City attorney: moratorium can pause projects but must meet state findings and notice

City Attorney Dan Acheson outlined the legal limits and procedural steps for a moratorium and related code amendments, telling council a pause can be an important tool but carries legal risk if state requirements are not met.

Acheson explained there are two typical moratorium types — one tied to lack of public facilities (effective up to 60 days, extendable) and a "compelling need" moratorium (effective for up to 120 days with possible extensions) — and that the city must prepare written findings and provide statutory notices, including a 45‑day notice to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). He warned that failure to comply with procedural steps such as the notice period could prompt a writ or injunction and eliminate the moratorium's effectiveness.

"A moratorium can allow a jurisdiction to impose a pause on development of that type of development and address those deficiencies in its public facilities or avoid irrevocable harm," Acheson said. He also noted that moratoria and code amendments can be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and that jurisdictions found to have acted in bad faith can be assessed attorney fees.

Acheson urged the council to give staff time to prepare findings carefully so the moratorium (if ultimately adopted) and any ordinance will withstand likely scrutiny.