91视频

Land use planning demands a balance among conflicting values. Nowhere is that conflict starker than in Portland鈥檚 Columbia Corridor, between the Columbia River and the Columbia Slough. It鈥檚 home to wetlands, streams, floodplains and wildlife corridors but surrounded by long-standing development of industrial lands including an airport, industrial parks with heavy and light manufacturing, and commercial and residential uses. Importantly, most of the natural resources are not located in open space zones; much of that land has already been developed and the remaining undeveloped land serves a critical role in the management of stormwater and floodwater.

Portland previously applied environmental overlay zones within this area between 1989 and 2011. Since that time, the city has inventoried wetlands, identified streams that were previously missed and applied new technology to enable more accurate mapping.

Over the past year, the city has compiled this information and proposed revisions to the environmental zones (ezones) applied within this area, providing greater protection for natural resources. This past month, these efforts culminated with the Planning Commission鈥檚 recommended adoption of plan and zoning code amendments providing greater protection to natural resources. They鈥檙e known as the Columbia Corridor and Industrial Lands (CCIL) Environmental Overlay Zone Project amendments.

These conservation planning efforts had to account for the availability of industrial land demands imposed by Statewide Planning Goal 9. To do this, the city concurrently updated its Economic Opportunities Analysis, which forecasts needs for economic growth as necessary to ensure that sufficient land is available to meet industrial and employment needs across all sectors. Overall, the CCIL amendments would reduce the amount of land available for industrial and employment opportunities through the 2045 planning horizon. The potential effect of this update was based on refinements to the city鈥檚 Buildable Lands Inventory, which is a part of Goal 9 compliance.

Balancing the appropriate buffers for natural resources while accounting for the needs of industrial uses is a tricky task. First, this large area was divided into 鈥渞esource sites鈥� with mapping that ranked vegetation near wetlands and bodies of water, as well as riparian areas and wildlife areas.

Second, in addition to considering public testimony, while the record was open, city staff invited concerned property owners to request a site visit from city staff to conduct an on-the-ground assessment to confirm natural resources. In fact, during the Planning Commission deliberations, city staff visited 35 different properties and amended their recommendations for 29 of them.

For example, the proposed ezones on portions of certain single-family residential sites were changed from the most restrictive environmental protection zone to the more permissive conservation zone. Staff have completed a total of 56 site visits over the multiyear project. This level of detailed investigation is rarely seen in large-scale, long-range planning, and this example suggests that these types of efforts are feasible where there is staffing, expertise and resources to support the effort.

Simplifying the regulatory landscape is proposed via the permanent repeal of a number of natural resource protection plans, which imposed different rules for natural resource protection and in some cases sowed confusion. Between 1989 and 2011, Portland adopted eight area-specific natural resource conservation and protection plans for the areas evaluated through CCIL. Under these recommended amendments, regulation is accomplished by applying ezones in a more consistent manner across the geography.

In most cases, the environmental protection (p) zone protects significant resources including streams, sloughs and wetlands by requiring new development to be at least 50 feet from the edge of resources. The environmental conservation (c) zone applies to other high and medium ranking riparian resources outside of the 50-foot environmental protection zone.

The amount designated in the Planning Commission鈥檚 recommended draft was slightly less than the high scenario (among high, medium and low scenarios) recommended by city staff. In total, the existing ezone coverage in this area encumbered 27.3 percent of the total land. Under the draft approved by the Planning Commission, this total area was increased to 31.6 percent. Considering just industrial lands, the proposed changes increase ezone coverage from 14.9 percent to 19.6 percent. Critically, however, these changes would not impact pre-existing development, which can continue to operate and be replaced if destroyed. However, this will come as little solace for owners of vacant or underdeveloped industrial lands who may see a significant shift in their development options.

Although the city received testimony expressing strong support for natural resource protections, those in opposition were concerned about impacts on existing industrial development and river-dependent activities. Changes to the environmental overlays applied to an existing industrial building can impair financing, insurance availability, marketability, reinvestment decisions, and the ability to repair or rebuild following a casualty, even in cases when the regulations would allow such rebuilding.

These amendments must still be approved by the City Council, which is tentatively scheduled to consider them later this year. As Portland is experiencing hotter and drier summers, as well as warmer and wetter winters, natural resource protections become invaluable in providing flood areas, managing stormwater, and keeping these resources cool through the preservation of vegetation around waterways and on wetlands, helping to improve air quality and protect wildlife and fish. Where this effort includes site-specific mapping and data-driven inventory work, planners can provide detailed evaluation of the regulatory impacts on industrial lands at a level of detail rarely encountered in long-range planning efforts.

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.