197.010
Policy. The
Legislative Assembly declares that:
(1) In order to
ensure the highest possible level of livability in Oregon, it is necessary to
provide for properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities
and counties, regional areas and the state as a whole. These comprehensive
plans:
(a) Must be
adopted by the appropriate governing body at the local and state levels;
(b) Are
expressions of public policy in the form of policy statements, generalized maps
and standards and guidelines;
(c) Shall be the
basis for more specific rules and land use regulations which implement the
policies expressed through the comprehensive plans;
(d) Shall be
prepared to assure that all public actions are consistent and coordinated with
the policies expressed through the comprehensive plans; and
(e) Shall be
regularly reviewed and, if necessary, amended to keep them consistent with the
changing needs and desires of the public they are designed to serve.
(2)(a) The
overarching principles guiding the land use program in the State of Oregon are
to:
(A) Provide a
healthy environment;
(B) Sustain a
prosperous economy;
(C) Ensure a
desirable quality of life; and
(D) Equitably
allocate the benefits and burdens of land use planning.
(b) Additionally,
the land use program should, but is not required to, help communities achieve
sustainable development patterns and manage the effects of climate change.
(c) The
overarching principles in paragraph (a) of this subsection and the purposes in
paragraph (b) of this subsection provide guidance to:
(A) The
Legislative Assembly when enacting a law regulating land use.
(B) A public
body, as defined in ORS 174.109, when the public body:
(i) Adopts or
interprets goals, comprehensive plans and land use regulations implementing the
plans, or administrative rules implementing a provision of ORS chapter 195,
196, 197, 197A, 215 or 227; or
(ii) Interprets a
law governing land use.
(d) Use of the
overarching principles in paragraph (a) of this subsection and the purposes in
paragraph (b) of this subsection is not a legal requirement for the Legislative
Assembly or other public body and is not judicially enforceable.
(3) The equitable
balance between state and local government interests can best be achieved by
resolution of conflicts using alternative dispute resolution techniques such as
mediation, collaborative planning and arbitration. Such dispute resolution techniques
are particularly suitable for conflicts arising over periodic review,
comprehensive plan and land use regulations, amendments, enforcement issues and
local interpretation of state land use policy. [1973 c.80 §2; 1981 c.748 §21a;
1993 c.792 §48; 2009 c.873 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 2× “We allowed review of petitioner 1000 Friends of Oregon's (1000 Friends) challenge to LCDC's acknowledgment of the comprehensive land use plan for Curry County (the county) to address that question and to clarify principles of the planning system which the legislature intended…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).
“” ORS 197.010 makes this policy statement: “The Legislative Assembly declares that, in order to assure the highest possible level of liveability in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities and counties, regional…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982).
“” ORS 197.010: “The Legislative Assembly declares that, in order to assure the highest possible level of liveability in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities and counties, regional areas and the state as a whole.”
Coopman v. City of Eugene, 534 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 197.010(1)(d); see also ORS 197.175(2)(b), (d) (requiring each city and county to “[e]nact land use reg- ulations to implement their comprehensive plans,” and, “[i]f [the city or county’s] comprehensive plan and land use regu- lations have been acknowledged by [LCDC], make…”
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “As the history demonstrates, 247 Or App at 65-66, the legislature enacted the repose period in HB 3166 to effectuate a more equitable balance between the rights of individuals who were entitled to notice of certain land use decisions but had not received such notice and the…”
Colwell v. Washington Cnty., 718 P.2d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“the governing body first conducts one or more public hearings on the plan and unless 10 days’ advance public notice of each of the hearings is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or, in case the plan as it is to be heard concerns only part of the…”
1000 Friends v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 2× “We allowed review of petitioner 1000 Friends of Oregon’s (1000 Friends) challenge to LCDC’s acknowledgment of the comprehensive land use plan for Curry County (the county) to address that question and to clarify principles of the planning system which the legislature intended…”
Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. v. City of Beaverton, 888 P.2d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The city points out that Section 1(3) of SB 573 states the legislature ‘reaffirms its commitment to the provisions of ORS 197.010 and to the partnership between the local government and the state in carrying out [its] provisions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(1) — 3 cases
Colwell v. Washington Cnty., 718 P.2d 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“the governing body first conducts one or more public hearings on the plan and unless 10 days’ advance public notice of each of the hearings is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or, in case the plan as it is to be heard concerns only part of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(1)(d) — 2 cases
Coopman v. City of Eugene, 534 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“” ORS 197.010(1)(d); see also ORS 197.175(2)(b), (d) (requiring each city and county to “[e]nact land use reg- ulations to implement their comprehensive plans,” and, “[i]f [the city or county’s] comprehensive plan and land use regu- lations have been acknowledged by [LCDC], make…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(2)(a)(D) — 1 case
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“As the history demonstrates, 247 Or App at 65-66, the legislature enacted the repose period in HB 3166 to effectuate a more equitable balance between the rights of individuals who were entitled to notice of certain land use decisions but had not received such notice and the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(2)(c)(A) — 1 case
Jones v. Douglas Cnty., 270 P.3d 264 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“As the history demonstrates, 247 Or App at 65-66, the legislature enacted the repose period in HB 3166 to effectuate a more equitable balance between the rights of individuals who were entitled to notice of certain land use decisions but had not received such notice and the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(l)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(l)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.010(l)(d) — 1 case
Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. v. City of Beaverton, 888 P.2d 74 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“The city points out that Section 1(3) of SB 573 states the legislature ‘reaffirms its commitment to the provisions of ORS 197.010 and to the partnership between the local government and the state in carrying out [its] provisions.”
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.