2015 ORS 197.180¹
State agency planning responsibilities
  • determination of compliance with goals and compatibility with plans
  • coordination between agencies and local governments
  • rules
  • exceptions

(1) Except as provided in ORS 197.277 (Oregon Forest Practices Act) or subsection (2) of this section or unless expressly exempted by another statute from any of the requirements of this section, state agencies shall carry out their planning duties, powers and responsibilities and take actions that are authorized by law with respect to programs affecting land use:

(a) In compliance with the goals, rules implementing the goals and rules implementing this section; and

(b) In a manner compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations.

(2) State agencies need not comply with subsection (1)(b) of this section if a state agency rule, plan or program relating to land use was not in effect when the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation with which the action would be incompatible was acknowledged and the agency has demonstrated that:

(a) The state agency rule, plan or program is mandated by state statute or federal law;

(b) The state agency rule, plan or program is consistent with the goals;

(c) The state agency rule, plan or program has objectives that cannot be achieved in a manner compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations; and

(d) The agency has complied with its certified state agency coordination program.

(3) Unless federal or state law requires otherwise, the commission, by rule, may specify the sequence of a local government land use decision and a state agency action concerning the same, similar or related uses or activities.

(4) Upon request by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, each state agency shall submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development the following information:

(a) Agency rules and summaries of state agency plans and programs affecting land use;

(b) A program for coordination pursuant to ORS 197.040 (Duties of commission) (2)(e);

(c) A program for coordination pursuant to ORS 197.090 (Duties and authority of director) (1)(b); and

(d) A program for cooperation with and technical assistance to local governments.

(5) Within 90 days of receipt, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall review the information submitted pursuant to subsection (4) of this section and shall notify each state agency if the director believes the state agency rules, plans or programs submitted are insufficient to ensure compliance with goals and compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations.

(6) Within 90 days of receipt of notification specified in subsection (5) of this section, the state agency may revise the state agency rules, plans or programs and resubmit them to the director.

(7) The director shall make findings under subsections (5) and (6) of this section as to whether the state agency rules, plans or programs are sufficient to ensure compliance with the goals and compatibility with acknowledged city and county comprehensive plans and land use regulations and shall forward the rules and summaries of state agency plans or programs to the commission for its action. The commission shall either certify the state agency rules, plans or programs as compliant with the goals and compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations of affected local governments or shall determine the same to be insufficient.

(8) The department shall report, to the appropriate committee of the House and the Senate and to the subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee that considers the state agency budget, any agency that has failed to meet the requirements of subsection (7) of this section.

(9) Any state agency that has failed to meet the requirements of subsection (7) of this section shall report the reasons therefor to the appropriate committee of the House and the Senate and to the subcommittee of the Joint Ways and Means Committee that considers the agency budget.

(10) Until rules and state agency plans and programs are certified as compliant with the goals and compatible with the acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations of affected local governments, the state agency shall make findings when adopting or amending its rules and state agency plans and programs as to the applicability and application of the goals or acknowledged comprehensive plans, as appropriate.

(11) The commission shall adopt rules establishing procedures to ensure that state agency permits affecting land use are issued in compliance with the goals and compatible with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations, as required by subsection (1) of this section. The rules must prescribe the circumstances in which state agencies may rely upon a determination of compliance with the goals or compatibility with the acknowledged comprehensive plan.

(12) A state agency required to have a land use coordination program shall participate in a local government land use hearing, except a hearing under ORS 197.610 (Submission of proposed comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development) to 197.625 (Acknowledgment of comprehensive plan or land use regulation changes), only in a manner that is consistent with the coordination program, unless the agency participated in the local government’s periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.633 (Two phases of periodic review) and raised the issue that is the basis for participation in the land use hearing.

(13) State agency rules, plans or programs affecting land use are not compatible with an acknowledged comprehensive plan if the state agency takes or approves an action that is not allowed under the acknowledged comprehensive plan. However, a state agency may apply statutes and rules to deny, condition or further restrict an action of the state agency or of any applicant before the state agency if the state agency applies those statutes and rules to the uses planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan.

(14) In cooperation with local governments and state agencies whose rules, plans or programs affect land use, the department periodically shall:

(a) Identify aspects of coordination related to uses that require the issuance of multiple permits from state agencies and local governments.

(b) Update and improve rules regulating the effectiveness and efficiency of state agency coordination programs.

(15) This section does not apply to rules, plans, programs, decisions, determinations or activities carried out under ORS 527.610 (Short title) to 527.770 (Good faith compliance with best management practices not violation of water quality standards), 527.990 (Criminal penalties) (1) and 527.992 (Civil penalties). [1973 c.80 §21; 1977 c.664 §13; 1981 c.748 §16; 1983 c.827 §4; 1987 c.555 §1; 1987 c.919 §3; 1989 c.761 §19; 1991 c.612 §9; 1995 c.595 §30; 1999 c.622 §8; 2009 c.606 §3]

Notes of Decisions

As agency ac­tions under ORS 222.850 (Definitions for ORS 222.840 to 222.915) to 222.915 (Application of ORS 222.840 to 222.915), relating to public health annexa­tions, have no rela­tion to land use this sec­tion has no applica­tion to ac­tions under those statutes. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 42 Or App 755, 601 P2d 858 (1979), aff'd as modified 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

Health Division order issued pursuant to ORS 222.880 (Oregon Health Authority order or finding) is not ac­tion "authorized by law with respect to programs affecting land use" under this sec­tion, so Division need not consider state-wide planning goals in reaching its decision. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 393, 614 P2d 1141 (1980)

Certifica­tion of Environ­mental Quality Commission pursuant to ORS 222.898 (Determination if health danger can be alleviated) is not ac­tion re­quired by this sec­tion to be made in accordance with statewide planning goals. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 409, 614 P2d 1148 (1980)

LCDC's rule permitting state agencies to rely on state­ments of land use consistency adopted by other jurisdic­tions is not in conflict with this sec­tion. Schreiner's Gardens v. DEQ, 71 Or App 381, 692 P2d 660 (1984)

Where plaintiffs had opportunity to ap­peal county's siting decision directly, plaintiff could not later ap­peal decision in an­oth­er ap­peal concerning issuance of permits for ac­tivity to be con­ducted on site. Schreiner's Gardens v. DEQ, 71 Or App 381, 692 P2d 660 (1984)

State agency publica­tion advising per­sonnel of agency's posi­tion and how to participate in local land use pro­ceed­ings was not re­quired to be included in agency's program under this sec­tion. Oregonians in Ac­tion v. LCDC (Fish and Wildlife), 108 Or App 307, 814 P2d 561 (1991)

Although this sec­tion requires compatibility with statewide planning goals and acknowledged local plans and regula­tions, compliance with acknowledged plans and regula­tions generally coincides with compatibility with goals and separate showing of compatibility with goals is not re­quired in every case. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Forestry/Trans.), 111 Or App 491, 826 P2d 1023 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Programs administered by Depart­ment of Revenue that allow preferential assess­ment for farm and forest land are not "programs affecting land use" and are not subject to require­ment of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under this sec­tion. Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Use incidental to outright permitted use, but not included in original permit for outright permitted use, requires separate final determina­tion of compatibility that is subject to LUBA review. Knee Deep Cattle Co. v. Lane County, 133 Or App 120, 890 P2d 449 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Nonap­pli­ca­bil­i­ty of this sec­tion to wa­ter service territory applica­tions, (1976) Vol 38, p 490; interpreta­tion of compatibility obliga­tion imposed under this sec­tion, (1986) Vol 45, p 98; extension of 90-day review period, (1986) Vol 45, p 98

Law Review Cita­tions

5 EL 664 (1975); 14 EL 765 (1984); 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 I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.