2017 ORS 197.416¹
Metolius Area of Critical State Concern

(1) As used in this section, “Metolius Area of Critical State Concern” means the areas identified as Area 1 and Area 2 in the management plan recommended by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

(2) Pursuant to ORS 197.405 (Designation of areas of critical state concern) (4), the Legislative Assembly hereby approves the recommendation of the commission, submitted to the Legislative Assembly on April 2, 2009, that the Metolius Area of Critical State Concern be designated an area of critical state concern.

(3) The Legislative Assembly approves the management plan included in the commission’s recommendation pursuant to ORS 197.405 (Designation of areas of critical state concern) (1)(c) and directs the commission to adopt the management plan, by rule, without change except that:

(a) The management plan must require:

(A) The commission to give notice of proposed amendments to the management plan to the governing bodies of Jefferson County and of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation; and

(B) If either governing body files a written objection to the proposed amendments, the commission to adopt the proposed amendments only if the commission finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed amendments meet the requirements of subsection (5) of this section.

(b) The management plan must limit development of a small-scale recreation community within township 13 south, range 10 east, sections 20, 21, 28 and 29 in Jefferson County so that all units must be sited within up to 25 clusters that may be connected only by a road system. The commission may not enforce, and shall modify, a contrary provision in the management plan.

(c) Descriptions in the management plan of annual average water use must refer to annual average consumptive water use. The commission may not enforce, and shall modify, a contrary provision in the management plan.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the commission may amend the management plan only as provided in the management plan and only pursuant to applicable rulemaking procedures.

(5) In addition to limitations on development that are contained in the management plan, new development allowed by amendment of the management plan, except development allowed by the administrative amendments required by subsection (3) of this section, may not result in:

(a) Negative impact on the Metolius River, its springs or its tributaries;

(b) Negative impact on fish resources in the Metolius Area of Critical State Concern; or

(c) Negative impact on the wildlife resources in the Metolius Area of Critical State Concern.

(6) A county may not approve siting a destination resort in the Metolius Area of Critical State Concern. [2009 c.712 §1]

Note: 197.416 (Metolius Area of Critical State Concern) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 197 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

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.