2017 ORS 197.320¹
Power of commission to order compliance with goals and plans

The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall issue an order requiring a local government, state agency or special district to take action necessary to bring its comprehensive plan, land use regulation, limited land use decisions or other land use decisions into compliance with the goals, acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions or land use regulations if the commission has good cause to believe:

(1) A comprehensive plan or land use regulation adopted by a local government not on a compliance schedule is not in compliance with the goals by the date set in ORS 197.245 (Commission amendment of initial goals) or 197.250 (Compliance with goals required) for such compliance;

(2) A plan, program, rule or regulation affecting land use adopted by a state agency or special district is not in compliance with the goals by the date set in ORS 197.245 (Commission amendment of initial goals) or 197.250 (Compliance with goals required) for such compliance;

(3) A local government is not making satisfactory progress toward performance of its compliance schedule;

(4) A state agency is not making satisfactory progress in carrying out its coordination agreement or the requirements of ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities);

(5) A local government has no comprehensive plan or land use regulation and is not on a compliance schedule directed to developing the plan or regulation;

(6) A local government has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision making that violates an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. In making its determination under this subsection, the commission shall determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the decisions made. The commission shall not judge the issue solely upon adequacy of the findings in support of the decisions;

(7) A local government has failed to comply with a commission order entered under ORS 197.644 (Modification of work program);

(8) A special district has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision-making that violates an acknowledged comprehensive plan or cooperative agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 197.020 (Land use decision considerations);

(9) A special district is not making satisfactory progress toward performance of its obligations under ORS chapters 195 and 197;

(10) A local government’s approval standards, special conditions on approval of specific development proposals or procedures for approval do not comply with ORS 197.307 (Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas) (4) or (6);

(11) A local government is not making satisfactory progress toward meeting its obligations under ORS 195.065 (Agreements required); or

(12) A local government within the jurisdiction of a metropolitan service district has failed to make changes to the comprehensive plan or land use regulations to comply with the regional framework plan of the district or has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision-making that violates a requirement of the regional framework plan. [1977 c.664 §34; 1979 c.284 §123; 1981 c.748 §32; 1983 c.827 §58; 1987 c.729 §8; 1989 c.761 §2; 1991 c.612 §13; 1991 c.817 §24; 1993 c.804 §10; 1995 c.547 §4; 2003 c.793 §2; 2007 c.176 §3; 2015 c.374 §1]

Notes of Decisions

This statute does not confer authority on LCDC to order local jurisdic­tion, as interim measure, to make specific land use decisions that would require its approval of certain applica­tions for subdivisions, parti­tions and building permits. City of Happy Valley v. LCDC, 66 Or App 803, 677 P2d 47 (1984), 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, 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.