2017 ORS 197.298¹
Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary

(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary of Metro except under the following priorities:

(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145 (Urban reserves), rule or metropolitan service district action plan.

(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710 (High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705).

(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition).

(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both.

(2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use.

(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons:

(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands;

(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or

(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands.

(4) When a city includes land within the urban growth boundary of the city pursuant to ORS 197.295 (Definitions for ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490) to 197.314 (Required siting of manufactured homes), the city shall prioritize lands for inclusion as provided in ORS 197A.320. [1995 c.547 §5; 1999 c.59 §56; 2013 c.575 §12]

Notes of Decisions

Considera­tion of statutory factors for urbaniza­tion priority does not meet require­ment of land use goal to consider agricultural land reten­tion priority. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro, 174 Or App 406, 26 P3d 151 (2001)

Whether higher priority land is “inadequate” to accommodate amount of land needed within proposed urban growth boundary is determined by suitability of land in addi­tion to quantity of land. City of West Linn v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission, 201 Or App 419, 119 P3d 285 (2005)

City must determine its separate land use needs by specific type and density rather than by broad, generic needs. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 259 P3d 1021 (2011)

Prioritiza­tion under this statute is for purpose of identifying land that could be added to urban growth boundary; applicable land use goal is for purpose of determining which identified lands should be added to urban growth boundary. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 259 P3d 1021 (2011)

Only land use goal factors related to consequences of land use and compatibility of land may be used to determine if prioritized land is inadequate to accommodate amount of land needed. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 244 Or App 239, 259 P3d 1021 (2011)

Law Review Cita­tions

93 OLR 455 (2014)

§§ 197.295 (Definitions for ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490) to 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas)

Law Review Cita­tions

18 WLR 75 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982)

§§ 197.005 (Legislative findings) to 197.430 (Enforcement powers)

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)

    News Reports

  • UGB process mired in legal morass
    McMinnville News-Register / Nicole Montesano, Sep 24, 2011
    “The debate is being fought out over precisely how two state rules intersect - Oregon Revised Statute 197.298 and DLCD Goal 14. Both dictate how a city may decide which land it can and cannot include for expansion . . .”
    http://www.newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=ugb+process+mired+in+legal+morass--1316880115--1679--home-news
  • Court of Appeals Sends Back Mac Urban Growth Plan
    McMinnville News-Register / Nicole Montesano, Jul 16, 2011
    “The state Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission failed to apply state law properly when it upheld McMinnville’s proposed Urban Growth Boundary and Expansion Plan, the state Court of Appeals ruled this week. . . .”
    http://www.newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=court+of+appeals+sends+back+mac+urban+growth+plan--1310828590--1191--home-news
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.