LUBA Decision
Sam Adams
On October 5, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) rejected challenges to Northwest District Plan parking regulations. There could be further appeals on these parking issues. Two transportation issues relating to NW Vaughn had previously been remanded and will require action by the City Council. Those transportation issues, which are discussed in a LUBA ruling from September 2004, do not involve parking.
LUBA's new opinion discussing parking issues can be found at this URL:
http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2005/oct05/03162.htm
LUBA's 2004 opinion discussing other issues, including the NW Vaughn traffic issues, can be found here:
http://luba.state.or.us/pdf/2004/sept04/03162.htm
Thoughts?
Posted by Sam Adams on October 13, 2005
(6) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Northwest Portland
Comments by site visitors
The significance of the saga of the Northwest District Plan (“NDP”) and that document’s visits to LUBA and the courts lies less in its parking details than it does in what the entire experience says about the present state of citizen involvement in neighborhood land use planning.
The NDP is the City’s adopted (in 2003) modification and restatement of a citizen-developed plan (styled “Northwest District Neighborhood Plan” or “NDNP”.) Parties involved in developing the neighborhood association sponsored NDNP represented diverse viewpoints and interests including major commercial property owners. Thus NDNP was a genuine, citizen-driven planning effort. NDNP amended and restated a prior citizen driven effort completed in 1977 and incorporated in the City’s Comp Plan.
In moving from NDNP to NDP, changes by City Planning staff and last minute changes introduced by individual members of the Council so modified the NDNP that the adopted result – the NDP – was explicitly rejected by the very neighborhood association which sponsored the original NDNP. The rejection was sufficiently forceful that at one point a copy of the NDP was publicly burned in the street by a group of NW Portland residents.
(Some observers note that the earlier stages of this saga appear to be repeating themselves today in Linton thus suggesting that this kind of thing is far from ancient history.)
Today, we have a significantly changed City Council. Perhaps most importantly, we have a new Mayor who is seeking to deepen and re-energize citizen involvement in the work of the City and of our neighborhoods.
At least with regard to neighborhood land use planning, the larger thrust of the Mayor’s vision will likely go unrealized so long as citizen shaped efforts involving hundreds of hours of work are so roughly rejected by elected officials and their professional staff.
So what to do about the NDP and the LUBA remand?
Well the LUBA remand deals with one technical aspect only of the NDP. But NDP has other shortcomings. For example, in its present state the NDP:
Is very weak on support (beyond lip service) for low income housing
Is silent about details (particularly concerning implementation) for a “green street” to connect NW to the Pearl
Lacks detail concerning the “transition zone” – the largely underdeveloped are on the north end of the neighborhood which includes the CNF properties.
Lacks a policy on street trees – a major resource in an urban neighborhood
And, of course, the NDP’s approach to transportation issues lacks broad stakeholder support.
The Planning Committee of the neighborhood association and others can add more and more thoughtful detail to this list.
Why not use the new citizen engagement vision of the Mayor (I’m sure shared to varying degrees by most on the Council), the known shortcomings of adopted NDP and the LUBA remand as a context to charge the neighborhood association and the neighborhood business association with taking another look at revisions to NDP aimed at:
Addressing the shortcomings of the existing adopted NDP (and this goes beyond transportation issues)
Settling / withdrawing litigation surrounding the NDP
Demonstrating that the City is serious about substantive citizen engagement in neighborhood land use planning and other focal aspects of the work of our city and its neighborhoods.
And take a look at the emerging parallels in Linton while your at it.
Posted by: Dan Anderson | Oct 17, 2005 12:54:53 PM
Citizen involvement and volunteerism are essential elements of our democracy. Unfortunately far too few individuals get involved and far fewer stay involved.
Throughout the past 5 years or so issues surrounding the Northwest District Plan - most significantly parking issues - have generated a significant amount of passion from some members of our community while also creating a wedge between the NWDA and the Nob Hill Business Association.
As a long time neighbor and advocate for concensus building I find this sad and in direct conflict with the concept that the NDP was "adopted over the objection of a neighborhood".
We are lucky to have at least two organizations working to support our community. Wouldn't it be grand if we could move forward together. Just for reference I thought I'd include some "mission" type language from both organizations:
NWDA: We are a grassroots community organization in Portland, OR, working to achieve citizen participation and involvement in neighborhood issues. In an atmosphere of mutual respect, we work to maintain and improve the livability of our inner city neighborhood, honoring diversity, vitality, and balance.
NHBA: Our members strive to live in harmony with neighbors, be good citizens of our thriving, culturally enriched society, and tackle complicated issues by using a collaborative strategy to reach decisions.
We recognize our area as a lively mix of retail, restaurants and professional services, and work to maintain that environment for those of us who live and work here, and for those who might only be passing through.
Sounds to me like a great foundation for consensus building within our neighborhood.
Posted by: Andrew Olshin | Oct 17, 2005 2:59:41 PM
As one of the original "Overton 23"...arrested on May 23, 1989 near NW 23rd and Overton protesting the destruction of affordable and historic housing for a rowhouse project... and as a former chair of NWDA Transportation Committee, I followed with some dismay the evolution and final approval by Council of a "transportation plan" for Northwest that called for the destruction of affordable housing for auto storage!
I hope the recently elected Council will take another look at this poor decision, will get NW District back on track with more emphasis on access by all modes and not just auto, and will give the neighborhood association the respect it deserves in shaping that community's future.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Oct 18, 2005 2:08:07 PM
I want to emphasize what Sam wrote: The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) reaffirmed its earlier decision and again upheld the City's parking plan for NW Portland. Barring any further appeals, the NW Parking Plan can be implemented.
Only one issue strictly limited to NW 23 and Vaughn will be coming back to City Council. LUBA remanded the traffic analysis for that intersection (related to the NW District Plan) back to the City for further traffic data. That has nothing to do with the parking plan nor is the entire NW District Plan coming back to the City. In fact, every appeal court from LUBA to the Oregon Supreme Court has now upheld the City Council-approved parking plan, as well as the zoning policy in the NW District Plan.
As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee who, along with many other members, spent nearly three years of consistent involvement on a very public process, it’s time to move forward and implement the parking plan.
Thanks, Jeff Reingold
Posted by: Jeff Reingold | Oct 19, 2005 3:51:14 PM
As one of the CAC members who labored for those three years with Jeff, I must make one important discussion.
The great work in the CAC resulted in a recommendation for paystations, permits for residents and a portion of employees and a Transportation Management Association.
The CAC recommendation referred to parking structures as an additional step that should be considered. IT DID NOT RECOMMEND THE STRUCTURE SITES THAT ARE IN THE NW PARKING PLAN. Those sites were arrived at in a separate negotiation that ultimately did not result in the support of all parties.
The structure site that requires that a house be torn down remains extraordinarily contentious.
Posted by: Chris Smith | Oct 19, 2005 11:41:52 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
To provide some context for folks not intimately familiar with the issue, the 2003 NW District Plan was the first neighborhood plan in the history of the City that City Council adopted over the objection of a neighborhood.
NWDA appealed several aspects of the plan, including upzoning of the northern end of the neighborhood without sufficient planning for the transportation impacts created and of course, the infamous parking structures. The most controversial of the structure sites would allow tearing down a residential house (currently configured as several apartments) and allow a parking structure to be built on that site with no setback requirements from the adjoining properties.
In 2004 LUBA agreed with NWDA that the transportation planning was inadequate, and the plan must return to City Council for that reason.
The most recent ruling regards whether or not the City provided sufficient analysis of the impacts of the garages on the Alphabet Historic District. LUBA gave wide deference to the City in determing whether its analysis (or lack thereof in NWDA's view) was sufficient.
NWDA must now consider whether to appeal the latest ruling from LUBA to the Court of Appeals.
Whether the neighborhood chooses to appeal or not, it should be stressed the the plan MUST return to City Council because of the transportation-related remand, and this Council will have the opportunity to address the travesty created by the prior Council.
Posted by: Chris Smith | Oct 13, 2005 10:29:00 PM