HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

 

 

March 06, 2003   Hearing Room HR E

8:30 AM Tapes  31 - 32

 

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

 

MEMBER EXCUSED:            Rep. Diane Rosenbaum

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Ray Kelly, Committee Administrator

David Peffley, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            HB 2610 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 2611 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 2431 – Public Hearing and Work Session

 

 

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 31, A

003

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 8:38 and opens a public hearing on        HB 2610.

HB 2610 – PUBLIC HEARING

007

Ray Kelly

Summarizes HB 2610.

018

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities (LOC).  Submits (EXHIBIT A) in opposition to HB 2610, as it would have an adverse impact on economic development by switching the burden at LUBA and discouraging investment in Oregon. 

153

Rep. Richardson

Asks if HB 2610 is a criminal issue or a property rights issue.

158

Ludwig

Agrees that this really isn’t about guilt and innocence.

160

Rep. Richardson

Asks if Ludwig would support an amendment protecting individual property owners.

162

Ludwig

Replies that she believes that the rights of individual property owners are not at stake.

165

Rep. Richardson

Asks Ludwig if appeals to a state agency are on the same level as appeals to an independent judiciary.

183

Pam Beery

Responds that her testimony will address appeals and that local government will act in a quasi-judicial or even legislative capacity.

208

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Ludwig to confirm the appeals process with LUBA, and that it isn’t an issue of one side versus the other.

230

Ludwig

Confirms that is correct.

233

Beery

Attorney, Beery & Elsner LLP.  Submits  (EXHIBIT B) and testifies in vehement opposition regarding the burden of proof inherent in the judicial system and that this bill would override that precedent.  Also notes that the cost to local governments would be $2.5 million. 

333

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for clarification regarding the fact-finding process works at the local level or the hearings level.

341

Beery

Replies that the current standard is created at the local level and that LUBA simply reviews that record.

356

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for confirmation of LUBA’s jurisdiction. 

361

Beery

Offers clarification to the process.

365

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if LUBA takes additional testimony.

370

Beery

Notes that they do not.

373

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what the record consists of.

380

Beery

Addresses the conformance criteria of the appeals process.

385

Rep. Ackerman

Notes the consequences of that action.

391

Beery

Confirms Rep. Ackerman’s assertion.

393

Rep Ackerman

Asks whether Beery believes that this fact-finding process works in the best interest of all concern.

398

Beery

Asserts that she believes it does.

402

Rep. Ackerman

Asks Beery if it appears that the bill creates a presumption against the local government decision.

406

Beery

Responds that it does.

410

Rep Zauner

Asks who pays the $2.5-5 million dollar fee.

413

Beery

Responds that it is an overall increase.

424

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if this places a new standard on the appeals court.

428

Beery

Agrees that it does.

430

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if there is a precedent.

TAPE 32, A

003

Beery

Replies that she can not think of a precedent.  Affirms the uniqueness of this bill. 

011

Rep. Zauner

Asks if the 2.5 million figure is cumulative.

014

Beery

Affirms that it is cumulative and explains how that figure is calculated.

024

Art Schlack

Oregon Associated Counties (OAC).  Reaffirms the previous testimony and testifies that HB 2610 would create a very costly unfunded mandate which would put an unmanageable burden on local governments.

083

Chair Garrard

Asks for clarification of the intent of HB 2610.

085

Harrison Connolly

Legislative Counsel.  Explains the sections of HB 2610 relating to LUBA.

103

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if Section 3 is in conflict with Section 1.

107

Connolly

States that there may be some inconsistency which needs to be addressed.

111

Rep. Greenlick

Restates the alleged contradiction.

116

Connolly

Agrees with Rep. Greenlick’s interpretation.

121

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB). Submits (EXHIBIT C) and testifies supporting the conditional use premise in HB 2610.  States though, that HB 2610 might not be the best way to address the problem. 

162

Doug Riggs

Central Oregon Cities Organization.  Affirms previous testimony and opposes HB 2610 as written.  Notes concerns with the bill as written.

210

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2610 and opens a public hearing on HB 2611.

HB 2611 – PUBLIC HEARING

213

Kelly

Summarizes HB 2611.

221

Rich Angstrom

OCAPA.  Opposes HB 2611 as an anti-aggregate bill.  Cites ORS 215.213 and 215.296 as examples of how this bill affects the aggregate industry, raising costs exorbitantly and changing standards.

322

Harlan Levy

Oregon Association of Realtors (OAR).  Reaffirms the previous testimony in his opposition to HB 2611.   Cites the necessity of access to rock as integral to OAR’s interests.

345

Art Schlack

Oregon Association of Counties (AOC).  Testifies in opposition to HB 2611, reaffirming the previous testimony. 

396

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if Goal 5 is the Natural Resource Objective.

400

Schlack

Reaffirms Rep Greenlick and concludes testimony, stating that HB 2611 would create an unfunded mandate. 

414

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for clarification on the counties’ responsibility regarding the permitting process.

430

Schlack

Responds to Rep. Ackerman’s concern.  States that aggregate is to be protected in the process.

450

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if this act is triggered by any other action.

TAPE 31, B

003

Schlack

Replies that a conditional use permit is triggered by an applicant.

010

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2611 and opens a public hearing on HB 2431.

HB 2431 – PUBLIC HEARING

016

Duane Smith

Oakcreek Mitigation Bank, Benton County.  Affirms that he supports the aims of the bill, but isn’t sure that this bill accomplishes those aims.  Testifies to the process and costs for the mitigation banks. 

090

Rep. Richardson

Wants to confirm that Smith would support this bill if amended.  Asks what amendments he would propose.

094

Smith

Gives areas of concern which, if addressed, he would support HB 2431. 

113

Rep. Richardson

Asks if all wetlands are of equal value and equal function.

117

Smith

States that this change doesn’t make that distinction.

123

Mark Knaupp

Mud Slough Wetland Mitigation Bank.  Submits (EXHIBIT D) and testifies to the importance of mitigation banks.  Asserts that HB 2431 is flawed, but could potentially be an effective bill.

174

Chair Garrard

Asks how Knaupp got into mitigation banking.

176

Knaupp

Explains how he proceeded from grass seed farming and took on mitigation farming for his own enterprise.

210

Chris Bayham

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC).  Submits (EXHIBIT E) and speaks to the importance of mitigation banks.

235

Rep. Greenlick

Asks how Bayham reads the bill in regard to the permit process.

240

Bayham

Elaborates on the permit process.

250

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Bayham if he could support this model which has people working through the permit process.

254

Bayham

Responds affirmatively.

260

Rep. Richardson

Asks about functional values regarding current mitigation science.

263

Bayham

Clarifies the difference between wetland function and wetland values.

279

Rep. Richardson

Asks about the difference between functional attributes and functional value.

281

Bayham

States that he is unfamiliar with the term.  Clarifies his previous answer.

310

John Lilly

Division of State Lands (DSL).  Submits (EXHIBIT F) and testifies, addressing DSL’s amendment suggestions.  Asserts that DSL does not approve of the bill as written, but could if suitable amendments were introduced.

TAPE 32, B

001

Lilly

Concludes testimony on HB 2431 by addressing mitigation banks.

040

Rep. Zauner

Asks what was done differently to speed up the process. 

044

Lilly

Addresses the application process.

055

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for clarification on the deletions contained in Sections 12 and 13.

063

Lilly

Explains his confusion in the bill and DSL’s position.

083

Rep. Greenlick

Confirms the section Lilly would like to delete.

086

Lilly

Restates that he prefers the current language in the law.

087

Rep. Richardson

Asks for a definition of the term minimum acrage replacement rules. and DSL’s status on that term and position regarding SB 830. 

102

Lilly

Refers to the way the current regulations work in regard to Rep. Richardson’s concerns. 

141

Liz Frenkel

League of Women Voters (LWV).  Submits (EXHIBIT G) and opposes HB 2431.  States concern for clean water and good public policy.

150

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2431 and opens a work session on HB 2431.

HB 2431 – WORK SESSION

170

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about other amendments discussed in the DSL memo to Rep. Kropf.

172

Chair Garrard

Restates that he has no amendments other than those submitted by Mel Stewart.  Closes the work session on HB 2431.

175

Rep. Ackerman

States confusion with the amendments to follow.

177

Kelly

Informs that Brendan McCarthy is presently preparing the amendments.

184

Chair Garrard

Adjourns the meeting at 10:22.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2610, written testimony, Linda Ludwig, 4 pp.

B – HB 2610, written testimony, Pamela Beery, 2 pp.

C – HB 2610, written testimony, Don Schellenberg, 2 pp.

D – HB 2431, written testimony, Mark Knaupp, 1 p.

E – HB 2431, written testimony, Chris Bayham, 2 pp.

F – HB 2431, written testimony, John Lilly, 10 pp.

G – HB 2431, written testimony, Liz Frenkel, 2 pp.