Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175 (2026)

Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities; rules on incorporations; compliance with goals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

197.175 Cities’ and counties’ planning responsibilities; rules on incorporations; compliance with goals. (1) Cities and counties shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities, including, but not limited to, a city or special district boundary change which shall mean the annexation of unincorporated territory by a city, the incorporation of a new city and the formation or change of organization of or annexation to any special district authorized by ORS 198.705 to 198.955, 199.410 to 199.534 or 451.010 to 451.620, in accordance with ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A and the goals approved under ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules clarifying how the goals apply to the incorporation of a new city. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15, chapter 827, Oregon Laws 1983, the rules shall take effect upon adoption by the commission. The applicability of rules promulgated under this section to the incorporation of cities prior to August 9, 1983, shall be determined under the laws of this state.

(2) Pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A, each city and county in this state shall:

(a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission;

(b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;

(c) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have not been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the goals;

(d) If its comprehensive plan and land use regulations have been acknowledged by the commission, make land use decisions and limited land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged plan and land use regulations; and

(e) Make land use decisions and limited land use decisions subject to an unacknowledged amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation in compliance with those land use goals applicable to the amendment.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the commission shall not initiate by its own action any annexation of unincorporated territory pursuant to ORS 222.111 to 222.750 or formation of and annexation of territory to any district authorized by ORS 198.510 to 198.915 or 451.010 to 451.620. [1973 c.80 §§17,18; 1977 c.664 §12; 1981 c.748 §15; 1983 c.827 §3; 1989 c.761 §18; 1991 c.817 §21; 1993 c.792 §45; 1999 c.348 §4]

197.178 [1997 c.763 §5; 2011 c.354 §1; 2017 c.745 §9; repealed by 2023 c.13 §39]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 101 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). · cites it 22× “19 The problem with LCDC’s theory regarding the effect of incorporation is that the analysis fails to distinguish a county’s participation in the incorporation process from the subsequent action of a new city exercising its planning responsibilities in accordance with ORS…”

Petersen v. Mayor Etc. City of Klamath Falls, 566 P.2d 1193 (Or. 1977). · cites it 15× “In our view, our interpretation of ORS 197.175 also is more consistent with the internal structure of that statute than the interpretation adopted by the Court of Appeals.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 659 P.2d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 17× “We conclude that the legislature intended that incorporation decisions under ORS chapter 221 also fall within the statutory category of “planning * * * responsibilities” that counties must exercise in accordance with the applicable statewide planning goals pursuant to ORS…”

Alexanderson v. Bd. of Commissioners, 616 P.2d 459 (Or. 1980). · cites it 10× “The county relies on ORS 197.175, which directs cities and counties to "exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities" in accordance with state laws and statewide planning goals.”

Coopman v. City of Eugene, 534 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “In its separately filed brief, respondent Home Builders Association of Lane County argues that, in enact- ing the middle housing statute, the legislature intended to override the ordinary land-use framework altogether, including the requirements of ORS 197.175 and provisions…”

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). · cites it 6× “It is entitled "Administrative Rule for Application of the Statewide Planning Goals to the Incorporation of New Cities," and the section on its purpose provides: "ORS 197.175 requires cities and counties to exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities in compliance with…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 679 P.2d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 14× “We conclude in this appeal that, because Goal 14 regulates urbanization and conversion by requiring a specific process to be followed and a specific decision to be made after incorporation, the decision to incorporate cannot have an independent or direct effect on present or…”

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). · cites it 7× “ORS 197.175(1). To serve that purpose, the statutes direct each city and county to prepare and adopt a “comprehensive plan” for land use decisions.”

City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 653 P.2d 992 (Or. 1982). · cites it 5× “The City of Pendleton’s comprehensive planning duties are set out in ORS 197.175, 5 which provides in pertinent part: “(1) Cities * * * shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities * * * in accordance with ORS 197.”

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Cnty., Etc., 581 P.2d 50 (Or. 1978). · cites it 2× “4 The statute requiring cities to "adopt” comprehensive plans is ORS 197.175(2), which provides, in pertinent part: "Pursuant to [state statute], each city and county in this state shall: "(a) Prepare and adopt comprehensive plans * * *” As indicated by this provision, cities…”

Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 706 P.2d 949 (Or. 1985). · cites it 7× “City of Rajneeshpuram, 10 Or LUBA 88, 100 (1984) (original emphasis). The city assigns this as error, claiming that annexation is a “political decision which changes political boundaries, but has no effect on land use.”

State Hous. Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 635 P.2d 647 (Or. 1981). · cites it 4× “One is ORS 197.175, supra n. 1, which obliges cities and counties to "exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities .”

Show all 101 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(1) — 29 cases

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “19 The problem with LCDC’s theory regarding the effect of incorporation is that the analysis fails to distinguish a county’s participation in the incorporation process from the subsequent action of a new city exercising its planning responsibilities in accordance with ORS…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 659 P.2d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “We conclude that the legislature intended that incorporation decisions under ORS chapter 221 also fall within the statutory category of “planning * * * responsibilities” that counties must exercise in accordance with the applicable statewide planning goals pursuant to ORS…”

Petersen v. Mayor Etc. City of Klamath Falls, 566 P.2d 1193 (Or. 1977). “In our view, our interpretation of ORS 197.175 also is more consistent with the internal structure of that statute than the interpretation adopted by the Court of Appeals.”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 679 P.2d 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “We conclude in this appeal that, because Goal 14 regulates urbanization and conversion by requiring a specific process to be followed and a specific decision to be made after incorporation, the decision to incorporate cannot have an independent or direct effect on present or…”

Alexanderson v. Bd. of Commissioners, 616 P.2d 459 (Or. 1980). “The county relies on ORS 197.175, which directs cities and counties to "exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities" in accordance with state laws and statewide planning goals.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2) — 30 cases

Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Cnty., Etc., 581 P.2d 50 (Or. 1978). “4 The statute requiring cities to "adopt” comprehensive plans is ORS 197.175(2), which provides, in pertinent part: "Pursuant to [state statute], each city and county in this state shall: "(a) Prepare and adopt comprehensive plans * * *” As indicated by this provision, cities…”

Barkers Five, LLC v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 323 P.3d 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 533 P.2d 772 (Or. 1975).

City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 653 P.2d 992 (Or. 1982). “The City of Pendleton’s comprehensive planning duties are set out in ORS 197.175, 5 which provides in pertinent part: “(1) Cities * * * shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities * * * in accordance with ORS 197.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2)(a) — 19 cases

Coopman v. City of Eugene, 534 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “In its separately filed brief, respondent Home Builders Association of Lane County argues that, in enact- ing the middle housing statute, the legislature intended to override the ordinary land-use framework altogether, including the requirements of ORS 197.175 and provisions…”

Foland v. Jackson Cnty., 807 P.2d 801 (Or. 1991). “ORS 197.175(1). To serve that purpose, the statutes direct each city and county to prepare and adopt a “comprehensive plan” for land use decisions.”

Thunderbird Mobile Club, LLC v. City of Wilsonville, 228 P.3d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry Co.), 724 P.2d 268 (Or. 1986). “It is entitled "Administrative Rule for Application of the Statewide Planning Goals to the Incorporation of New Cities," and the section on its purpose provides: "ORS 197.175 requires cities and counties to exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities in compliance with…”

1000 Friends of Oregon v. Jackson Co., 718 P.2d 753 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2)(b) — 7 cases

Akiyama v. Tillamook Cnty., 333 Or. App. 315 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

McCollum v. State ex rel. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 286 P.3d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Knee Deep Cattle Co. v. Lane Cnty., 890 P.2d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

ZIRKER v. City of Bend, 227 P.3d 1174 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2)(c) — 9 cases

Friends of Neabeack Hill v. City of Philomath, 911 P.2d 350 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

State ex rel. Butler v. City of Bandon, 131 P.3d 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Perkins v. City of Rajneeshpuram, 706 P.2d 949 (Or. 1985). “City of Rajneeshpuram, 10 Or LUBA 88, 100 (1984) (original emphasis). The city assigns this as error, claiming that annexation is a “political decision which changes political boundaries, but has no effect on land use.”

Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2)(d) — 16 cases

Byrd v. Stringer, 666 P.2d 1332 (Or. 1983).

Meyer v. City of Portland, 678 P.2d 741 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(2)(e) — 2 cases

Opus Dev. Corp. v. City of Eugene, 918 P.2d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Cent. Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes Cnty., 457 P.3d 369 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.175(4)(c) — 1 case

Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach, 504 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

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.