91视频

Policymaking for planning and land use in Oregon exists between two poles 鈥� the desire for predictable and timely decision-making against the desire to respond to immediate public concerns. An overly rigid policy frustrates necessary change, while accommodation of policy to the latest demand engendered by an anecdote frustrates the stability that planning is designed to guarantee.

House Bill 3062, introduced this legislative session, would establish a new policy requiring that, before an 鈥渋ndustrial use鈥� (broadly defined) may be sited within 1,000 feet of a 鈥渟ensitive use鈥� (residential, public or private park, school, child care facility, or a hospital or residential care facility), an applicant must prepare a 鈥減ublic health impacts analysis鈥� of the industrial use on sensitive uses. Then, once the analysis is reviewed, local governments must conduct a public hearing devoted to the analysis and adopt conditions of approval to protect those sensitive uses from the impacts described therein. All this must happen within 120 days of the filing of a completed application. There is more detail, but you get the picture. Any party may then take these determinations to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and the appellate courts.

Moreover, if approved by the Legislature, the bill would declare an emergency (thus putting the legislation out of reach of a popular vote in a referendum). This is a significant change of state industrial policy. State land use involvement with the siting of local industrial facilities largely ends with acknowledgment of local plans and land use regulations, a certification that together they meet state land use goals 鈥� Goal 6, that land uses will meet applicable state and federal environmental laws, and Goal 9, assurance that urban areas have sufficient land available to realize economic growth and development opportunities over a 20-year period.

Industrial sites are designated by local governments after an analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The owners of industrial-designated sites were assured future development met local plans, though they must still meet applicable state and federal environmental laws. However, HB 3062 would place another layer of review preventing, as described by one of its proponents, 鈥渋ndustrial facilities to go up in neighborhoods without cities and towns first conducting adequate off-site impacts analysis to address community harms.鈥�

That鈥檚 where the anecdote comes in. HB 3062 was inspired and supported by self-proclaimed friends of good land use, who just lost a case before both LUBA and the Oregon Court of Appeals over the issuance of building permits to build an industrial freight warehouse in an industrial zone in the Parkrose area. They seek to have the Legislature override their loss by requiring a new level of review just for certain uses near certain other uses, even if they otherwise meet current environmental and land use rules. Oregon cannot allow itself to have it both ways in attracting jobs and industry 鈥� it must have the confidence of prospective investors and employers that can choose among many competitive venues. That鈥檚 the situation the state finds itself and that鈥檚 the situation in which the state can lose.

Before moving to the merits of this proposal, it is important to consider such sudden shifts of policy critically. It is human nature to agitate for a 鈥渜uick鈥� fix to an immediate problem without considering long-term effects of a broad-ranging proposal. We saw this several years ago when the Legislature sought to beef up the information on geological hazard mapping and held off on its use, because of the political and legal consequences.

One might wonder why all that work went into coordinating comprehensive plans with zoning to assure that local governments could attract industries and promise them a clear and quick path for approval so that they could assemble land, pay for infrastructure, construct a plant, and employ Oregonians. At least that was the direction of the previous set of policies the Legislature adopted. These were times when Oregon was fighting recession, searching for industry, requiring local governments to plan for turnkey site approvals, and speeding up the approval process to attract employers. Why would anyone want to take such a radical change of direction?

Perhaps the proposed warehouse on the Parkrose site is not ideal for that area. However, the city decided to allow this use outright without further review. There鈥檚 a remedy to determine an appropriate use for this site 鈥� a rezoning proceeding initiated by the city. And even if that warehouse use were to survive the review that proponents of that bill seek, think of the message the proposal sends to prospective investors and employers. Who would want to chance the expenditure of time, money, and effort to go through a hearing of multiple proposed conditions to speculate over a 鈥減ublic health impacts analysis鈥� involving air, water or land pollution, pathways of human exposure, pedestrian safety, traffic emissions, noise, vibration, glare or light pollution and urban heat island effects. They wouldn鈥檛 just walk away from that prospect to go elsewhere. They鈥檇 run.

The development of any policy, especially one relating to the economy, jobs, and social stability, is not advanced by responses based on the anecdotal, but rather a balanced process that seeks out answers to concerns of businesses and residents. That鈥檚 why they call it planning.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.