MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Tuesday, November 21, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Park (Chair), Susan McLain, Rod Monroe

Others Present    David Bragdon, Ed Washington

Members Absent:    None

Chair Park called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2000, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-882, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 97-715B, REGARDING HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING POLICY SECTION 1.3 AND AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN TITLES 7 AND 8, ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C.

Andrew Cotugno, Director, Growth Management Department, introduced the resolution. He explained that this ordinance would amend both the framework plan and the functional plan. It represented an attempt to codify the results of the Affordable Housing Task Force’s (H-TAC’s) work over the past few years and reflect the affordable housing strategy adopted by Council resolution in June of 2000. He said the ordinance needed more review, so it would not be ready for action today. The ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) and will be introduced at the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) meeting on November 29. Staff would aim to have committee action on December 5, 2000, have an MTAC recommendation by December 6, an MPAC recommendation on December 13, and Council action on December 14.

Gerry Uba, Planner, Growth Management, distributed an updated staff report that presented estimates of financial impact. He summarized changes the ordinance would make to the framework and functional plans, and the roles of Metro and local jurisdictions in implementing and funding affordable housing strategies. (Details of these roles, impacts, and changes can be found in the updated staff report, attached to the meeting packet, and in Exhibits A and B to the resolution included in the packet.) He emphasized that changes follow the recommendations in the Affordable Housing Final Report released in June of 2000.

Councilor McLain commended Mr. Uba on the work he has done, but she said it would be important for him to emphasize that this ordinance was only the second step in a long process. She reviewed the history of developing the strategy and the MPAC and MTAC reviews that have occurred in the past. She noted that controversies had come up and had been addressed in those reviews through changes and by compromise. This ordinance did not represent a major policy shift, but a “clean up” based on all the discussions and put forth in the report issued last June by H-TAC.

Mr. Cotugno said the resolution passed last June approved the recommendations for an affordable housing strategy. Those recommendations now need to be codified through the framework plan and implemented through the functional plan. This ordinance follow that resolution, spurred by the Land Use Board of Appeals’ (LUBA’s) decision that called for Metro to implement an affordable housing strategy. He noted that MTAC had not had a chance to review the current draft of the ordinance, but it would on December 6.

Chair Park noted that MPAC had requested some language changes, such as from “shall” to “should.” He asked if those changes had been made.

Mr. Cotugno said the intent was to do that, but if that had not been done, it needed to be fixed.

Chair Park said he wanted to make sure MPAC’s concerns had been addressed. He noted that both MTAC and MPAC would have another opportunity to review the language before the Council votes in December. He also pointed out some typographical errors that would need to be corrected.

Councilor McLain wanted to be sure that the reviews would focus on making sure agreed-upon changes had been made but would not re-open the issues.

Chair Park opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 00-882 at.3: 37 p.m.

Tasha Harmon, Community Development Network, 802 SE 27^th, Portland, OR 97214, said she had reviewed the ordinance language as an alternate to MTAC. She raised two issues: process and content. As to process, she expressed concern over how quickly this process was going forward. She was concerned that many H-TAC members were not prepared to have this acted upon. She said she was not convinced that the H-TAC strategy had been completely reflected in this ordinance. She offered to work with the legal staff to make sure it was.

She said she would prefer that H-TAC be involved in this final review. As to the change from “shall” to “should,” she noted that the “shall” is followed by the word “consider.” She thought the list that followed already contained the necessary modifiers. She thought the agreement was to use the word “shall.” She objected to Metro’s using the words, “may consider” instead of “will commit” to carrying out the affordable housing strategy.

She also urged staff to include a methodology section in the ordinance, to be adopted with it. She also said reporting requirements should be clarified. Finally, she urged retaining the advisory committee for the next five years. She said it would not need to meet often—perhaps only quarterly. But it would be a valuable resource in helping to keep Metro’s policies current and useful.

Doug Bollam, PO Box 1944, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, said redevelopment is one key way to address an affordable housing strategy. He expressed concern over the displacement that takes place during urban renewal projects. He expressed concern about Exhibit B, Title 7 of the functional plan, specifically Table 3.07-7 on page 5 of the exhibit. He expressed concern over how realistic projections were, noting that 185 units were projected for Lake Oswego. He said people in Lake Oswego had said that would be difficult to achieve. He questioned whether on page 6 under 3.07.730, Requirements for Comprehensive Planning Implementation Ordinance Changes, under B3 sub b, the second sentence should read “minimum” not maximum. He thought it might be misinterpreted to apply to “McMansions.”

Mr. Cotugno said the intention was to identify small units that would be affordable. He said the words “small units” could be added to clarify that intention.

No one else came forward to testify, so Chair Park closed the public hearing at 3:50 PM.

Presiding Officer Bragdon outlined the schedule for considering this ordinance. He said Council had scheduled two hearings, one on December 7 and the other on December 14. The advisory committee meetings would be November 29 and December 13. The Growth Management Committee, in addition, would be considering this for action on December 5. Those all presented times for public comment.

Councilor Washington said he would support the ordinance as written, but would save his comments for when the ordinance was considered for action.

Chair Park announced that Growth Management Committee action on this ordinance would be on December 5, allowing time for advisory committee reviews and for staff to fix typos and clean up language.

Councilor McLain said that the schedule should provide the public and H-TAC with several opportunities to comment and offer suggestions, housekeeping or otherwise, before the Council takes final action. She reminded people that everything is always open for amendments.

Councilor Monroe closed by commenting that the affordable housing strategy relies mostly on “carrots,” but he said the “stick” remains in Metro’s back pocket.

3.  PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MEASURE 7

Mr. Cotugno asked Larry Shaw to explain the rationale behind developing an ordinance to guide claims procedures. He said a second issue would be to determine how Measure 7 affects deadlines for local jurisdictions to meet comprehensive plan requirements. He said it would be necessary to determine what Measure 7 means before addressing that issue.

Larry Shaw, Assistant Legal Counsel, said that Measure 7 goes into effect on December 7, 2000. He said legal counsels on all levels, from the state attorney general to the local attorneys, were trying to figure out the implications of the measure. At the very least, he believed that jurisdictions would need to develop a procedure for processing claims. The measure requires that a jurisdiction respond to a claim within 90 days of the claim’s being filed, which emphasizes the importance of having that process in place. Legal staff has reviewed several versions of procedures describing a wide range of processes, from charging a pre-application fee as well as a processing fee in and imposing appraisal requirements, to requiring little more than submitting a claim. The rough draft Metro’s staff was developing takes a middle ground and has two parts: first is the determination of validity, and the second is a budgetary decision to determine the amount of compensation. The final decision would be left to the Council.

Daniel Cooper, General Counsel, said the Council would have several policy decisions to make while this ordinance goes forward. He said the legal staff would be bringing forward a complete package but would point out where choices might be made on any individual issue. He said that his staff thought Metro probably would not as vulnerable as local jurisdictions to the effects of Measure 7, but it was in no way immune and should have a process for handling claims in place.

Councilor McLain said she would not be comfortable taking any definitive action until the state courts had decided what the measure means. She said that it would be important to avoid the appearance that Metro understands the measure or knows what its implications are. She thought it would be important to go forward with planning goals, and she said that she remained committed to protecting the environment and managing growth.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked who could make a claim. Could one government make a claim against another government?

Mr. Cooper said he did not know the answer to that. As to who may make a claim, the person who makes the claim has to own the property that suffers the reduction in value. As far as he could tell, the regulation had to directly affect and be about that property.

Presiding Officer Bragdon asked whether, for example, a 50,000 ton-per-year cap imposed on a solid waste station would trigger Measure 7.

Mr. Cooper said it would depend on how narrowly the term “regulation” is defined. The answer might lie in how closely attached to the property the restriction on tonnage flow is. If it the cap were imposed as part of a conditional-use action and connected with a land-use decision, it would be more likely to trigger Measure 7 than if it were part of a license agreement that could be transferred from site to site. If the cap were related to a mixture of the two, the situation would become more complex and need to be interpreted by the courts. The ordinance the legal staff was preparing would set the procedures for handling claims.

Chair Park asked Mr. Cooper what would be considered compensation other than declaring that the claimant did not need to adhere to the regulation.

Mr. Cooper said, cash. However, such legislative actions as tax credits, investment benefits, or density bonuses that in effect adjust the appraised value of the property could eliminate the need to provide cash compensation.

Mr. Cotugno said time would be of essence. The ordinance would need to be adopted by December 7, as the measure takes effect on that date.

Mr. Cooper reminded the Committee that the document could be a work in process and, in fact, was very likely to need amending as the meaning becomes clearer.

Presiding Officer Bragdon noted that the ordinance would need an emergency clause in order to have it take effect immediately.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Park adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2000

The following have been included as part of the official public record:

Testimony cards

Tasha Harmon

Doug Bollam