268.390
Planning for activities and areas with metropolitan impact; review of
comprehensive plans; urban growth boundary; regional framework plans. (1) A district may define and
apply a planning procedure that identifies and designates areas and activities
having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the
metropolitan area, including, but not limited to, impact on:
(a) Air quality;
(b) Water
quality; and
(c)
Transportation.
(2) A district
may prepare and adopt functional plans for those areas designated under
subsection (1) of this section to control metropolitan area impact on air and
water quality, transportation and other aspects of metropolitan area
development the district may identify.
(3)(a) A district
shall adopt an urban growth boundary for the district in compliance with
applicable goals adopted under ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 197A. When a
district includes land designated as urban reserve under ORS 197A.245 (1)(b)
within an urban growth boundary pursuant to ORS 197A.355 (1), the district is
not required to consider the capability classification system or the cubic foot
site class of the land as described in ORS 197A.355 (2).
(b)
Notwithstanding the procedural requirements for boundary changes under ORS
268.354, when the district adopts an urban growth boundary, the urban growth
boundary becomes the boundary of the district.
(4) A district
may review the comprehensive plans adopted by the cities and counties within
the district that affect areas designated by the district under subsection (1)
of this section or the urban growth boundary adopted under subsection (3) of
this section and recommend or require cities and counties, as it considers
necessary, to make changes in any plan to ensure that the plan and any actions
taken under the plan substantially comply with the district’s functional plans
adopted under subsection (2) of this section and its urban growth boundary
adopted under subsection (3) of this section.
(5) Pursuant to a
regional framework plan, a district may adopt implementing ordinances that:
(a) Require local
comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to substantially comply with
the regional framework plan within two years after compliance acknowledgment.
(b) Require
adjudication and determination by the district of the consistency of local
comprehensive plans with the regional framework plan.
(c) Require each
city and county within the jurisdiction of the district and making land use
decisions concerning lands within the land use jurisdiction of the district to
make those decisions consistent with the regional framework plan. The
obligation to apply the regional framework plan to land use decisions shall not
begin until one year after the regional framework plan is acknowledged as
complying with the statewide land use planning goals adopted under ORS chapters
195, 196, 197 and 197A.
(d) Require
changes in local land use standards and procedures if the district determines
that changes are necessary to remedy a pattern or practice of decision-making
inconsistent with the regional framework plan.
(6) A process
established by the district to enforce the requirements of this section must
provide:
(a) Notice of
noncompliance to the city or county.
(b) Opportunity
for the city or county to be heard.
(c) Entry of an
order by the district explaining its findings, conclusions and enforcement
remedies, if any.
(7) Enforcement
remedies ordered under subsection (6) of this section may include, but are not
limited to:
(a) Direct
application of specified requirements of functional plans to land use decisions
by the city or county;
(b) Withholding
by the district of discretionary funds from the city or county; and
(c) Requesting an
enforcement action pursuant to ORS 197.319 to 197.335 and withholding moneys
pursuant to an enforcement order resulting from the enforcement action.
(8) An order
issued under subsection (6) of this section:
(a) Must provide
for relief from enforcement remedies upon action by the city or county that
brings the comprehensive plan and implementing regulations into substantial
compliance with the requirement.
(b) Is subject to
review under ORS 197.830 to 197.845 as a land use decision.
(9) The regional
framework plan, ordinances that implement the regional framework plan and any
determination by the district of consistency with the regional framework plan
are subject to review under ORS 197.274. [1977 c.665 §18; 1979 c.402 §1; 1983
c.827 §53; 1985 c.565 §40; 1997 c.833 §16; 2007 c.176 §1; 2009 c.216 §3; 2009
c.497 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case:
Sizemore v. Myers, 953 P.2d 360 (Or. 1997).
Sizemore v. Myers, 953 P.2d 360 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 4× “3 ORS 268.390 provides: “A [metropolitan servicel district council shall: “(1) Define and apply a planning procedure which identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including,…”
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “See ORS 268.390(1) and (2). The update recommends that Washington County conduct appropriate studies and consider whether to amend its comprehensive plan to provide for the construction of a “Western Bypass” freeway corridor, part of which would be located outside the Metro…”
Marks v. LCDC, 536 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“380; ORS 268.390; Citizens for Better Transit v.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro, 26 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“” ORS 268.390. 9 The parties do not cite a definition of “target” capacities as the term appears in the UGM Functional Plan.”
D. S. Parklane Dev., Inc. v. Metro, 994 P.2d 1205 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“See ORS 268.390. The Coalition and the state maintain, inter alia, that Metro violated Goal 2 by so doing, because the goal requires land use actions to be consistent with comprehensive and regional plans, and requires the plans to “be the basis for specific implementation…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
Fujimoto v. Land Use Bd. of Appeals, 630 P.2d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“After MSD had adopted the UGB pursuant to ORS 268.390(3), petitioners gave notice of intention to appeal pursuant to Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 772, section 4(4).”
Fujimoto v. City of Happy Valley, 640 P.2d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “ORS 268.390(3) authorizes Metro to adopt a UGB in compliance with LCDC goals.”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
League of Women Voters v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 781 P.2d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“LUBA reasoned, however, that Metro is required by ORS 268.390(3) to adopt a UGB that complies with the goals; that Metro is responsible for coordinating regional land use planning, ORS 197.”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum, 345 P.3d 436 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 268.390 is amended as follows: (1) A district may define and apply a planning procedure that identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including, but not limited to, impact…”
Schoenheit/Unger v. Rosenblum (Or. 2015).
“ORS 268.390 is amended as follows: ( 1) A district may define and apply a planning procedure that identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including, but not limited to, impact…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(1) — 4 cases
Sizemore v. Myers, 953 P.2d 360 (Or. 1997).
“3 ORS 268.390 provides: “A [metropolitan servicel district council shall: “(1) Define and apply a planning procedure which identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including,…”
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“See ORS 268.390(1) and (2). The update recommends that Washington County conduct appropriate studies and consider whether to amend its comprehensive plan to provide for the construction of a “Western Bypass” freeway corridor, part of which would be located outside the Metro…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(3) — 5 cases
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“See ORS 268.390(1) and (2). The update recommends that Washington County conduct appropriate studies and consider whether to amend its comprehensive plan to provide for the construction of a “Western Bypass” freeway corridor, part of which would be located outside the Metro…”
Sizemore v. Myers, 953 P.2d 360 (Or. 1997).
“3 ORS 268.390 provides: “A [metropolitan servicel district council shall: “(1) Define and apply a planning procedure which identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including,…”
Fujimoto v. Land Use Bd. of Appeals, 630 P.2d 364 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“After MSD had adopted the UGB pursuant to ORS 268.390(3), petitioners gave notice of intention to appeal pursuant to Oregon Laws 1979, chapter 772, section 4(4).”
League of Women Voters v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 781 P.2d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“LUBA reasoned, however, that Metro is required by ORS 268.390(3) to adopt a UGB that complies with the goals; that Metro is responsible for coordinating regional land use planning, ORS 197.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(4) — 5 cases
Sensible Transp. Options for People v. Metro. Serv. Dist., 787 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“See ORS 268.390(1) and (2). The update recommends that Washington County conduct appropriate studies and consider whether to amend its comprehensive plan to provide for the construction of a “Western Bypass” freeway corridor, part of which would be located outside the Metro…”
Sizemore v. Myers, 953 P.2d 360 (Or. 1997).
“3 ORS 268.390 provides: “A [metropolitan servicel district council shall: “(1) Define and apply a planning procedure which identifies and designates areas and activities having significant impact upon the orderly and responsible development of the metropolitan area, including,…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(5) — 2 cases
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(5)(a) — 2 cases
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 268.390(5)(d) — 2 cases
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own *486 charter; that the charter’s grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
City of Sandy v. Metro, 115 P.3d 960 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“In order to affirm LUBA and conclude that the ordinance is valid, we must first conclude that the ordinance is within the authority that Metro has given itself in its own charter; that the charter's grant of authority is itself within the charter power conferred on Metro by…”
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.