2017 ORS 197.175¹
Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities
  • rules on incorporations
  • compliance with goals

(1) Cities and counties shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities, including, but not limited to, a city or special district boundary change which shall mean the annexation of unincorporated territory by a city, the incorporation of a new city and the formation or change of organization of or annexation to any special district authorized by ORS 198.705 (Definitions for ORS 198.705 to 198.955) to 198.955 (Disposition of assets), 199.410 (Policy) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts) or 451.010 (Authorization to establish master plans and service districts) to 451.620 (Procedures for district formed subject to specified dissolution date), in accordance with ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197 and the goals approved under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules clarifying how the goals apply to the incorporation of a new city. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15, chapter 827, Oregon Laws 1983, the rules shall take effect upon adoption by the commission. The applicability of rules promulgated under this section to the incorporation of cities prior to August 9, 1983, shall be determined under the laws of this state.

(2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197, each city and county in this state shall:

(a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission;

(b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;

(c) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have not been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the goals;

(d) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations; and

(e) Make land use decisions and limited land use decisions subject to an unacknowledged amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation in compliance with those land use goals applicable to the amendment.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the commission shall not initiate by its own action any annexation of unincorporated territory pursuant to ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation) to 222.750 (Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city) or formation of and annexation of territory to any district authorized by ORS 198.510 (Definitions for ORS 198.510 to 198.600) to 198.915 (Election of board members at regular district election) or 451.010 (Authorization to establish master plans and service districts) to 451.620 (Procedures for district formed subject to specified dissolution date). [1973 c.80 §§17,18; 1977 c.664 §12; 1981 c.748 §15; 1983 c.827 §3; 1989 c.761 §18; 1991 c.817 §21; 1993 c.792 §45; 1999 c.348 §4]

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan is the controlling land use planning instru­ment for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975); distinguished in Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976)

In determining whether zoning amend­ments are consistent with the comprehensive plan, the plan must be read as a whole, for the plan map alone is not necessarily controlling. Green v. Hayward, 275 Or 693, 552 P2d 815 (1976)

City’s decision to annex land outside its existing borders was exercise of city’s “planning responsibilities” within meaning of this sec­tion, and thus initial threshold determina­tion of whether proposed annexa­tion was consistent with state-wide planning goals was determina­tion which was quasi-judicial in nature. Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977)

Statewide planning goals apply to requests to parti­tion land. Jurgenson v. Union County Court, 42 Or App 505, 600 P2d 1241 (1979)

Though sewer authority alleged statutory responsibility for planning sewer systems, precluding county from adopting conflicting sewer policies in its comprehensive plan, county had authority, under this sec­tion, consistent with state-wide planning goals, to adopt its own policies relating to sewer systems. Jackson County v. Bear Creek Authority, 293 Or 121, 645 P2d 532 (1982)

Legislature intended that county, in connec­tion with proposed incorpora­tion, must con­duct meaningful inquiry as to all LCDC goals to extent possible. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or 344, 703 P2d 207 (1985)

Under this sec­tion, an urban growth boundary is es­tab­lished when acknowledged. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)

Only after acknowledg­ment can city make land use decisions under comprehensive plan imple­menting ordinances and urban growth boundary. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)

When amend­ment to Metro’s urban growth boundary is totally controlled, in substance and pro­ce­dure, by acknowledged land use regula­tion, amend­ment could not be independently reviewed for compliance with statewide land use planning goals. League of Women Voters v. Metro. Service Dist., 99 Or App 333, 781 P2d 1256 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

When regula­tion contained internal require­ment that regula­tion’s applica­tion to particular sites comply with statewide goals, city had to demonstrate compliance with statewide goals even though decision was made under acknowledged land use regula­tion. Blatt v. City of Portland, 109 Or App 259, 819 P2d 309 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Land developer’s “Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amend­ment” proposing develop­ment of destina­tion resort was ac­tion under county’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and was therefore not reviewable for Goal 8 compliance. Foland v. Jackson County, 311 Or 167, 807 P2d 801 (1991)

Adop­tion of comprehensive plan designa­tion may precede adop­tion of zoning and other imple­menting legisla­tion necessary for future use. Neighbors for Livability v. City of Beaverton, 168 Or App 501, 4 P3d 765 (2000)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determining whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 400 (1974); 19 EL 61 (1988); 93 OLR 455 (2014)

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 414-421, 474, 475 (1974); 56 OLR 270 (1977)

Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a “resolu­tion,” is the controlling land use planning instru­ment for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)

Procedural require­ments of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county’s comprehensive plan and land use regula­tions had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for parti­tion. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a “land conserva­tion and develop­ment ac­tion” where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no pre­vi­ous land use decision had been made re­gard­ing the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Depart­ment authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledg­ment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local govern­ment to add specific language or pro­vi­sions to its land use legisla­tion to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conserva­tion and develop­ment com­mis­sion to bind the state in an interstate compact or agree­ment, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; applica­tion of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunc­tion with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; applica­tion to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim imple­menting stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitu­tionality of delega­tion to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situa­tion where similar peti­tion is filed before both com­mis­sion and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; considera­tion of availability of public school facilities in determina­tion of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Cita­tions

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.