December 3-4, 2015 - LCDC Salem <br />Agenda Item 4, Attachment H <br />Addressing Employment Land Deficits (OAR 660-038-015(3)) <br />Issue <br />OAR 660-038-0150(3)(a) requires a city to redesignate commercial surplus for industrial uses. <br />OAR 660-038-0150(3)(b) requires a city to redesignate industrial surplus for commercial uses. <br />This direction goes against the policy direction of Goal 9. OAR 660-009 correctly recognizes that <br />many businesses have a need for sites with specific, and often, unique characteristics. The <br />September 10 draft rule appears to treat all employment land as substitutable. The <br />characteristics of commercial land may not meet the identified needs for industrial uses, in <br />terms of location of the parcel, physical characteristics (size, configuration, or topography), <br />access to transportation and freight facilities, or compatibility of surrounding uses. In addition, <br />rezoning commercial land to industrial land is often a down-zone. <br />Cities should be cautious about redesignating industrial land for commercial uses, despite the <br />common pressure to do so. Industrial land, especially prime industrial land, may have unique <br />characteristics that will be difficult to replace (e.g., access to the highway) or may have <br />considerable infrastructure investments designed for industrial uses. <br />Suggested changes <br />We suggest that cities be encouraged to consider redesignating land when it is appropriate, but <br />have concerns about requiring cities redesignate commercial lands for industrial purposes and <br />that cities be requiring to convert surplus industrial lands to commercial designations. Thus, we <br />recommend deleting or substantially amending OAR 660-038-015(3)(a) and (b). <br />Employment Forecast, Employment Base (OAR 660-038-0100 and OAR 660- <br />0380-110) <br />Issue <br />OAR 660-038-0100(3) and OAR 660-038-110(2) require the city to determine the number of jobs <br />in the city, based on a lookup table from DLCD based on the OED's most recent employment <br />data. We assume that cities will have access to a current lookup table at the time they initiate a <br />Division 38 boundary review, We point out three potential issues here: <br />1. The definitions provided on 660-038-0010(2) and (3) are not inclusive of all employment, <br />NAICS code 92 is public employment and 99 is firms that are unclassified, It is unclear <br />on how the rule intends for cities to address public and unclassified employment. The <br />key point is that government employment requires land and the rule seems to ignore <br />that, or lump it in with the public land factors defined in 660-038-0050(2). <br />The OED employment data tends to lag 1-2 years behind. Cities will require an <br />employment base estimate for the base year of the 14-year planning period. The rule is <br />silent on how the base employment will be adjusted to the base year, This may be <br />intentional, but in the absence of guidance, different cities may use different methods. <br />