Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. The committee considered the transportation growth management (TGM) grant proposal held over from the previous week. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reject the TGM grant application to audit the code to remove obstacles to density and mixed use. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. 4. Ballot Measure 37: Senate Bill 1037(-2) Mr. Klein provided an overview of Senate Bill (SB) 1037(-2). He noted the bill was the initial draft of the comprehensive rewrite of Ballot Measure 37. It was likely to be amended before being passed out of the Senate Land Use and Environment Committee, and further amendments were likely to be offered in the House of Representatives. Mr. Klein said the bill distinguished and treated land differently if inside an urban growth boundary (UGB), just outside a UGB, and outside a UGB. For land inside a UGB, Ballot Measure 37 claims go away retroactively, except for claims related to residential development affected by Goal 5-type regulations. The same exemptions currently in the code would still apply. To the extent the City's regulations were intended to protect water quality, for example, they would continue to be exempt from claims. Continuing, Mr. Klein said that for land just outside a UGB, the bill provides for the creation of an urban fringe, which was a study area with a two-mile radius that cities over 5,000 in population could establish for a period of up to nine months to give them an opportunity to determine what areas, within the two-mile radius, it wished to study. A city did not have to conduct a study. After the nine month period, the study area went away. Mr. Klein said no one could file a Ballot Measure 37 claim in the study area for the nine- month period. After the council decided what area, if any, it wanted to study, any area it did not want to study would be treated the same as rural land. Once the boundary of the study area was established, no Ballot Measure 37 claims could be filed until 2015. The City would study the area to determine where it wanted to expand the UGB. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein clarified that the bill did not require a jurisdiction to expand a UGB. Mr. Klein indicated he could provide more information about the bill's impact on rural lands outside a UGB if the committee desired. Mr. Klein discussed who could file a Ballot Measure 37 claim, noting only property owners could file a claim. Easement holders had no Ballot Measure 37 claims. Only one claim could be filed for any regulations in existence as of the time the individual filed the claim. He said the bill spelled out the process for filing a claim and the information that must be provided, which essentially mirrored the City's current requirements. The bill also addressed the issue who received notice of such claims and established a minimum period for public comment unless a jurisdiction decided to hold a public hearing. Mr. Klein said the proceeding would be on the record; if the matter went to the courts, a judge would determine whether the correct decision had been made. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 12, 2005 Page 3