Joint Council and Commissioner Land Use Training

On February 26, 2026, the Astoria City Council and city commissioners participated in a joint training session on Oregon’s land use system, led by Brett Estes, North Coast Regional Representative for the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). City Attorney Blair Henningsgaard was also present to address legal questions. The training covered the history, legal framework, and practical application of land use planning in Oregon, with a focus on the roles of local boards and councils.

Overview of Oregon Land Use System

• History: Zoning authority was granted to cities in 1919, to counties in the 1940s, and the exclusive farm use zone was created in 1963. Senate Bill 100 in 1973 created the statewide land use system, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), and the first 14 statewide planning goals by 1975 (coastal goals added in 1976).
• Goals: The 19 statewide planning goals include citizen involvement, land use planning, natural resources (air, water, hazards), housing (Goal 10), transportation, and coastal goals (estuarine resources, shorelands, beaches/dunes, ocean resources). Astoria is subject to shorelands and estuarine goals but not beaches/dunes or ocean resources.
• Hierarchy: Statewide goals are enforced through Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. Local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances must be consistent with these higher levels. Cities and counties adopt and enforce their own codes, making land use decisions for properties within their jurisdiction.
• Comprehensive Plans: Astoria uses a “one‑map” system (combined land use and zoning map). Its urban growth boundary is inside the city limits – an anomaly. Plans can be amended through a post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) process, requiring 35 days’ notice to DLCD before a planning commission hearing and a 21-day appeal period after adoption.
• Federal Consistency: Due to the Coastal Zone Management Act, federal activities (e.g., Corps of Engineers dredge permits) require a state review for consistency with local and state rules. DLCD’s coastal staff are funded by NOAA.

Types of Land Use Decisions

• Legislative: Changes to policy or code (e.g., rezoning an area). Initiated by the city, goes to planning commission for recommendation and then to city council for adoption. At least two hearings are required. No decision is required – the process can stop at any time.
• Quasi‑Judicial: Applies pre-existing criteria to specific applications (e.g., variances, conditional use permits, HLC/design review permits). Requires notice to adjacent property owners, a public hearing, and a decision within 120 days (including appeals). The initial decision is made by staff, a hearings officer, or a commission; appeals go to city council. Commissioners must declare ex parte contacts and any conflicts of interest or bias.
• Ministerial: Staff decision with no discretion (e.g., five-foot setback met). No notice, no appeal.
• Limited Land Use: Staff decision with discretion but with notice and opportunity for appeal (e.g., design review in Astoria).

Hearing Procedures and Findings

• Hearing Process: Chair opens, criteria announced, commissioners declare ex parte contacts/bias/conflicts. Staff presents report and recommendation. Testimony from public (applicant gets final rebuttal). If the hearing is reopened, all steps must be repeated.
• Findings: Written documents explaining the decision, including facts, evidence, and conclusions. Must address each criterion; failure to do so can be grounds for appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). If a commission disagrees with staff’s findings, it must direct staff on how to revise them.
• LUBA: A specialized appeals board appointed by the governor. Decisions typically occur within six months. Appeals go to LUBA, not circuit court (except for untimely decisions).

Ex Parte Contacts, Conflicts of Interest, and Bias

• Ex Parte Contacts: Any communication outside the public hearing about a quasi‑judicial matter must be disclosed at the hearing. Site visits are considered ex parte contacts; the commissioner must describe what was seen. Staff contact is not ex parte. Commissioners should encourage members of the public to testify at the hearing rather than sharing opinions privately.
• Actual Conflict of Interest: When the decision would result in a direct private pecuniary benefit or detriment to the commissioner, their relative, or associated business. The commissioner must step down unless their presence is needed for a quorum.
• Potential Conflict of Interest: When there could be a benefit (e.g., cousin is applicant, or employer is a competitor). The commissioner must publicly announce the nature of the potential conflict and state they can still be impartial.
• Bias: Prejudgment of the facts that prevents an open‑minded decision. Commissioners should base decisions solely on the record and the law. Making statements like “I wouldn’t have voted for this” can indicate bias.
• Examples Discussed:
  • The “Bond Street parking” example: a commissioner who went to the site at 7 a.m. and saw no cars – this was considered an ex parte contact because the observation was not in the record.
  • The LNG case: a county commissioner elected on an anti‑LNG platform was challenged for bias but the court found no bias because the commissioner affirmed willingness to listen to facts and law.
  • The co‑op appeal: city council members who read newspaper articles about the project were asked about it; the attorney for the appellant argued that reading news articles could be an ex parte contact.
  • The “first fairway” development: a developer hosted a cocktail party for commissioners; open meetings concerns were raised.

Commissioner Questions and Discussion

• On Site Visits: A commissioner noted that in a small town, everyday observations (e.g., parking patterns) can become knowledge. Blair Henningsgaard advised that if such information is relevant, it should be disclosed and the record reopened to allow parties to respond.
• On Research Outside Hearings: Another commissioner asked about doing independent research (e.g., looking up property histories). The presenters cautioned that any research must be disclosed and discussed during the hearing to maintain a fair record.
• On Open Meetings: Commissioners were reminded not to discuss pending cases among themselves outside of hearings, as that could constitute a public meeting violation.
• On Remedying Ex Parte or Bias Issues: The recommended approach is to reopen the record, disclose the information, and allow parties to address it.

Key Outcomes

• This was a training session only; no votes or formal decisions were taken. The information is intended to guide future land use proceedings by the council, planning commission, design review commission, and historic landmarks commission. Attendees were encouraged to contact staff or the city attorney with any questions about conflicts, bias, or procedural issues.
• Note: The agenda for this meeting lists the date as February 12, 2026, but the summary uses the date provided (February 26, 2026) per the instruction.