lands committed to urban use within the Greenway shall be permitted to continue as 12

urban uses [

. ] " We reject petitioners ' second argument without further discussion. 13

C. Vegetation Enha ncement Standards 14

Petitioners ' final argument is that , even if the Court of Appeals correctly 15

determined that to establish that the NRRP conflicts with Goal 15 requires proof that land 16
committed to urban use is being prohibited from continuing to be use d for urban use, the 17

fact is that the NRRP's vegetation enhancement standards do precisely that

. According to 18
petitioners, the vegetation enhancement standards "will prohibit at least 300 acres of land 19
currently committed to urban use in the Greenway from continuing to be used for urban 20

uses." 21
As the city notes, however, that argument is different from any argument 2219

about the vegetation enhancement standards that petitioners have previously asserted in 1
this litigation. As such, the argument is unpreserved . In fact, precisely because the 2
argument is unpreserved, we have no way of establishing the accuracy of petitioners' 3
assertion that the vegetation enhancement standards will prohibit 300 acres of land from 4
continuing to be used fo r urban uses. The city certainly contests the point. And, given 5
that the terms of the vegetation enhancement standard portions of the NRRP expressly 6
allow applicants for development to avoid having to plant on site, it is difficult to 7
understand how peti tioners' argument necessarily follows. At all events, we decline to 8

address it for the first time on review. 9
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed

. The final order of the 10
Land Use Board of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is 11
remanded to the Land Use Board of Appeals for further proceedings. 12