2017 ORS 197.712¹
Commission duties
  • comprehensive plan provisions
  • public facility plans
  • state agency coordination plans
  • compliance deadline
  • rules

(1) In addition to the findings and policies set forth in ORS 197.005 (Legislative findings), 197.010 (Policy) and 215.243 (Agricultural land use policy), the Legislative Assembly finds and declares that, in carrying out statewide comprehensive land use planning, the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities throughout the state is vital to the health, welfare and prosperity of all the people of the state.

(2) By the adoption of new goals or rules, or the application, interpretation or amendment of existing goals or rules, the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall implement all of the following:

(a) Comprehensive plans shall include an analysis of the community’s economic patterns, potentialities, strengths and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends.

(b) Comprehensive plans shall contain policies concerning the economic development opportunities in the community.

(c) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations and service levels for industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies.

(d) Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for compatible uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses.

(e) A city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.

(f) In accordance with ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities), state agencies that provide funding for transportation, water supply, sewage and solid waste facilities shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate that funding with other state agencies and with the public facility plans of cities and counties. In addition, state agencies that issue permits affecting land use shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate permit issuance with other state agencies and cities and counties.

(g) Local governments shall provide:

(A) Reasonable opportunities to satisfy local and rural needs for residential and industrial development and other economic activities on appropriate lands outside urban growth boundaries, in a manner consistent with conservation of the state’s agricultural and forest land base; and

(B) Reasonable opportunities for urban residential, commercial and industrial needs over time through changes to urban growth boundaries.

(3) A comprehensive plan and land use regulations shall be in compliance with this section by the first periodic review of that plan and regulations. [1983 c.827 §17; 1991 c.612 §17]

Notes of Decisions

Goal pro­vi­sion making statutory require­ment applicable only to land within urban growth boundary is within authority of Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission to refine statutory policy. Port of St. Helens v. Land Conserva­tion and Develop­ment Commission, 165 Or App 487, 996 P2d 1014 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Goal 9, these sec­tions or imple­menting pro­vi­sions which localities must adopt pursuant to statute do not mandate approval of every land use proposal with potentially beneficial economic effects. Benjfran Develop­ment v. Metro. Service Dist., 95 Or App 22, 767 P2d 467 (1989)

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)

  • Oregon Business, Dec 3, 2010
    “Oregon Revised Statute 197.712 requires cities to develop a plan to supply enough wa­ter to feed their entire urban growth boundary. In Prineville, that amounts to an­oth­er 36,000 people . . .”
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.