Comprehensive Land Use Planning

ORS 197.633
Two phases of periodic review

  • rules
  • appeal of decision on work program
  • schedule for completion
  • extension of time on appeal


The periodic review process is divided into two phases. Phase one is the evaluation of the existing comprehensive plan, land use regulations and citizen involvement program and, if necessary, the development of a work program to make needed changes to the comprehensive plan or land use regulations. Phase two is the completion of work tasks outlined in the work program.


The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for conducting periodic review that address:


Initiating periodic review;


Citizen participation;


The participation of state agencies;


The preparation, review and approval of a work program; and


The preparation, review and approval of work tasks, including:


The amendment of an urban growth boundary.


The designation of, or withdrawal of territory from, urban reserves or rural reserves.


The rules adopted by the commission under this section may include, but are not limited to, provisions concerning standing, requirements to raise issues before local government as a precondition to commission review and other provisions concerning the scope and standard for commission review to simplify or speed the review. The commission shall confine its review of evidence to the local record. The commission’s standard of review:


For evidentiary issues, is whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the local government’s decision.


For procedural issues, is whether the local government failed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before the local government in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of a party to the proceeding.


For issues concerning compliance with applicable laws, is whether the local government’s decision on the whole complies with applicable statutes, statewide land use planning goals, administrative rules, the comprehensive plan, the regional framework plan, the functional plan and land use regulations. The commission shall defer to a local government’s interpretation of the comprehensive plan or land use regulations in the manner provided in ORS 197.829 (Board to affirm certain local government interpretations). For purposes of this paragraph, “complies” has the meaning given the term “compliance” in the phrase “compliance with the goals” in ORS 197.627 (Meaning of “compliance with the goals” for certain purposes).


A decision by the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to approve a work program, that no work program is necessary or that no further work is necessary is final and not subject to appeal.


The director:


Shall take action on a work task not later than 120 days after the local government submits the work task for review unless the local government waives the 120-day deadline or the commission grants the director an extension. If the director does not take action within the time period required by this subsection, the work task is deemed approved. The department shall provide a letter to the local government certifying that the work task is approved unless an interested party has filed a timely objection to the work task consistent with administrative rules for conducting periodic review.


May approve or remand a work task or refer the work task to the commission for a decision. A decision by the director to approve or remand a work task may be appealed to the commission.


Except as provided in this subsection, the commission shall take action on the appeal or referral of a work task within 90 days of the appeal or referral. Action by the commission in response to an appeal from a decision of the director or a referral is a final order subject to judicial review in the manner provided in ORS 197.650 (Appeal to Court of Appeals) and 197.651 (Appeal to Court of Appeals for judicial review of final order of Land Conservation and Development Commission). The commission may extend the time for taking action on the appeal or referral if the commission finds that:


The appeal or referral is appropriate for mediation;


The appeal or referral raises new or complex issues of fact or law that make it unreasonable for the commission to give adequate consideration to the issues within the 90-day limit; or


The parties to the appeal and the commission agree to an extension, not to exceed an additional 90 days.


The commission and a local government shall attempt to complete periodic review within three years after approval of a work program. To promote the timely completion of periodic review, the commission shall establish a system of incentives to encourage local government compliance with timelines in periodic review work programs. [1991 c.612 §3; 1993 c.18 §38; 1999 c.622 §3; 2001 c.527 §1; 2005 c.829 §4; 2011 c.469 §2]
Chapter 197

Notes of Decisions

A comprehensive plan, although denominated a "resolution," is the controlling land use planning instrument for a city; upon its passage, the city assumes responsibility to effectuate the plan and conform zoning ordinances, including prior existing zoning ordinances, to it. Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975)

Procedural requirements of the state-wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission are not applicable to ordinances adopted before the effective date of the goals. Schmidt v. Land Conservation and Development Comm., 29 Or App 665, 564 P2d 1090 (1977)

This chapter, establishing LCDC and granting it authority to establish state-wide land use planning goals, does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power where both standards (ORS chapter 215) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county's comprehensive plan and land use regulations had not been acknowledged by LCDC, it was proper for county to apply state-wide planning standards directly to individual request for partition. Alexanderson v. Polk County Commissioners, 289 Or 427, 616 P2d 459 (1980)

Issuance of a building permit was a "land conservation and development action" where county had no acknowledged comprehensive plan, land was not zoned and no previous land use decision had been made regarding the land. Columbia Hills v. LCDC, 50 Or App 483, 624 P2d 157 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Nothing in this chapter grants the Land Conservation and Development Department authority to challenge local land use decisions made after comprehensive plan acknowledgment. Ochoco Const. v. LCDC, 295 Or 422, 667 P2d 499 (1983)

LCDC has authority in periodic review process to require local government to add specific language or provisions to its land use legislation to assure compliance with statewide goals and LCDC rules. Oregonians in Action v. LCDC, 121 Or App 497, 854 P2d 1010 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority of a land conservation and development commission to bind the state in an interstate compact or agreement, (1973) Vol 36, p 361; application of Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., (1974) Vol 36, p 960; state-wide planning goal in conjunction with interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; binding effect on governmental agencies of the adoption of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894; application to state agencies, (1976) Vol 37, p 1129; preexisting ordinances during the interim implementing stage, (1976) Vol 37, p 1329; constitutionality of delegation to LCDC of authority to prescribe and enforce statewide planning goals, (1977) Vol 38, p 1130; effect of situation where similar petition is filed before both commission and a court, (1977) Vol 38, p 1268; consideration of availability of public school facilities in determination of whether to approve subdivision, (1978) Vol 38, p 1956

Law Review Citations

10 WLJ 99 (1973); 53 OLR 129 (1974); 5 EL 673 (1975); 54 OLR 203-223 (1975); 56 OLR 444 (1977); 18 WLR 49 (1982); 61 OLR 351 (1982); 20 WLR 764 (1984); 14 EL 661, 693, 713, 779, 843 (1984); 25 WLR 259 (1989); 31 WLR 147, 449, 817 (1995); 36 EL 25 (2006); 49 WLR 411 (2013)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021