1 blending of concrete, wood fiber and certain chemicals to <br />2 produce a roof tile. The existing warehouse will contain the <br />3 manufacturing activity. Cement will be stored in a silo to be <br />4 erected adjacent to the warehouse. A steel-sided building will <br />5 be erected for the storage of wood chips and for the processing <br />6 of the chips into wood fiber.. Finished products will be stored <br />7 on the site. <br />8 Additional facts pertinent to this appeal are discussed <br />9 later in this opinion. <br />10 Permawood's permit applications were initially approved on <br />11 October 17, 1983 by the city's hearings board. This action was <br />12 upheld by the planning commission on December 5, 1983, after <br />13 appeal by the petitioner. On further appeal by the petitioner <br />14 to the city council, the approvals were affirmed. Final <br />15 approval was issued on January 25, 1984. <br />16 STANDING <br />17 Permawood and the city challenge petitioner's standing to <br />18 bring this appeal. The allegations of standing set forth in <br />19 the petition are said to be insufficient as a matter of law, <br />20 whether petitioner is claiming standing to represent its own <br />21 organizational interests or to represent the individual <br />22 interests of its members. Our decisions have recognized both <br />23 standing theories. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Douglas County, 1 <br />24 Or LUBA 42, 45 (1980) ; Families for Responsible Government v. <br />25 Marion~Coun_y, 6 Or LUBA 254 (1982); Audubon Society of <br />26 Portland v. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 7 Or LUBA <br />Page 3 <br />