HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE
January 19, 2005 Hearing Room 50
1:30 PM Tapes 3 - 4
Corrected 10/14/05
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Bill Garrard, Chair
Rep. Gordon Anderson, Vice-Chair
Rep. Mitch Greenlick
Rep. Robert Ackerman
Rep. Mary Nolan
Rep. Patti Smith
Rep. Mac Sumner
STAFF PRESENT: Sam Litke, Committee Administrator
Lindsay Luckey, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD & WITNESSES:
1000 Friends of Oregon – Informational Meeting
Oregon Cattlemen’s Association– Informational Meeting
Oregonians in Action– Informational Meeting
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 3, A |
||
003 |
Chair Garrard |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:37 PM. Opens an informational meeting. |
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
013 |
Bob Stacey |
Executive Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon. Introduces Elon Hasson, Staff Lobbyist. |
019 |
Stacey |
Thanks the committee. Notes that remarks will be less structured and will focus more directly on questions from the Committee. |
025 |
Stacey |
References Oregon’s Land Use Planning informational material distributed to public in Question/Answer format (EXHIBIT A). |
032 |
Stacey |
Notes that Oregon’s Land Use Planning program has been successful. |
037 |
Stacey |
Explains regional differences in land use planning (EXHIBIT A, Page 1). |
052 |
Stacey |
Discusses farmland protection and importance of the issue, as farmland protection was one of the principle objectives of SB 100 (1973) and SB 101 (1973) and currently plays a role in the land use debate (EXHIBIT A, Page 3). |
074 |
Stacey |
Discusses urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and housing costs as they relate to land use planning (EXHIBIT A, Page 5). |
090 |
Stacey |
Describes benefits of the land use planning program in Oregon. |
095 |
Stacey |
Discusses the continued importance of agriculture in Oregon. |
108 |
Stacey |
Gives an example from the Port of Portland exemplifying the link between agriculture and the economy of Portland. |
115 |
Stacey |
Reiterates the importance of the UGB principle as it relates to maintaining productive agricultural lands near metropolitan areas. |
135 |
Stacey |
Discusses the rural land policies and their positive secondary effects. |
145 |
Stacey |
Talks about Oregon’s “livability” and its importance to the economy as an employee recruiting tool among other things. |
163 |
Stacey |
Provides an anecdote demonstrating Oregon’s competitive advantage. |
178 |
Stacey |
Stresses the importance of a land use plan that does not impede economic growth. |
185 |
Stacey |
Provides an example of maintenance of the Portland UGB during a time of large growth. |
200 |
Stacey |
Notes that while the price of housing went up, Portland is still the least expensive metro area of comparable size on the West coast. |
216 |
Stacey |
Reports on the relative cost of living in Portland as compared to other cities. |
225 |
Stacey |
Recounts the positive aspects of the Land Use Planning Program. |
234 |
Stacey |
Concedes that the land use system is not without problems. Elaborates. |
244 |
Stacey |
Urges the Committee to maintain the program “and not see [it] unhinged by application of the literal provisions of the measure just adopted by the people as opposed to”… “the goals behind the measure”. |
246 |
Rep. Anderson |
Summarizes Stacey’s earlier comment that his organization, “[doesn’t] want to protect resources just to make things look pretty” and asks if this applies to forestry natural resources. Cites conversations with environmental community who are interested in protecting the “beauty of our old growth” forests. Wonders if what Stacey is saying correlates with the “feeling” among environmentalists. |
263 |
Stacey |
Responds that he is a conservationist as well as in favor of economic development. Elaborates, citing 1000 Friends of Oregon support of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Goal 4, the Forest Lands Goal. |
276 |
Rep. Anderson |
Provides an example and suggests that other incentives factor into decisions about where businesses move. |
296 |
Rep. Greenlick |
Discusses discrepancies in east and west Oregon farmland and the criticism that laws concerning urbanization in Eastern Oregon don’t make sense. Asks Stacey to comment. |
316 |
Stacey |
Responds that its an important question and is interrupted by a fire alarm. |
321 |
Chair Garrard |
Recesses meeting at 1:55 PM for fire drill and building evacuation. |
321 |
Chair Garrard |
Reopens the meeting at 2:14 PM. Invites Stacey to answer the question posed before the recess. |
322 |
Stacey |
Restates the question. Suggests that there are some differences in the laws. |
354 |
Stacey |
Continues, describing the varying scales of agriculture. Notes ranching and the types of land and amounts of land necessary for productivity, which in turn leave ranchers more vulnerable to land use impacts. |
377 |
Stacey |
Makes a recommendation for Committee while considering Measure 37. |
393 |
Stacey |
Discusses considering alternative management for land outside the categories of agricultural, forest and range. |
406 |
Stacey |
Urges Committee to consider the quantity of land protected and the quality of the protection while acknowledging the competing view and its effect on productive ranching and other agricultural pursuits. Thinks that the proposed 30 year review of land use policy will help to clarify issues. |
TAPE 4, A |
||
008 |
Chair Garrard |
Wants to clarify the position of 1000 Friends of Oregon and their openness to discussion of land designation and land planning requirement problems between east and west Oregon. |
014 |
Stacey |
Responds affirmatively, noting the impact of land use law changes and openness to discussions and creative solutions. |
022 |
Stacey |
Gives an example from Klamath County and land designated “non-resource”. |
026 |
Chair Garrard |
Responds with an example concerning “non-resource” land. |
032 |
Rep. Ackerman |
Expresses concern with lack of attention to anticipated population growth and its effect on land use planning. References (EXHIBIT A, Page 2) and questions statistics provided on growth rates. Discusses his concern with compliance with the goal (DLCD) of affordable housing and its relationship to land use planning. |
049 |
Stacey |
Refers Ackerman to (EXHIBIT A, Page 5). Acknowledges outdated statistics. Discusses difference between percentages and absolute growth. |
058 |
Stacey |
Explains the success of UGBs in the Portland area as well as their process compared to other cities in Oregon. |
075 |
Rep. Anderson |
Notes 1000 Friends of Oregon’s view that Measure 37 is flawed. Requests an outlining of the actions taken by 1000 Friends of Oregon and similar organizations to counter Measure 37. |
081 |
Stacey |
Discusses actions in last 2 sessions (2003 and 2001). Notes his predecessor’s work on substitute legislations for Measure 7 (2000 General Election). |
111 |
Chair Garrard |
Discusses the Interim Committee’s findings and asks for an opinion on the elimination of 3rd parties from the appeals process. |
124 |
Stacey |
Explains that the current appeals process fairly protects neighbors and applicants because of the relation to local decision making authorities. |
153 |
Rep. Greenlick |
Makes a distinction between 3rd parties effected by a decision and outside groups, such as 1000 Friends of Oregon, participating in the appeals process. |
169 |
Stacey |
Clarifies his position that groups should have the right to appear citing 2 reasons:
|
206 |
Chair Garrard |
Thanks Stacey and invites Ross Day and Glen Stonebrink to testify. |
OREGON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
225 |
Glen Stonebrink |
Executive Director, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Submits prepared statement (EXHIBIT B). |
247 |
Stonebrink |
Makes historical references to the role of private property rights and the connection in the Constitution between “pursuit of happiness” and property. References 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. |
268 |
Stonebrink |
Discusses the phrase “overwhelming public need” in relation to compensation for taking away private property rights. |
282 |
Stonebrink |
References US Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8). Discusses protections against government purchasing private land. |
307 |
Stonebrink |
Submits that current land use laws violate US and Oregon Constitutions. References (EXHIBIT B, Page 4). |
315 |
Stonebrink |
Reads Article 1, Section 20: Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. |
326 |
Stonebrink |
Gives an example of unfair treatment. |
341 |
Stonebrink |
Makes a distinction between what is explicitly expressed in the Constitution and what is not. Stating that specifics about how land is to be used is not a part of the Constitution. |
371 |
Stonebrink |
Expresses disagreement with some farmers. |
391 |
Stonebrink |
Gives example of failure in land use planning |
TAPE 3, B |
||
003 |
Stonebrink |
Discusses the possibility of giving land use planning jurisdiction to smaller regions throughout the state. Expresses intention to introduce a bill that would put every city and county in charge of their own land use planning. |
026 |
Stonebrink |
In response to an earlier question “What kinds of land needs to be protected” he responds that property rights need to be protected. |
036 |
Stonebrink |
Gives a personal account of problems in dealing with selling and maintaining his farmland. Draws a visual diagram. |
055 |
Rep. Greenlick |
Asks who in “the state” was involved and how they got involved in this particular issue. |
058 |
Stonebrink |
Responds. |
075 |
Stonebrink |
Continues example. |
088 |
Stonebrink |
Explains that fears of developments in many farmlands are unwarranted because of the amount of land owned by Oregon. |
OREGONIANS IN ACTION – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
095 |
Ross Day |
Director of Legal Affairs, Oregonians in Action. Describes his presentation through PowerPoint which will be an overview of the Oregon system of land use, dispel some myths about it, and discuss areas of concern for the group. |
108 |
Day |
Begins background of the Oregon Land Use System. Discuses SB 100 (1973). |
|
Day |
Discusses fundamental premise of land use system and how it is maintained through Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB). |
126 |
Day |
Cites instances of “overly restricted farm and forest land outside of UGBs.” |
150 |
Day |
Discusses intention of SB 100 to be locally controlled and implemented. |
161 |
Rep. Greenlick |
Remarks on testimony heard during the interim about land outside of UGB zoned as industrial commercial. |
167 |
Day |
Discusses the limited circumstances in which there are rural industrial, rural commercial or rural residential zones. But states that most land outside UGBs is designated farm, forest or open space. |
176 |
Day |
Notes the 19 Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and states that Goals 3, 4 and 5 cause most of the frustration with the land use system. |
183 |
Day |
Begins discussion of Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Goal. |
196 |
Day |
Gives an example of prohibitive land use restrictions from Crook County. |
221 |
Day |
Gives another example. |
224 |
Day |
Begins discussion of Goal 4: Forest Lands Goal. |
231 |
Day |
Gives an example of prohibitive land use restrictions from Jackson County. |
256 |
Day |
Explains Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces Goal |
263 |
Day |
Gives an example of the impacts of Goal 5. Cites an example from Metro in Aug 2004. |
290 |
Day |
Uses Goal 5 as an example of why land use system needs change. |
310 |
Day |
Submits and explains “6 biggest myths about the Oregon Land Use Planning System” Myth 1) “Oregon’s Land Use Planning system is a nationally acclaimed model” Notes that no other state has adopted a statewide, centralized Land Use Planning system in 32 years of its existence. |
328 |
Day |
2) “Without Oregon’s Land Use Panning system, Oregon would be “one big subdivision”” Notes that majority of land unavailable for development and urges a doubling of land allowed to be developed from 2 to 4 %. |
346 |
Day |
3) “Oregon Land Use System preserves Livability” Counters that Portland has gone from being one of the most affordable cities to one of the least affordable. |
371 |
Day |
4) “Oregon’s Land Use system is good for the economy.” Discusses the problem of length of permitting. |
391 |
Day |
5) “Oregon’s Land Use planning is popular with Oregonians” Notes statistics on discontent in dealing with the land use planning system. |
412 |
Day |
6) “Oregon’s Land Use System benefits the public at no cost to anyone.” Asserts that Oregon’s property owners pay. |
TAPE 4, B |
||
012 |
Day |
Gives several anecdotes of limited property use. |
046 |
Day |
Discusses Measure 7 (2000 General Election). |
053 |
Day |
Gives a list of issues he’d like the Committee to address |
057 |
Day |
1) A review of the definitions of farm and forest land under Goals 3 and 4. |
061 |
Day |
2) Speeding up the Land Use Planning system. |
064 |
Day |
3) Development on resource zoned lands. |
080 |
Day |
Urges the recognition that any real reforms will result in development of resource lands. |
083 |
Day |
4) Return local control to local governments. |
090 |
Day |
Reiterates that “development does not mean gutting Oregon’s land use system.” |
101 |
Day |
Concluding remarks. |
112 |
Stonebrink |
References (EXHIBIT B, Page 3) the Administrative Procedures Act. |
130 |
Stonebrink |
Makes a final request that LCDC create a public list of key legislation and rules and implementation date for state. |
155 |
Chair Garrard |
Makes concluding remarks and adjourns meeting at 3:23 pm. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY