2017 ORS 197.626¹
Submission of land use decisions that expand urban growth boundary or designate urban or rural reserves

(1) A local government shall submit for review and the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall review the following final land use decisions in the manner provided for review of a work task under ORS 197.633 (Two phases of periodic review) and subject to subsection (3) of this section:

(a) An amendment of an urban growth boundary by a metropolitan service district that adds more than 100 acres to the area within its urban growth boundary;

(b) An amendment of an urban growth boundary by a city with a population of 2,500 or more within its urban growth boundary that adds more than 50 acres to the area within the urban growth boundary;

(c) A designation of an area as an urban reserve under ORS 195.137 (Definitions for ORS 195.137 to 195.145) to 195.145 (Urban reserves) by a metropolitan service district or by a city with a population of 2,500 or more within its urban growth boundary;

(d) An amendment of the boundary of an urban reserve by a metropolitan service district;

(e) An amendment of the boundary of an urban reserve to add more than 50 acres to the urban reserve by a city with a population of 2,500 or more within its urban growth boundary; and

(f) A designation or an amendment to the designation of a rural reserve under ORS 195.137 (Definitions for ORS 195.137 to 195.145) to 195.145 (Urban reserves) by a county, in coordination with a metropolitan service district, and the amendment of the designation.

(2) When the commission reviews a final land use decision of a metropolitan service district under subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) or (f) of this section, the commission shall issue a final order in writing within 180 days after the commission votes whether to approve the decision.

(3) When reviewing an amendment of an urban growth boundary under subsection (1)(b) of this section and 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):

(a) At the request of and in coordination with the city, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall parse work tasks in a manner that allows the Department of Land Conservation and Development to issue final orders approving or remanding sequential phases required for completion of the work tasks, including a final order approving:

(A) An inventory of buildable lands and an opportunities analysis under a goal relating to economic activities or an inventory of buildable lands and a needs analysis under a goal relating to housing needs.

(B) An estimation of the land need under a goal relating to economic activities.

(C) Any response to the department regarding approval of the estimation of land need, including changes proposed to comprehensive plan designations or land use zones.

(b)(A) The director shall take action on each sequential phase of a work task described in paragraph (a) of this subsection not later than 90 days after the local government submits the phase for review, unless the local government waives the 90-day deadline or the commission grants the director an extension.

(B) If the director does not take action within the time period required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the sequential phase of the work task is deemed approved.

(c) The director may approve or remand a sequential phase of a work task or refer the phase of the work task to the commission for a decision. A decision by the director to approve or remand a phase of the work task may be appealed to the commission.

(d) The director shall provide a letter to the local government certifying the approval of each sequential phase of a work task, unless an interested party has filed a timely objection to the phase of the work task consistent with administrative rules for conducting periodic review.

(4) A final order of the commission under this section may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in the manner described in ORS 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals) and 197.651 (Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission). [1999 c.622 §14; 2001 c.672 §10; 2003 c.793 §4; 2007 c.723 §7; 2011 c.469 §1; 2014 c.92 §6; 2017 c.521 §1]

Law Review Cita­tions

93 OLR 455 (2014)

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.