Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230 (2026)

Considerations; finding of need required for adoption or amendment of goal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      197.230 Considerations; finding of need required for adoption or amendment of goal. (1) In preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Land Conservation and Development Commission shall:

      (a) Assess:

      (A) What economic and property interests will be, or are likely to be, affected by the proposed goal or guideline;

      (B) The likely degree of economic impact on identified property and economic interests; and

      (C) Whether alternative actions are available that would achieve the underlying lawful governmental objective and would have a lesser economic impact.

      (b) Consider the existing comprehensive plans of local governments and the plans and programs affecting land use of state agencies and special districts in order to preserve functional and local aspects of land conservation and development.

      (c) Give consideration to the following areas and activities:

      (A) Lands adjacent to freeway interchanges;

      (B) Estuarine areas;

      (C) Tide, marsh and wetland areas;

      (D) Lakes and lakeshore areas;

      (E) Wilderness, recreational and outstanding scenic areas;

      (F) Beaches, dunes, coastal headlands and related areas;

      (G) Wild and scenic rivers and related lands;

      (H) Floodplains and areas of geologic hazard;

      (I) Unique wildlife habitats; and

      (J) Agricultural land.

      (d) Make a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal.

      (e) Design goals to allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in the application of goals by state agencies, cities, counties and special districts.

      (2) Goals shall not be land management regulations for specified geographic areas established through designation of an area of critical state concern under ORS 197.405.

      (3) The requirements of subsection (1)(a) of this section shall not be interpreted as requiring an assessment for each lot or parcel that could be affected by the proposed rule.

      (4) The commission may exempt cities with a population less than 10,000, or those areas of a county inside an urban growth boundary that contain a population less than 10,000, from all or any part of land use planning goals, guidelines and administrative rules that relate to transportation planning. [1973 c.80 §34; 1977 c.664 §17; 1981 c.748 §17; 1983 c.740 §50; 1995 c.299 §2; 1999 c.784 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997).
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). · cites it 5× “ORS 197.230-(l)(c)(J). 2 Pursuant to its mandate, LCDC adopted a total of 19 statewide planning goals, with implementing guidelines, that serve as the standards governing land use planning in Oregon.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982). · cites it 4× “ORS 197.230 and 197.235 to 197.245. It is not clear, and we need not decide, whether the procedures are in lieu of or in addition to APA procedures.”
Meyer v. Lord, 586 P.2d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “230 by section 17 of this 1977 Act shall only apply to new goals adopted or revisions of existing goals made by the commission after the effective date of the 1977 Act, based on the prospective application of statutes.” 2 ORS 197.”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “The last three paragraphs of section 3 state: *231 U* * * * * “The Commission conclusion is further supported by the Commission obligation in ORS 197.230(1) to ‘consider existing comprehensive plans of local governments * * * in order to preserve functional aspects of land…”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “LCDC, 292 Or 735, 748 , 642 P2d 1158, 1166 (1982); see generally ORS 197.230(1) (Or Laws 1973, ch 80, § 34).”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 259 P.3d 1021 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “628(1) requires that the plan and implementing land use regulations be periodically updated “to respond to changes in local, regional and state conditions to ensure that the plans and regulations remain in *246 compliance with the statewide planning goals adopted pursuant to ORS…”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. Yamhill Cnty., 783 P.2d 16 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “225; ORS 197.230; 1000 Friends v. LCDC, 292 Or 735, 744 , 642 P2d 1158 (1982).”
GUNDERSON, LLC. v. City of Portland, 259 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That structure is further evident in ORS 197.230, which requires LCDC to develop goals that can be applied with a reasonable degree of flexibility by local governments: “(1) In preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines, the Department of Land Conservation and…”
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 809 P.2d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “335(2) (b)(B) and on ORS 197.230(1) for the proposition that the notice had to contain that information.”
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “230(1)(d) (requiring LCDC to “[m]ake a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal”) with ORS 197.230(1)(a) (requiring LCDC to “assess” three factors in “preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines”) and ORS 197.”
Thompson v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 204 P.3d 808 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “243 * * * and the land use planning goals adopted under ORS 197.230.” ORS 215.243 sets forth Oregon’s agricultural land use policy, 1 and the land use planning goal promulgated by LCDC to effectuate that policy — “Goal 3” — provides, in part: “The Legislative Assembly finds and…”
Manning v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 109 P.3d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “628(1) provides: “It is the policy of the State of Oregon to require the periodic review of comprehensive plans and land use regulations in order to respond to changes in local, regional and state conditions to ensure that the plans and regulations remain in compliance with the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(1) — 4 cases
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982). “ORS 197.230 and 197.235 to 197.245. It is not clear, and we need not decide, whether the procedures are in lieu of or in addition to APA procedures.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985). “LCDC, 292 Or 735, 748 , 642 P2d 1158, 1166 (1982); see generally ORS 197.230(1) (Or Laws 1973, ch 80, § 34).”
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “The last three paragraphs of section 3 state: *231 U* * * * * “The Commission conclusion is further supported by the Commission obligation in ORS 197.230(1) to ‘consider existing comprehensive plans of local governments * * * in order to preserve functional aspects of land…”
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 809 P.2d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “335(2) (b)(B) and on ORS 197.230(1) for the proposition that the notice had to contain that information.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(1)(a) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “230(1)(d) (requiring LCDC to “[m]ake a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal”) with ORS 197.230(1)(a) (requiring LCDC to “assess” three factors in “preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines”) and ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(1)(b) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “230(1)(d) (requiring LCDC to “[m]ake a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal”) with ORS 197.230(1)(a) (requiring LCDC to “assess” three factors in “preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines”) and ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(1)(d) — 1 case
City of Cornelius v. Dept. of Land Conservation (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “230(1)(d) (requiring LCDC to “[m]ake a finding of statewide need for the adoption of any new goal or the amendment of any existing goal”) with ORS 197.230(1)(a) (requiring LCDC to “assess” three factors in “preparing, adopting and amending goals and guidelines”) and ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(2)(j) — 1 case
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “ORS 197.230-(l)(c)(J). 2 Pursuant to its mandate, LCDC adopted a total of 19 statewide planning goals, with implementing guidelines, that serve as the standards governing land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(3) — 1 case
Oregonians in Action v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 809 P.2d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “335(2) (b)(B) and on ORS 197.230(1) for the proposition that the notice had to contain that information.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(4) — 1 case
Marion Cnty. v. Fed'n for Sound Plan., 668 P.2d 406 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “The last three paragraphs of section 3 state: *231 U* * * * * “The Commission conclusion is further supported by the Commission obligation in ORS 197.230(1) to ‘consider existing comprehensive plans of local governments * * * in order to preserve functional aspects of land…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(l)(c) — 1 case
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 642 P.2d 1158 (Or. 1982). “ORS 197.230 and 197.235 to 197.245. It is not clear, and we need not decide, whether the procedures are in lieu of or in addition to APA procedures.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(l)(c)(J) — 1 case
Lane Cnty. v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 942 P.2d 278 (Or. 1997). “ORS 197.230-(l)(c)(J). 2 Pursuant to its mandate, LCDC adopted a total of 19 statewide planning goals, with implementing guidelines, that serve as the standards governing land use planning in Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 197.230(l)(d) — 1 case
Meyer v. Lord, 586 P.2d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “230 by section 17 of this 1977 Act shall only apply to new goals adopted or revisions of existing goals made by the commission after the effective date of the 1977 Act, based on the prospective application of statutes.” 2 ORS 197.”
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.