268.380
Land-use planning goals and activities; coordination; review of local plans. (1) A district may:
(a) Adopt
land-use planning goals and objectives for the district consistent with goals
adopted under ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A;
(b) Review the
comprehensive plans in effect on January 1, 1979, or subsequently adopted by
the cities and counties within the district and recommend that cities and
counties, as the district considers necessary, make changes in any plan to
ensure that the plan conforms to the district’s metropolitan area goals and
objectives and the statewide goals;
(c) Coordinate
the land-use planning activities of that portion of the cities and counties
within the district; and
(d) Coordinate
its activities and the related activities of the cities and counties within the
district with the land-use planning development activities of the federal
government, other local governmental bodies situated within this state or
within any other state and any agency of this state or another state.
(2) When a
district is required by a district charter to adopt a regional framework plan,
the regional framework plan shall include and be consistent with land use
planning goals and objectives adopted by the district. [1977 c.665 §17; 1979
c.804 §11; 1997 c.833 §15; 2001 c.672 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case:
Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “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. ORS 197.015(14); ORS 268.020(3). Metro is responsible for coor- dinating…”
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“See ORS 268.380(1). Metro and petitioners responded that LUBA lacked jurisdiction 2 and that Metro was not required to demonstrate goal compliance for the freeway project in connection with the contingent recommendation adopted in the update.”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “at § 17, codified as ORS 268.380 (1977). The statute required Metro to adopt “functional plans” to deal with particular issues of districtwide impact, including air quality, water quality, and transportation.”
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…”
League of Women Voters v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 781 P.2d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“190(1); ORS 268.380(3); and that, although Metro does not have a general comprehensive plan per se, “Metro’s UGB becomes a part of the comprehensive plan of the local governments within its boundaries.”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum, 345 P.3d 436 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 268.380 is amended as follows: (1) A district may: [(a) Adopt land-use planning goals and objectives for the district consistent with goals adopted under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197;] [(b) Review the comprehensive plans in effect on January I.”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “at § 17, codified as ORS 268.380 (1977). The statute required Metro to adopt "functional plans" to deal with particular issues of district-wide impact, including air quality, water quality, and transportation.”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2015).
“ORS 268.380 is amended as follows: (1) A district may: [(a) Adopt land-use planning goals and objectives for the district consistent with goals adopted under ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197;] [(b) Review the comprehensive plans in effect on January I.”
Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 40 P.3d 556 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“They contend that that is simply beside the point, because Metro’s obligation to ensure consistency with the RFP also is rooted in ORS 268.380(2), which provides: “When a district is required by a district charter to adopt a regional framework plan, the regional framework plan…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.380(1) — 1 case
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“See ORS 268.380(1). Metro and petitioners responded that LUBA lacked jurisdiction 2 and that Metro was not required to demonstrate goal compliance for the freeway project in connection with the contingent recommendation adopted in the update.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.380(2) — 1 case
Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 40 P.3d 556 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“They contend that that is simply beside the point, because Metro’s obligation to ensure consistency with the RFP also is rooted in ORS 268.380(2), which provides: “When a district is required by a district charter to adopt a regional framework plan, the regional framework plan…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.380(3) — 1 case
League of Women Voters v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 781 P.2d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“190(1); ORS 268.380(3); and that, although Metro does not have a general comprehensive plan per se, “Metro’s UGB becomes a part of the comprehensive plan of the local governments within its boundaries.”
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.