Item B: Jefferson-Westside Options for Immediate Protection

Home Browse Search

group’s concerns. Three such meetings have occurred since the July 24, 2006, City Council motion. At these meetings, the neighborhood group has clarified its concerns and the parties have considered numerous options and the timeline involved with each option. The neighborhood group initially proposed, through written petitions and several letters and emails, that the City adopt some type of moratorium in order to delay the City’s consideration of any proposed zone changes in the area until a comprehensive set of regulations is adopted to ensure compatibility of new infill development with the existing neighborhood. In some states, putting a moratorium in place can happen quickly, with quick results. This is not the case in Oregon. In Oregon, the process for adopting a moratorium requires at least one public hearing with at least 45-days notice of that hearing. Further, the City would need to show that the current regulations are inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in the area. Particularly due to the time it takes to adopt a moratorium, City staff and neighborhood group leaders have now agreed that a moratorium would not fully address the neighborhood group’s concerns. The City Attorneys’ Office has concluded, and the Planning staff supports this conclusion, that there is no quick way for the City to temporarily prohibit upzonings in the subject area, as the neighborhood leaders proposed. At the meetings between City staff and representatives from the neighborhood group, a very wide range of other options were discussed. Many of these options were unworkable from the perspective of the neighborhood group, Planning staff and/or the City Attorney. For example, the City Attorney advised against an option that the City simply refuse to process upzoning applications in the area and accept the risk of legal challenge. Some of the options considered by the parties are, in no particular order: 1.The City Council could adopt a moratorium. 2.The Planning Director could issue an official interpretation of the Area 15 policy of the JFW Plan, which is incorporated into the Land Use Code at EC 9.9580(17). 3.The Planning Director could request that the Planning Commission issue an official interpretation of the Area 15 policy of the JFW Plan, which is incorporated into the Land Use Code at EC 9.9580(17). 4.The City Council could amend the JFW Plan to define the Low –Medium Density Residential designation differently than the Area 15 policy implies. 5.The City Council could amend the code to adopt a definition of “character” and “compatible” as those terms are used in the site review criteria for purposes of the subject area. 6.The City Council could adopt code provisions or apply a different zone to impose development restrictions to the area. 7.The City Council could amend the JFW Plan and Metro Plan to apply the Low Density Residential designation to this area. 8.The City or neighborhood group could purchase properties that are likely to seek upzoning. 9.The neighborhood group could attempt to enter into private agreements with property owners in the area (akin to CCRs for the neighborhood). 10. The City could do nothing, anticipating that the issue of compatibility will be sufficiently addressed when the JFW Plan policies are applied in the context of site review applications. Based on the discussions between staff and the neighborhood group, the focus has narrowed down to a few options worthy of further consideration. After the meetings, it was clear that the neighborhood group is in favor of the City taking the action described in Option 7 above, to amend the JFW Plan and Metro Plan to apply the Low Density Residential designation to this area. The neighborhood group L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060816\S060816B.doc