2017 ORS 197.652¹
Regional problem-solving process

(1) At the request of a county and at least one other local government in a region, the Department of Land Conservation and Development, other state agencies, as defined in ORS 171.133 (Approval of Governor required for state agency measure introduction), metropolitan planning organizations, special districts and advisory committees on transportation may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process.

(2) If requested to participate, the department shall assist the county with the process and encourage regional efforts to resolve land use planning problems using the authorities described in ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan).

(3) The county, in cooperation with the other local governments, shall identify the land use planning problems to be addressed and the participants whose actions are necessary to resolve the land use planning problems.

(4) The county shall submit a proposed work scope and a proposed list of participants as a proposal to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review. The commission shall review:

(a) The proposed work scope to determine whether it can reasonably be completed within the time allowed;

(b) The proposed participant list to determine whether it includes, at a minimum, all local governments that will need to amend a comprehensive plan provision or a land use regulation, or adopt a new provision or regulation, in order to resolve the land use planning problems identified in the work scope; and

(c) The proposed work scope and the proposed participant list for consistency.

(5) A county may initiate amendments of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation under ORS 197.652 (Regional problem-solving process) to 197.658 (Modifying local work plan) only if the commission approves the work scope, the list of participants and a schedule for completion of the process. The schedule for completion of the process may:

(a) Not exceed three years except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

(b) Be extended by the commission for up to one year for good cause shown.

(6) The decision of a county to submit a proposal under this section, and the decision of the commission to approve a proposal, are not final actions subject to judicial review.

(7) If the commission approves a proposal under this section, the county must periodically report on the progress in carrying out the proposal, as specified by the commission.

(8) For purposes of ORS 197.654 (Regional problem-solving goals, actions and agreements) and 197.656 (Commission approval of comprehensive plans not in compliance with goals), the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process include all participants on the list of participants approved by the commission unless the commission subsequently approves the addition or removal of a participant. [1996 c.6 §3; 1997 c.365 §1; 2009 c.873 §8]

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.