Or. Admin. R. 660-023-0040 - ESEE Decision Process

(1) Local governments shall develop a program to achieve Goal 5 for all significant resource sites based on an analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences that could result from a decision to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. This rule describes four steps to be followed in conducting an ESEE analysis, as set out in detail in sections (2) through (5) of this rule. Local governments are not required to follow these steps sequentially, and some steps anticipate a return to a previous step. However, findings shall demonstrate that requirements under each of the steps have been met, regardless of the sequence followed by the local government. The ESEE analysis need not be lengthy or complex, but should enable reviewers to gain a clear understanding of the conflicts and the consequences to be expected. The steps in the standard ESEE process are as follows:
(a) Identify conflicting uses;
(b) Determine the impact area;
(c) Analyze the ESEE consequences; and
(d) Develop a program to achieve Goal 5.
(2) Identify conflicting uses. Local governments shall identify conflicting uses that exist, or could occur, with regard to significant Goal 5 resource sites. To identify these uses, local governments shall examine land uses allowed outright or conditionally within the zones applied to the resource site and in its impact area. Local governments are not required to consider allowed uses that would be unlikely to occur in the impact area because existing permanent uses occupy the site. The following shall also apply in the identification of conflicting uses:
(a) If no uses conflict with a significant resource site, acknowledged policies and land use regulations may be considered sufficient to protect the resource site. The determination that there are no conflicting uses must be based on the applicable zoning rather than ownership of the site. (Therefore, public ownership of a site does not by itself support a conclusion that there are no conflicting uses.)
(b) A local government may determine that one or more significant Goal 5 resource sites are conflicting uses with another significant resource site. The local government shall determine the level of protection for each significant site using the ESEE process and/or the requirements in OAR 660-023-0090 through 660-023-0230 (see OAR 660-023-0020(1)).
(3) Determine the impact area. Local governments shall determine an impact area for each significant resource site. The impact area shall be drawn to include only the area in which allowed uses could adversely affect the identified resource. The impact area defines the geographic limits within which to conduct an ESEE analysis for the identified significant resource site.
(4) Analyze the ESEE consequences. Local governments shall analyze the ESEE consequences that could result from decisions to allow, limit, or prohibit a conflicting use. The analysis may address each of the identified conflicting uses, or it may address a group of similar conflicting uses. A local government may conduct a single analysis for two or more resource sites that are within the same area or that are similarly situated and subject to the same zoning. The local government may establish a matrix of commonly occurring conflicting uses and apply the matrix to particular resource sites in order to facilitate the analysis. A local government may conduct a single analysis for a site containing more than one significant Goal 5 resource. The ESEE analysis must consider any applicable statewide goal or acknowledged plan requirements, including the requirements of Goal 5. The analyses of the ESEE consequences shall be adopted either as part of the plan or as a land use regulation.
(5) Develop a program to achieve Goal 5. Local governments shall determine whether to allow, limit, or prohibit identified conflicting uses for significant resource sites. This decision shall be based upon and supported by the ESEE analysis. A decision to prohibit or limit conflicting uses protects a resource site. A decision to allow some or all conflicting uses for a particular site may also be consistent with Goal 5, provided it is supported by the ESEE analysis. One of the following determi-nations shall be reached with regard to conflicting uses for a significant resource site:
(a) A local government may decide that a significant resource site is of such importance compared to the conflicting uses, and the ESEE consequences of allowing the conflicting uses are so detrimental to the resource, that the conflicting uses should be prohibited.
(b) A local government may decide that both the resource site and the conflicting uses are important compared to each other, and, based on the ESEE analysis, the conflicting uses should be allowed in a limited way that protects the resource site to a desired extent.
(c) A local government may decide that the conflicting use should be allowed fully, notwithstanding the possible impacts on the resource site. The ESEE analysis must demon-strate that the conflicting use is of sufficient importance relative to the resource site, and must indicate why measures to protect the resource to some extent should not be provided, as per subsection (b) of this section.


Or. Admin. R. 660-023-0040
LCDC 2-1996, f. 8-30-96, cert. ef. 9-1-96

Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197

Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.040 & ORS 197.225 - ORS 197.245

State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.

No prior version found.