2015 ORS 197.629¹
Schedule for periodic review
  • coordination

(1) The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall establish and maintain a schedule for periodic review of comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Except as necessary to coordinate approved periodic review work programs and to account for special circumstances that from time to time arise, the schedule shall reflect the following timelines:

(a) A city with a population of more than 2,500 within a metropolitan planning organization or a metropolitan service district shall conduct periodic review every seven years after completion of the previous periodic review; and

(b) A city with a population of 10,000 or more inside its urban growth boundary that is not within a metropolitan planning organization shall conduct periodic review every 10 years after completion of the previous periodic review.

(2) A county with a portion of its population within the urban growth boundary of a city subject to periodic review under this section shall conduct periodic review for that portion of the county according to the schedule and work program set for the city.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, if the schedule set for the county is specific as to that portion of the county within the urban growth boundary of a city subject to periodic review under this section, the county shall conduct periodic review for that portion of the county according to the schedule and work program set for the county.

(4) If the Land Conservation and Development Commission pays the costs of a local government that is not subject to subsection (1) of this section to perform new work programs and work tasks, the commission may require the local government to complete periodic review when the local government has not completed periodic review within the previous five years if:

(a) A city has been growing faster than the annual population growth rate of the state for five consecutive years;

(b) A major transportation project on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program that is approved for funding by the Oregon Transportation Commission is likely to:

(A) Have a significant impact on a city or an urban unincorporated community; or

(B) Be significantly affected by growth and development in a city or an urban unincorporated community;

(c) A major facility, including a prison, is sited or funded by a state agency; or

(d) Approval by the city or county of a facility for a major employer will increase employment opportunities and significantly affect the capacity of housing and public facilities in the city or urban unincorporated community.

(5) The Land Conservation and Development Commission may schedule periodic review for a local government earlier than provided in subsection (1) of this section if necessary to ensure that all local governments in a region whose land use decisions would significantly affect other local governments in the region are conducting periodic review concurrently, but not sooner than five years after completion of the previous periodic review.

(6) A city or county that is not required to complete periodic review under subsection (1) of this section may request periodic review by the commission.

(7) Upon request by a city, the Land Conservation and Development Commission may permit a city to undergo periodic review for the limited purpose of completing changes to proposed amendments to a comprehensive plan and land use regulations required on remand after review by the commission under ORS 197.626 (Submission of land use decisions that expand urban growth boundary or designate urban or rural reserves) (1)(b). If periodic review is initiated under this subsection, the city may adopt, and the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development may approve, a work program that includes only the changes required on remand.

(8) As used in this section, metropolitan planning organization means an organization located wholly within the State of Oregon and designated by the Governor to coordinate transportation planning in an urbanized area of the state pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(c). [1999 c.622 §10; 2001 c.527 §3; 2005 c.829 §2; 2015 c.261 §1]

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 countys 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 I, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano197.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.