195.025
Regional coordination of planning activities; alternatives. (1) In addition to the
responsibilities stated in ORS 197.175, each county, through its governing
body, shall be responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting
land uses within the county, including planning activities of the county, cities,
special districts and state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive
plan for the entire area of the county. In addition to being subject to the
provisions of ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A with respect to city or
special district boundary changes, as defined by ORS 197.175 (1), the governing
body of the metropolitan service district shall be considered the county
review, advisory and coordinative body for Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington
Counties for the areas within that district.
(2) For the
purposes of carrying out ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A, counties may
voluntarily join together with adjacent counties as authorized in ORS 190.003
to 190.620.
(3) Whenever
counties and cities representing 51 percent of the population in their area
petition the Land Conservation and Development Commission for an election in
their area to form a regional planning agency to exercise the authority of the
counties under subsection (1) of this section in the area, the commission shall
review the petition. If it finds that the area described in the petition forms
a reasonable planning unit, it shall call an election in the area on a date
specified in ORS 203.085, to form a regional planning agency. The election
shall be conducted in the manner provided in ORS chapter 255. The county clerk
shall be considered the elections officer and the commission shall be
considered the district elections authority. The agency shall be considered
established if the majority of votes favor the establishment.
(4) If a
voluntary association of local governments adopts a resolution ratified by each
participating county and a majority of the participating cities therein which
authorizes the association to perform the review, advisory and coordination
functions assigned to the counties under subsection (1) of this section, the
association may perform such duties. [Formerly 197.190]
Notes of Decisions
Polk Cnty. v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 176 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “In its third assignment, 1000 Friends contends that the residential zoning applied to the three communities is inconsistent with the adopted population projection for the area, and therefore violates Goal 2, Part I, and ORS 195.025 and ORS 195.036. In its fourth assignment, 1000…”
Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Metro, the Urban Growth Boundary, and Concept Plans Metro is a metropolitan service district estab- lished pursuant to ORS chapter 268 that includes land in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties.”
City of West Linn v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 119 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“ORS 195.025. It is expressly charged with the responsibility to complete the analysis of regional needs and buildable land supply that we have described, subject to specific deadlines not applicable to other local governments.”
City of Portland v. City of Beaverton, 886 P.2d 1084 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “190(1), see ORS 195.025, and applicable provisions of ORS chapter 268, the coordination and the resolution of any conflicts among the planning jurisdictions are within the exclusive authority of the Metropolitan Service District.”
Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. v. City of Medford, 880 P.2d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“Finally, there is no doubt that, in most areas of the state, including the one in question, counties are the governmental bodies that are responsible for coordinating planning activity, and their planning decisions prevail over those of special districts within the county.”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “385(1), for “all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties,” including activities instituted by cities, ORS 195.025(1). According to Hillsboro, this coordinative function requires Metro to “amend [Hillsboro’s] urban growth…”
Port of St. Helens v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 996 P.2d 1014 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“2 Petitioners’ reliance on the county’s regional coordination authority under ORS 195.025 is misplaced. The question in this case is whether LCDC’s order, which implicitly concludes that the county’s plan for its own territory does not comply with Goal 5, is erroneous.”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum, 345 P.3d 436 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “025 (1) [, or the Metropolitan Service District, which is assigned coordinative functions for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties by ORS 195.025 (1),] shall enter into a cooperative agreement with each special district that provides an urban service within the…”
Hous. Land Advocates v. LCDC, 492 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Metro Charter Section 5(4)(b), titled “density increase prohibited,” provides that “[n]either the Regional Framework Cite as 311 Or App 326 (2021) 329 Plan nor any Metro ordinance adopted to implement the plan shall require an increase in the density of single- family…”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “025 (l) [, or the Metropolitan Service District, which is assigned coordinative functions for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties by ORS 195.025 (1),] shall enter into a cooperative agreement with each special district that provides an urban service within the…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “385(1), for "all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties," including activities instituted by cities, ORS 195.025(1). According to Hillsboro, this coordinative function requires Metro to "amend [Hillsboro's] urban growth…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.025(1) — 2 cases
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“385(1), for “all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties,” including activities instituted by cities, ORS 195.025(1). According to Hillsboro, this coordinative function requires Metro to “amend [Hillsboro’s] urban growth…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“385(1), for "all planning activities affecting land uses within * * * Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties," including activities instituted by cities, ORS 195.025(1). According to Hillsboro, this coordinative function requires Metro to "amend [Hillsboro's] urban growth…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.