Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development: Planning Goals

Oregon's statewide land use planning program, administered by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), operates through a set of 19 mandatory planning goals that govern how cities, counties, and state agencies manage land across the state. These goals — established under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 and implemented through Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 — constitute the legal foundation for every comprehensive plan in Oregon. Understanding the structure, scope, and operational mechanics of these goals is essential for planners, land use attorneys, developers, and local government officials engaged in the Oregon planning process.

• Definition and scope
• Core mechanics or structure
• Causal relationships or drivers
• Classification boundaries
• Tradeoffs and tensions
• Common misconceptions
• Checklist or steps (non-advisory)
• Reference table or matrix

Definition and scope

Oregon's 19 statewide planning goals are mandatory policy standards adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the seven-member citizen board that oversees DLCD. Each goal establishes a minimum standard that local comprehensive plans and land use regulations must meet. The goals are not aspirational — they carry the force of administrative rule under OAR Chapter 660, and local plans that do not comply cannot receive acknowledgment from LCDC.

The goals address the full range of land use concerns: agricultural land preservation, forest conservation, coastal management, urban growth boundaries, housing, transportation, energy, and public facilities. Goal 1 addresses citizen involvement; Goal 19 addresses ocean resources. The 19 goals are codified across multiple divisions within OAR Chapter 660, with Goal-specific implementing rules often published in separate divisions (e.g., OAR 660 Division 33 for agricultural land).

Scope and coverage limitations: The 19 goals apply to Oregon's 36 counties and all cities within those counties when those jurisdictions adopt or amend comprehensive plans and land use regulations. Federal lands managed by agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management are not subject to DLCD's planning goals. Tribal lands held in trust are also outside the scope of Oregon's statewide planning program. Interstate commerce infrastructure regulated exclusively by federal statute does not fall under LCDC goal compliance review. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development maintains the official record of acknowledged plans for each jurisdiction.

Core mechanics or structure

The operative mechanism linking the 19 goals to local governments is the acknowledgment process. A local government's comprehensive plan must be acknowledged by LCDC as compliant with all applicable goals before land use decisions made under that plan carry legal weight in the statewide system. Once acknowledged, a local plan is presumed to comply with the goals — this is a critical procedural distinction.

DLCD staff review proposed plan amendments. When a local government initiates a plan amendment that raises goal compliance questions, the amendment is subject to post-acknowledgment review. Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) — a quasi-judicial body — hears appeals of local land use decisions, and LUBA decisions can be further appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The goals operate in two tiers relative to acknowledged plans:

1. Pre-acknowledgment: Local plans must demonstrate direct compliance with each applicable goal.
2. Post-acknowledgment: Amendments are evaluated against applicable goal requirements, but the acknowledged plan itself is the baseline.

ORS 197.175 requires each city and county to prepare and maintain a comprehensive plan consistent with the statewide planning goals. ORS 197.250 gives LCDC authority to issue compliance orders against jurisdictions that fail to maintain acknowledged plans.

Causal relationships or drivers

Oregon's planning goals emerged from Senate Bill 100, enacted by the Oregon Legislative Assembly in 1973. The passage of SB 100 responded to uncontrolled suburban sprawl consuming prime Willamette Valley farmland during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Legislature created LCDC and charged it with adopting goals that would prevent the conversion of agricultural land — a concern that remains central to Goals 3 and 4.

The urban growth boundary (UGB) requirement under Goal 14 is the most operationally consequential output of this legislative mandate. Every Oregon city must establish a UGB that separates urban from rural land. DLCD data (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, UGB Inventory) shows Oregon has over 240 acknowledged UGBs statewide. Once land is outside a UGB, urban-density development is prohibited unless the city expands its boundary through a formal process requiring demonstration of a 20-year land supply need.

Metro — the Portland-area regional government — operates under a separate statutory framework (ORS Chapter 268) but must still comply with statewide planning goals. The Oregon Metropolitan Service District page addresses Metro's distinct role in regional planning.

Demographic growth projections drive UGB expansion requests. Population forecasts prepared by the Portland State University Population Research Center are the standard data source for 20-year land need analyses under OAR 660-024.

Classification boundaries

The 19 goals divide into functional categories:

Land use/resource goals (Goals 1–5): Cover citizen involvement, land use planning coordination, agricultural lands, forest lands, and open spaces/natural resources.

Coastal goals (Goals 16–19): Apply only to jurisdictions within the Oregon coastal zone as defined under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (NOAA, Coastal Zone Management Act). These goals have no applicability to inland jurisdictions.

Urban development goals (Goals 10–14): Address housing, public facilities, transportation, energy conservation, and urbanization. Goal 10 (Housing) has the highest volume of compliance disputes because it requires each city to maintain a sufficient buildable lands inventory for needed housing types.

Exception process: A jurisdiction may take a "Goal exception" under OAR 660-004 to allow an activity on land that would otherwise be prohibited by a resource goal. An exception must demonstrate that the land is committed to a use not compatible with the goal, or that reasons exist why the goal cannot be applied. This is a formal, noticed process — not an administrative waiver.

Tradeoffs and tensions

Goal 3 (Agricultural Land) and Goal 14 (Urbanization) produce the most persistent structural conflict in Oregon land use planning. Goal 3 requires protection of agricultural land, which is defined by soil capability class rather than by current farm use. Land classified as Class I–IV soils under the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service system is presumptively agricultural. Goal 14 requires cities to expand UGBs when demonstrated need exists. When the only available land for urban expansion is Class II or III agricultural soils — common in the Willamette Valley — the two goals create direct tension that must be resolved through LCDC rulemaking or site-specific exception processes.

Goal 5 (Natural Resources) conflicts arise when resource inventories identify significant natural areas overlapping with properties already zoned for development. LCDC's safe harbor methodology under OAR 660-023 attempts to quantify this tradeoff through an "economic, social, environmental, and energy" (ESEE) analysis, but the analysis itself requires local governments to make subjective judgments about conflicting interests.

Goal 10 housing compliance has become increasingly contested following the passage of House Bill 2001 (2019), which requires medium and large cities to allow middle housing types in residential zones. DLCD issued implementing rules under OAR 660-046, creating a new compliance layer on top of the existing Goal 10 framework.

The Oregon land use planning topic covers broader program context, including appeals pathways and inter-agency coordination relevant to the goals framework.

Common misconceptions

Misconception: UGBs are permanent boundaries.
Correction: UGBs are reviewed and can be expanded. OAR 660-024 establishes a formal process for periodic review and boundary amendments when a jurisdiction demonstrates a 20-year urban land need that cannot be accommodated within the existing boundary.

Misconception: All 19 goals apply to every jurisdiction.
Correction: Coastal goals (Goals 16–19) apply only to jurisdictions within the Oregon coastal zone. Interior counties and cities are not subject to these four goals.

Misconception: An acknowledged plan means permanent compliance.
Correction: Acknowledgment applies to the plan as adopted. Subsequent amendments, new state rules, or periodic review requirements can place acknowledged plans back into a compliance process. LCDC has authority under ORS 197.640 to initiate periodic review of acknowledged plans.

Misconception: DLCD makes land use decisions.
Correction: DLCD is a planning and technical assistance agency. Local governments make land use decisions under their acknowledged plans. LUBA — not DLCD — adjudicates land use appeal disputes.

Misconception: Goal exceptions are freely available.
Correction: An exception under OAR 660-004 is a narrowly constructed procedural mechanism requiring LCDC approval. Exceptions cannot be taken simply because compliance with a goal is inconvenient or economically costly.

Checklist or steps (non-advisory)

Goal compliance review sequence for a local plan amendment:

1. Identify which of the 19 goals are applicable to the proposed amendment based on land type, location, and subject matter.
2. Determine whether the jurisdiction's acknowledged plan already addresses the relevant goal standards.
3. If the amendment implicates Goal 3, 4, or 14, assess whether a Goal exception is required or whether an ESEE analysis under Goal 5 applies.
4. Prepare findings demonstrating consistency with each applicable goal, citing specific goal language and implementing rule provisions under OAR Chapter 660.
5. Provide required notice to DLCD at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing, per ORS 197.610.
6. Conduct public hearings with notice consistent with ORS 197.615 requirements.
7. Adopt the amendment with written findings addressing each applicable goal and rule.
8. Submit the adopted amendment to DLCD for review within 20 days of adoption, per ORS 197.615(1).
9. If DLCD identifies a potential goal conflict, the matter proceeds to LCDC for a compliance determination.
10. If the amendment is challenged, the appeal pathway runs through LUBA, then to the Oregon Court of Appeals under ORS 197.850.

Reference table or matrix

The full text of all 19 goals is published by DLCD at oregon.gov/lcd. The Oregon administrative rules framework that gives these goals enforceable status is also documented on this network. For a broader orientation to Oregon's governmental structure within which DLCD operates, see the site index.

References

• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
• Land Conservation and Development Commission — Statewide Planning Goals
• Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197 — Land Use Planning
• Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 — LCDC
• Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
• Oregon Legislative Assembly — Senate Bill 100 (1973)
• NOAA Coastal Zone Management Act
• DLCD Urban Growth Boundary Inventory
• Portland State University Population Research Center
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service — Soil Capability Classes