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:

  • Land use laws are based on the participation not upon degree of injury and the importance of the local decision-making process.
  • Through a decision in the 1981 Legislative Assembly, "citizen appeals would be the principal means through which the statewide planning goals would be enforced.”

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

 

  1. 1000 Friends of Oregon Informational Packet, Bob Stacey, 6 pp.
  2. Oregon Cattlemen’s Association Prepared Statement, Glen Stonebrink, 4 pp.