HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

 

 

March 04, 2003   Hearing Room  E

8:30 AM Tapes  29 - 30

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Bill Garrard, Chair

Rep. Dennis Richardson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Cliff Zauner, Vice-Chair

Rep. Robert Ackerman

Rep. Dan Doyle

Rep. Mitch Greenlick

Rep. Diane Rosenbaum

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Ray Kelly, Committee Administrator

David Peffley, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURES HEARD:                     HB 2614 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 2431 – Public Hearing

 

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 29, A

003

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 8:36 AM and opens a public hearing on  HB 2614.

HB 2614 – PUBLIC HEARING

006

Ray Kelly

Summarizes HB 2614.

016

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon.  Testifies in support of HB 2614.  Submits (EXHIBIT A) and speaks to the importance of this modest change to the ORS. 

055

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB).  Submits (EXHIBIT B) and testifies in support of HB 2614, as it gives local governments the option to preserve high-value farmland and to not spend more money in services. 

142

Harlan Levy

Oregon Realtors Association (ORA).  Speaks in opposition to HB 2614 since it removes the twenty-year requirement.  States ORA’s belief that this bill would exacerbate the trend of the decreasing rate of home ownership. 

175

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Levy how this legislation would continue to raise the price of housing. 

188

Levy

Responds that market prices would dictate a rise and states ORA’s assertion that regulation and SDC constraints would exacerbate the price of housing which is already too high.

205

Rep. Greenlick

Asks how giving local control would raise the price of housing.

211

Levy

Responds as to effect of removing the twenty-year supply constraints. 

235

Art Schlack

Association of Working Counties.  Notes the part which counties play in the process of selecting urban growth boundaries.  Asserts that local control would make the process more flexible.  Recommends passage of HB 2614. 

281

Jon Chandler

Oregon Building Industry Association.  Gives a historical background of the intent and implementation of twenty-year supply component.  Submits that the twenty-year time frame is sufficient and should not be changed, thus he opposes HB 2614. 

403

Rep. Richardson

Asks Chandler who should make the determination and whether the local communities are better equipped to make these decisions. 

TAPE 30, A

002

Chandler

Continues testimony and speaks to the theory of local control vis-à-vis the political realities.  States that it is not a cut and dry issue, but requires a look in order to strike a balance.

030

Rep. Greenlick

States concern over the length of a twenty-year requirement.  Asks Chandler where the twenty-year figure came from and the effects. 

043

Chandler

Notes that it was a PFA pronouncement, and a compromise solution, but that there’s nothing magical about twenty years, per se.

080

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about the immediate consequences about a twenty-year requirement. 

097

Chandler

Submits that a fifteen-year and a twenty-year do exactly the same thing and don’t address immediate consequences.  Asserts that there are too many variables when you let localities set their own numbers.  States that he isn’t married to twenty years, but sees the need to have some solid number.

131

Burton Weast

Legislative Director, Special District Association of Oregon.  Speaks to the history and the intent of the twenty-year requirement.  Disagrees with Chandler’s assertion that it was a random compromise.  States concern for standardization, assuming the removal of the twenty-year requirement. 

183

Rep. Richardson

Asks Weast about his concern regarding local control. 

186

Weast

Restates the effects of removing the twenty-year requirement, and that it’s removal would politicize and de-standardize the process. 

218

Chair Garrard

Announces an amendment forthcoming on HB 2614.  Closes the public hearing on HB 2416 and opens a public hearing on HB 2431.

HB 2431 – PUBLIC HEARING

233

Bob Frenkel

Submits (EXHIBIT C) and testifies in opposition to HB 2431 as it will undercut Oregon’s comprehensive wetlands program which has garnered many benefits to Oregonians over the past fourteen years. 

393

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Frenkel to talk about the value of small wetlands as opposed to the large swamps. 

411

Frenkel

States that isolated wetlands have flood control and water purification functions. 

TAPE 29, B

014

Phil Scoles

Submits (EXHIBIT D) and affirms his support for this legislation if a few changes are addressed.  These changes are contained in the text of (EXHIBIT D). 

075

Chair Garrard

Asks about wetland functional attributes and the determination of the value of credits in the proposed amendment.

080

Scoles

Explains that functional attributes are not defined and the intention is to define the term as it relates to wetlands.

100

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about quantifiable measures.

108

Scoles

States that some things are not quantifiable and somewhat vague.  Suggests letting scientists work out the problems on a case-by-case basis.

120

Chair Garrard

Addresses his concern with scientists due to the Klamath Basin problem.

128

Scoles

States that he understands the Chair’s concern and is open to some sort of compromise.

140

Richard Novitzki

Novitzki and Associates.  Speaks to a balance between development and preservation.  States that a bill is needed to simplify and standardize the process.  Asserts that HB 2431 starts along that line.  Addresses the importance of mitigation banks in striking a proper balance.  Recommends amendments to the bill.

270

Dave Jampolsky

Supports the goal of HB 2431 in streamlining the process and also states the importance of preservation.  Speaks to the benefits of mitigation banks for the environment and for development.  Also recommends amendments to the bill.

355

Chair Garrard

Asks how the fee is derived for mitigation banks. 

360

Jampolsky

Addresses the fee structure and that the fees are compensated by the sale to developers. 

413

Chair Garrard

Asks how much take-home profit the mitigation banker makes. 

425

Jampolsky

States that it can vary.  Guesses that 40-60% depending on the bank and a myriad of factors.

440

Chair Garrard

Asks if someone was seeking a mitigation bank, would they search for the best rate?

445

Jampolsky

States that one would search for the best bank, depending on a variety of factors. 

TAPE 30, B

003

Chair Garrard

Asks if mitigation banks are regulated and by who. 

007

Jampolsky

States that they are intensely regulated and reviewed.

019

Mel Stewart

Helped to draft part of this legislation.  States that he does have a lawsuit with the Division of State Lands and has pending legislation.  States that Section 2 of the bill addresses the concerns of the mitigation bankers.

039

Rep. Ackerman

Asks Stewart about the phrase assessed value in Section 2.

041

Stewart

Responds that he addressed that in a proposed amendment.

043

Chair Garrard

States that they don’t have any amendments submitted.

044

Stewart

States that he was confused about the amendment process and didn’t properly submit them.

050

Chair Garrard

Recommends that the witness return when the committee reopens a public hearing on the bill.

060

Ray Kelly

States that one amendment has been submitted to Legislative Counsel and should be available on Thursday.

069

Rep. Ackerman

States that the amendment is integral to this legislation.

072

Chair

Reaffirms that one amendment has been submitted and passed on to Legislative Counsel.

089

Rep. Ackerman

Asks Stewart about his role in drafting the bill and if he consulted with legal counsel.

094

Stewart

Responds that he consulted Supreme Court decisions which relate to the issue.

097

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if legal counsel helped to create unclear sections in the bill.

101

Stewart

Reasserts that he did have help and references Dolan v. Tigard.

105

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Stewart what is the main problem which HB 2431 is the solution to.

110

Stewart

States that it is meant to address a lengthy permit process.

114

Green

Asks who the “we” is.

118

Stewart

Responds to the “we” who worked on the legislation.   Continues with difficulties within the permit process.

134

Rep. Greenlick

Clarifies that the intent of the bill is to speed up this process.  States concern that HB 2431 attempts to do too much.

142

Stewart

States his reasoning for the complexity and what they attempted to address with this legislation.

160

Chair Garrard

Asks Stewart to get the amendments to the committee as soon as possible.

165

Paul Adamus

Submits (EXHIBIT E)  and states agreement in the area of attempting to increase mitigation banking.  States areas of concern in HB 2431.  Emphasizes that one standard alone can not address all the areas and the functions of wetlands. 

241

Chair Garrard

Asks if economic impact is part of the wetland process.

244

Adamus

Affirms that it is for the Corp of Engineers, although states that he can not speak to the Division of State Lands.

288

Nass

Legal Counsel, Appellate Courts.  Submits (EXHIBIT F) in support of his testimony.  Speaks especially to Sections 10 and 11 relating to judicial review and appeals.

328

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for confirmation that the burden of proof is consistent with the fact-finding function.

335

Nass

Affirms that it is.

338

Rep. Ackerman

Notes that the fact-finding function in this bill would be a hearings before the hearings offer, itself.

342

Nass

Agrees.

344

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if it’s true that the burden of proof would not apply here.

346

Nass

Agrees.

358

Chair Garrard

States his intention to continue public hearing on Thursday.  Adjourns the meeting at 10:30.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2614, written testimony, Randy Tucker, 1 p.

B – HB 2614, written testimony, Don Schellenberg, 2 pp.

C – HB 2431, written testimony, Robert Frankel, 3 pp.

D – HB 2431, written information, Phil Scoles, 6 pp.

E – HB 2431, written testimony, Paul Adamus, 3 pp.

F – HB 2431, written testimony, Jim Nass, 6 pp.