ORS 197.768¹
Local government or special district adoption of public facilities strategy
  • public hearing
  • written findings

(1) As used in this section, "special district" has the meaning given that term in ORS 197.505 (Definitions for ORS 197.505 to 197.540).

(2)(a) A local government or special district may adopt a public facilities strategy if the public facilities strategy:

(A)(i) Is acknowledged under ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment); or

(ii) Is approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals); and

(B) Meets the requirements of this section.

(b) If a special district seeks to implement a public facilities strategy, that special district is considered a local government for the purposes of ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment) and 197.628 (Periodic review) to 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals).

(3) A local government or special district may adopt a public facilities strategy only if the local government or special district:

(a) Makes written findings justifying the need for the public facilities strategy;

(b) Holds a public hearing on the adoption of a public facilities strategy and the findings that support the adoption of the public facilities strategy; and

(c) Provides written notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 45 days prior to the final public hearing that is held to consider the adoption of the public facilities strategy.

(4) At a minimum, the findings under subsection (3) of this section must demonstrate that:

(a) There is a rapid increase in the rate or intensity of land development in a specific geographic area that was unanticipated at the time the original planning for that area was adopted or there has been a natural disaster or other catastrophic event in a specific geographic area;

(b) The total land development expected within the specific geographic area will exceed the planned or existing capacity of public facilities; and

(c) The public facilities strategy is structured to ensure that the necessary supply of housing and commercial and industrial facilities that will be impacted within the relevant geographic area is not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the public facilities strategy.

(5) A public facilities strategy shall include a clear, objective and detailed description of actions and practices a local government or special district may engage in to control the time and sequence of development approvals in response to the identified deficiencies in public facilities.

(6) A public facilities strategy shall be effective for no more than 24 months after the date on which it is adopted, but may be extended, subject to subsection (7) of this section, provided the local government or special district adopting the public facilities strategy holds a public hearing on the proposed extension and adopts written findings that:

(a) Verify that the problem giving rise to the need for a public facilities strategy still exists;

(b) Demonstrate that reasonable progress is being made to alleviate the problem giving rise to the need for a public facilities strategy; and

(c) Set a specific duration for the extension of the public facilities strategy.

(7)(a) A local government or special district considering an extension of a public facilities strategy shall give the department notice at least 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the extension.

(b) A single extension may not exceed one year, and a public facilities strategy may not be extended more than three times. [1995 c.463 §5; 2001 c.557 §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 (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. Currency Information