Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

was adopted. Therefore as City staff correctly indicates in the findings EC 9.8424(2) (a), (b), (d) and (e) do not apply. This leaves criteria (c). In tbe findings it is indicated tbat the Metro Plan amendment, which is part of the three part legislative package, constitutes "New or amended community policies" and thus the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment is consistent with EC 9.8424 and thus is a permissible lilCtion. This conclusion is in error for a number of reasons. First, the Metro Plan has not been amended yet, therefore it is not' a New or amended community policy. Second as stated above tbe Metro Plan is being changed to be consistent with the Refinement Plan rather then the more normal circumstance where the lower document changed to be consistent with a high one. While somewhat unorthodox, as long as the finisb product is consistent from higher to lower state requirements are met. It does however that does mean that proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not represent a new or amended community policy that requires a Refinement Plan Amendment, rather it is the Refinement Plan Amendment that represents a new or amended community policy. One that would require the Metro Plan to be changed for the final result to meet the Metro Plan Requirement that Refinement Plans be c.onsistent with the Metro Plan. As the Refinement Plan Amendment is a new community policy rather then "addressing" a new community policy imposed from above, criteria (c) also does not apply. As none of the Criteria in EC 9.8424 are met by the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment, that Amendment does not meet the criteria contained in EC 9.8424 and should be rejected. Subsection (1) Subsection (l) ofEC 9.8424 requires that a proposed refmement plan amendment be consistent with The Statewide Planning Goals and applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and remaining portions of the .refineUlel1t plan. The proposed refmement plan is not consistent 'With State Wide Planning Goals 10 and 12, Nor is it consistent witllMetro PIa.n ~olic)l A 13 . Goal 10 Housing As it is correctly pointed out in the Findings, Go all 0- Housing requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. This is commonly referred to as the "twenty year land supply" as the Administrative Rules establishing the requirement for the inventory requires that the completed inventory show that at the time the inventory is accepted there is a 20 year supply of residential land within the Urban Grovvth Boundary. Equally correct is the assessment that by changing the designation of 57 acres of buildable residential land from Medium Density to Low Density will impact the residential land inventory by reducing the number of dwelling units that could be built in the area. At this point the findings contain the unsupported assumption that the next Residential Land Inventory Process will use the same methodology that the last one used. As a new Residential Land Inventory has not been started and is not there a mandated methodology in statute or ordinance that must be used in the next Residential Land Inventory any inventory methodology I:1: ink ley Testiulony on 1\1A 06-5, Ra 06-3 and (:1'\ 06-1 5 fJecell1ber 2006 Page 3 of 12 pages