ORS 197.290¹
Housing production strategy

(1) A city with a population greater than 10,000 shall develop and adopt a housing production strategy under this section no later than one year after:

(a) The city’s deadline for completing a housing capacity analysis under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (2)(a);

(b) The city’s deadline for completing a housing capacity analysis under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (10)(b); or

(c) A date scheduled by the Land Conservation and Development Commission following the allocation of housing capacity to the city by a metropolitan service district under ORS 197.299 (Metropolitan service district accommodation of needed housing and school lands) (2)(d).

(2) A housing production strategy must include a list of specific actions, including the adoption of measures and policies, that the city shall undertake to promote development within the city to address a housing need identified under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (6) for the most recent 20-year period described in ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (2)(b). Actions under this subsection may include:

(a) The reduction of financial and regulatory impediments to developing needed housing, including removing or easing approval standards or procedures for needed housing at higher densities or that is affordable;

(b) The creation of financial and regulatory incentives for development of needed housing, including creating incentives for needed housing at higher densities or that is affordable; and

(c) The development of a plan to access resources available at local, regional, state and national levels to increase the availability and affordability of needed housing.

(3) In creating a housing production strategy, a city shall review and consider:

(a) Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of households living in existing needed housing;

(b) Market conditions affecting the provision of needed housing;

(c) Measures already adopted by the city to promote the development of needed housing;

(d) Existing and expected barriers to the development of needed housing; and

(e) For each action the city includes in its housing production strategy:

(A) The schedule for its adoption;

(B) The schedule for its implementation;

(C) Its expected magnitude of impact on the development of needed housing; and

(D) The time frame over which it is expected to impact needed housing.

(4) The housing production strategy must include within its index a copy of the city’s most recently completed survey under ORS 456.586 (Rent-burdened households information) (2).

(5) The adoption of a housing production strategy is not a land use decision and is not subject to appeal or review except as provided in ORS 197.291 (Review of housing production strategy). [2019 c.640 §4]

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
 
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. Currency Information