2015 ORS 197.251¹
Compliance acknowledgment
  • commission review
  • rules
  • limited acknowledgment
  • compliance schedule

(1) Upon the request of a local government, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall by order grant, deny or continue acknowledgment of compliance of comprehensive plan and land use regulations with the goals. A commission order granting, denying or continuing acknowledgment shall be entered within 90 days of the date of the request by the local government unless the commission finds that due to extenuating circumstances a period of time greater than 90 days is required.

(2) In accordance with rules of the commission, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall prepare a report for the commission stating whether the comprehensive plan and land use regulations for which acknowledgment is sought are in compliance with the goals. The rules of the commission shall:

(a) Provide a reasonable opportunity for persons to prepare and to submit to the director written comments and objections to the acknowledgment request; and

(b) Authorize the director to investigate and in the report to resolve issues raised in the comments and objections or by the director’s own review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.

(3) Upon completion of the report and before the commission meeting at which the director’s report is to be considered, the director shall afford the local government and persons who submitted written comments or objections a reasonable opportunity to file written exceptions to the report.

(4) The commission’s review of the acknowledgment request shall be confined to the record of proceedings before the local government, any comments, objections and exceptions filed under subsections (2) and (3) of this section and the report of the director. Upon its consideration of an acknowledgment request, the commission may entertain oral argument from the director and from persons who filed written comments, objections or exceptions. However, the commission shall not allow additional evidence or testimony that could have been presented to the local government or to the director but was not.

(5) A commission order granting, denying or continuing acknowledgment shall include a clear statement of findings which sets forth the basis for the approval, denial or continuance of acknowledgment. The findings shall:

(a) Identify the goals applicable to the comprehensive plan and land use regulations; and

(b) Include a clear statement of findings in support of the determinations of compliance and noncompliance.

(6) A commission order granting acknowledgment shall be limited to an identifiable geographic area described in the order if:

(a) Only the identified geographic area is the subject of the acknowledgment request; or

(b) Specific geographic areas do not comply with the applicable goals, and the goal requirements are not technical or minor in nature.

(7) The commission may issue a limited acknowledgment order when a previously issued acknowledgment order is reversed or remanded by the Court of Appeals or the Oregon Supreme Court. Such a limited acknowledgment order may deny or continue acknowledgment of that part of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the court found not in compliance or not consistent with the goals and grant acknowledgment of all other parts of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations.

(8) A limited acknowledgment order shall be considered an acknowledgment for all purposes and shall be a final order for purposes of judicial review with respect to the acknowledged geographic area. A limited order may be adopted in conjunction with a continuance or denial order.

(9) The director shall notify the Real Estate Agency, the local government and all persons who filed comments or objections with the director of any grant, denial or continuance of acknowledgment.

(10) The commission may grant a planning extension, which shall be a grant of additional time for a local government to comply with the goals in accordance with a compliance schedule. A compliance schedule shall be a listing of the tasks which the local government must complete in order to bring its comprehensive plan, land use regulations, land use decisions and limited land use decisions into initial compliance with the goals, including a generalized time schedule showing when the tasks are estimated to be completed and when a comprehensive plan or land use regulations which comply with the goals are estimated to be adopted. In developing a compliance schedule, the commission shall consider the population, geographic area, resources and capabilities of the city or county.

(11) As used in this section:

(a) "Continuance" means a commission order that:

(A) Certifies that all or part of a comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both a comprehensive plan and land use regulations do not comply with one or more goals;

(B) Specifies amendments or other action that must be completed within a specified time period for acknowledgment to occur; and

(C) Is a final order for purposes of judicial review of the comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both the comprehensive plan and land use regulations as to the parts found consistent or in compliance with the goals.

(b) "Denial" means a commission order that:

(A) Certifies that a comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both a comprehensive plan and land use regulations do not comply with one or more goals;

(B) Specifies amendments or other action that must be completed for acknowledgment to occur; and

(C) Is used when the amendments or other changes required in the comprehensive plan, land use regulations or both the comprehensive plan and land use regulations affect many goals and are likely to take a substantial period of time to complete. [1977 c.766 §18; 1979 c.242 §3; 1981 c.748 §7; 1983 c.827 §5; 1985 c.811 §13; 1991 c.817 §23; 1993 c.438 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Acknowledg­ment pro­vi­sions of this sec­tion were not controlled by time limita­tion of former ORS 197.300 (2), so LCDC review of goal excep­tion granted more than 60 days prior to filing of ap­peal in Court of Appeals was proper. Woodcock v. LCDC, 51 Or App 577, 626 P2d 901 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

LCDC acknowledg­ment orders issued pursuant to this sec­tion are neither "contested case" orders nor "rules" for purposes of judicial review and are properly classified as "orders other than contested cases" which are subject to judicial review by the circuit court. Oregon Business Planning Council v. LCDC, 290 Or 741, 626 P2d 350 (1981)

Where continuance order specifies whether plan or imple­menting regula­tions or both comply with certain state-wide planning goals, only that express finding of compliance is reviewable and court will not search supporting docu­ment to ascertain an implied finding of compliance. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Marion Co., 56 Or App 755, 643 P2d 652 (1982)

Judicial review of continuance order is authorized with respect to one or more state-wide planning goals only where entire plan or all regula­tions, or both, are ex­plic­itly found to comply. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 56 Or App 759, 643 P2d 654 (1982)

LCDC may only acknowledge comprehensive plan if it finds that plan fully complies with all applicable goals. Marion County v. Federa­tion for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 668 P2d 406 (1983)

LCDC must respond to objec­tions to an acknowledg­ment request that are properly made and timely filed. Marion County v. Federa­tion for Sound Planning, 64 Or App 226, 668 P2d 406 (1983)

It is implicit in authority of this sec­tion that LCDC may satisfy self that entity seeking compliance review is a formally incorporated city at time review is requested, however LCDC does not have authority to decide in acknowledg­ment pro­ceed­ing how city may sub­se­quently lose corporate status or what consequences of that loss would be. City of Rajneeshpuram v. LCDC, 76 Or App 55, 708 P2d 1152 (1985)

City could not rely on adopted urban growth boundary in converting agricultural land to urban uses before comprehensive plan containing urban growth boundary was acknowledged by LCDC. Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 300 Or 1, 706 P2d 949 (1985)

Continuance order is not final order for purpose of judicial review with respect to part of plan and regula­tions not complying with goals. Products Manage­ment Corp. v. LCDC, 78 Or App 204, 715 P2d 1125 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission's promulgating goals of agency and monitoring compliance did not comport with judicial role, but supported finding that these activities were executive func­tions for purposes of determining absolute immunity from prop­erty owners' ac­tion. Zamsky v. Hansell, 933 F2d 677 (9th Cir. 1991)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Effect of LCDC's granting partial acknowledg­ment of comprehensive plan, (1980) Vol 40, p 274

Notes of Decisions

Where county did not treat identifiable and apparent conflicting uses as being such and did not undertake necessary analysis, conflict resolu­tion and program develop­ment that would follow from their identifica­tion, but essentially avoided that process by assuming chain of events beyond its control would occur and might prevent or limit conflicting uses without regulatory interven­tion by county, county did not follow process that Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-000 et seq. require. Audubon Society of Portland v. LCDC, 92 Or App 496, 760 P2d 271 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

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.