2007 ORS 197.656¹
Commission acknowledgment of comprehensive plans not in compliance with goals
  • participation by state agencies
  • commission review of implementing regulations and plan amendments
  • use of resource lands

(1) Upon invitation by the local governments in a region, the Land Conservation and Development Commission and other state agencies may participate with the local governments in a collaborative regional problem-solving process.

(2) Following the procedures set forth in this subsection, the commission may acknowledge amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations, or new land use regulations, that do not fully comply with the rules of the commission that implement the statewide planning goals, without taking an exception, upon a determination that:

(a) The amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process;

(b) The regional problem-solving process has included agreement among the participants on:

(A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem that is the subject of the process;

(B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process;

(C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals for each regional problem that is the subject of the process;

(D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals;

(E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals; and

(F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals; and

(c) The agreement reached by regional problem-solving process participants and the implementing plan amendments and land use regulations conform, on the whole, with the purposes of the statewide planning goals.

(3) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or adopts a new land use regulation in order to implement an agreement reached in a regional problem-solving process shall submit the amendment or new regulation to the commission in the manner set forth in ORS 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals) for periodic review or set forth in ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment) for acknowledgment.

(4) The commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction for review of amendments or new regulations described in subsection (3) of this section. A participant or stakeholder in the collaborative regional problem-solving process shall not raise an issue before the commission on review that was not raised at the local level.

(5) If the commission denies an amendment or new regulation submitted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the commission shall issue a written statement describing the reasons for the denial and suggesting alternative methods for accomplishing the goals on a timely basis.

(6) If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of the region’s commercial agricultural or forestland base, or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732 (Goal exceptions). To identify land that is not part of the region’s commercial agricultural or forestland base, the participants shall consider the recommendation of a committee of persons appointed by the affected county, with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers, ranchers, foresters and soils scientists and representatives of the State Department of Agriculture, the State Department of Forestry and the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

(7) The Governor shall require all appropriate state agencies to participate in the collaborative regional problem-solving process. [1996 c.6 §5; 2001 c.672 §11]

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 (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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 197—Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 197, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­197ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
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.