2017 ORS 197.299¹
Metropolitan service district analysis of buildable land supply
  • schedule for accommodating needed housing
  • need for land for school
  • extension of schedule
  • revision of determination and analysis

(1) A metropolitan service district organized under ORS chapter 268 shall complete the inventory, determination and analysis required under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (3) not later than six years after completion of the previous inventory, determination and analysis.

(2)(a) The metropolitan service district shall take such action as necessary under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (6)(a) to accommodate one-half of a 20-year buildable land supply determined under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (3) within one year of completing the analysis.

(b) The metropolitan service district shall take all final action under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (6)(a) necessary to accommodate a 20-year buildable land supply determined under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (3) within two years of completing the analysis.

(c) The metropolitan service district shall take action under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (6)(b), within one year after the analysis required under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (3)(b) is completed, to provide sufficient buildable land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate the estimated housing needs for 20 years from the time the actions are completed. The metropolitan service district shall consider and adopt new measures that the governing body deems appropriate under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary) (6)(b).

(3) The Land Conservation and Development Commission may grant an extension to the time limits of subsection (2) of this section if the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development determines that the metropolitan service district has provided good cause for failing to meet the time limits.

(4)(a) The metropolitan service district shall establish a process to expand the urban growth boundary to accommodate a need for land for a public school that cannot reasonably be accommodated within the existing urban growth boundary. The metropolitan service district shall design the process to:

(A) Accommodate a need that must be accommodated between periodic analyses of urban growth boundary capacity required by subsection (1) of this section; and

(B) Provide for a final decision on a proposal to expand the urban growth boundary within four months after submission of a complete application by a large school district as defined in ORS 195.110 (School facility plan for large school districts).

(b) At the request of a large school district, the metropolitan service district shall assist the large school district to identify school sites required by the school facility planning process described in ORS 195.110 (School facility plan for large school districts). A need for a public school is a specific type of identified land need under ORS 197.298 (Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary) (3).

(5) Three years after completing its most recent demonstration of sufficient buildable lands under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary), a metropolitan service district may, on a single occasion, revise the determination and analysis required as part of the demonstration for the purpose of considering an amendment to the metropolitan service district’s urban growth boundary, provided:

(a) The metropolitan service district has entered into an intergovernmental agreement and has designated rural reserves and urban reserves under ORS 195.141 (Designation of rural reserves and urban reserves pursuant to intergovernmental agreement) and 195.145 (Urban reserves) with each county located within the district;

(b) The commission has acknowledged the rural reserve and urban reserve designations described in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(c) One or more cities within the metropolitan service district have proposed a development that would require expansion of the urban growth boundary;

(d) The city or cities proposing the development have provided evidence to the metropolitan service district that the proposed development would provide additional needed housing to the needed housing included in the most recent determination and analysis;

(e) The location chosen for the proposed development is adjacent to the city proposing the development; and

(f) The location chosen for the proposed development is located within an area designated and acknowledged as an urban reserve.

(6)(a) If a metropolitan service district, after revising its most recent determination and analysis pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, concludes that an expansion of its urban growth boundary is warranted, the metropolitan service district may take action to expand its urban growth boundary in one or more locations to accommodate the proposed development, provided the urban growth boundary expansion does not exceed a total of 1,000 acres.

(b) A metropolitan service district that expands its urban growth boundary under this subsection:

(A) Must adopt the urban growth boundary expansion not more than four years after completing its most recent demonstration of sufficient buildable lands under ORS 197.296 (Factors to establish sufficiency of buildable lands within urban growth boundary); and

(B) Is exempt from the boundary location requirements described in the statewide land use planning goals relating to urbanization. [1997 c.763 §2; 2001 c.908 §2; 2005 c.590 §1; 2007 c.579 §2; 2014 c.92 §5; 2017 c.199 §1]

Law Review Cita­tions

93 OLR 455 (2014)

Law Review Cita­tions

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

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.