HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE

 

 

January 24, 2005   Hearing Room 50

1:30 PM     Tapes  5 - 6

 

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: 

                                                HB 2258 – Public Hearing and Work Session

                                                     B. Harrison Conley, Legislative Counsel

                                                Metro Presentation – Informational Meeting

                                                HB 2162 – Public Hearing

                                                     Art Schlack, Association of Oregon Counties

                                                     Harlan Levy, Oregon Association of Realtors

                                         Lane Shetterly, Dept. of Land Conservation and Development

                                                     Shephen Kafoury, OR Chapter of the American Planning Assoc.

                                                     Linda Ludwig, League of Oregon Cities

                                                     Doug Riggs, Central Oregon Cities Organization

                       

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 5, A

004

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:37 PM.  Gives an overview of meeting and states that there will be no work session on HB 2162 today, only a public hearing. 

009

Chair Garrard

Opens public hearing on HB 2258.

HB 2258 - PUBLIC HEARING

013

B. Harrison Conley

Harrison Conley, Deputy Legislative Counsel.  Explains he drafted HB 2258.  Gives background on HB 2258.  Notes that the change is substantive but mostly a technical change that will have little effect on policy.

035

Conley

Explains that ORS 92.405 (6) relates to dividing land and says violations of this section are subject to several provisions.  Explicitly explains provisions and gives examples of issues to be corrected.  He notes the two types of corrections made:

  • ·         More clearly specifies the provisions for 92.405 that are sanctionable.
  • ·         Clarified that the sanction applied is an unlawful trade practice subject to personal suit or public suit to correct the situation. 

 

069

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearing and opens a work session on HB 2258.

HB 2258 – WORK SESSION

071

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB 2258 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

 

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. ANDERSON will lead discussion on the floor.

079

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session and opens an informational meeting on Metro Council.

METRO COUNCIL – INFORMATIONAL MEETING

080

Chair Garrard

Invites David Bragdon and Randy Tucker to speak.

083

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs Manager, Metro.  Introduces David Bragdon.

101

David Bragdon

Council President, Metro.  Begins presentation of Metro Council outlining their objectives, challenges and legislative issues.  Introduces Metro Council Legislative Priorities packet (EXHIBIT A).

121

Bragdon

Details Metro’s 4 major issues:

  • Creating and maintaining “Great Places” for people to work and live.
  • Promoting economic vitality of the metropolitan area.
  • Maintaining the environmental health of the region.
  • Improving the internal operation and efficiency of the governments in their region.

158

Bragdon

Begins discussion of Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) which is a visible and controversial aspect of Metro. Outlines the current requirements from the state and recent actions with regards to the review and expansion processes.

177

Bragdon

Highlights the challenges Metro faces with the contentious process of UGB expansion.

  • ·         Points out that merely continuing the same process does not aptly serve the interests of all involved.
  • ·         States difficulty of integration of land supply management with economic development.

197

Bragdon

Recognizes their sphere of influence extends beyond their boundaries and their impact on neighboring communities.  References the commute patterns on the Metro Map (EXHIBIT B).

213

Bragdon

Gives a controversial example regarding the industrial lands south of Wilsonville and the Willamette River area and the impacts on Marion County.  In this case, they decided not to expand the UGB.

220

Bragdon

Gives a similar example from North Plains.  Indicates an ongoing discussion about an ultimate limit of how far the UGB could go.

237

Bragdon

Illustrates farming’s role in the economy.  Points out some of the conflicting interests of farming and urban uses.

250

Bragdon

Returns to the process used under state law to review and expand the UGB.  Points out the increasingly complicated issues associated with the process.

287

Bragdon

Begins discussion of Metro Council’s Legislative Issues.  Describes the seemingly continual process of Metro’s UGB review and asks for an extension of the review cycle for Metro’s UGB beyond the current 5 year cycle. 

302

Bragdon

Notes Metro’s interest in participating in land uses issues including the 30 year review (LCDC) and Measure 37 (2004 General Election).

321

Bragdon

Gives concluding remarks and offers to take questions.

325

Rep. Greenlick

Recalls that of his district comprises 51% unincorporated Washington County, with many living within the UGB.  Wants to clarify Metro’s interest in assuring people that who live in UGB areas have the ability to get into cities.  Notes a rule that allows one city to veto another city within 3 miles of its limit and wants to know if that is a Metro interest or an independent issue.

352

Bragdon

Describes Metro’s role as a facilitator of discussion concerning particular cases of annexation.  Feels urban services are best provided by cities and relates the difficulty in quantifying the proportion of services paid and received.

377

Chair Garrard

Asks what services an unincorporated area would receive that the residents don’t pay for.

380

Bragdon

Lists some of the possible concerns as city streets, libraries, cultural facilities and parks.   Reiterates difficulty in measuring  as the usage of many services are not tracked.  Provides an example of tax revenue flow.

TAPE 6, A

003

Chair Garrard

Asks about the number of Metro employees, planners, etc.

009

Bragdon

Replies that they have 600 full time employees, 80 of which are planners.  Reports that their annual budget is about 280 million dollars.

012

Rep. Anderson

Cites Bragdon’s earlier statement that 18,000 acres had recently been added to the UGB.  Asks about the classification of the land.

019

Bragdon

Replies that it was primarily residential, but some will develop employment, industrial and commercial retail.  Mentions that before it was brought into the UGB, it was exception land (from agriculture and forest uses). 

023

Rep. Anderson

Clarifies that the land was not of benefit to agricultural use. 

026

Bragdon

Responds that it brings up the issue of the 1970’s system land classification.  Elaborates that in practice, some areas within the 18,000 acres are productive for the nursery industry.  Also indicates that some land classified as viable is not.

035

Rep. Anderson

Asks if this industry will be de displaced as these areas are built residential.

037

Bragdon

Responds affirmatively. 

049

Rep. Anderson

Gives example from city planning and recommends the state look to do something similar on a macro scale.  Advises more diversification of industry throughout the state.  Relates this to transportation problems.

060

Bragdon

Recognizes statewide view, but indicates they must respond to market demands within urban area.  Discusses instances of  downtown revitalization.

074

Rep. Anderson

Agrees about responding to market demand, but emphasizes the frustration of rural areas limited by zoning focused in the UGB.

083

Bragdon

Refers to cooperative efforts at the port of Portland.

090

Rep. Anderson

Notes that the port of Medford is international and gives reasons why he thinks interest should be directed to areas beyond the Metro region.

102

Chair

Closes informational session and opens a public hearing on HB 2162.

HB 2162 – PUBLIC HEARING

115

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Gives overview of HB 2162.  Will remove a sunset clause from HB 2691 (2003, ORS 688).

125

Rep. Greenlick

States his understanding of which section the sunset applies to.

134

Litke

Responds in agreement. 

137

Art Schlack

Policy Manager, Association of Oregon Counties. Submits prepared statement (EXHIBIT C) which expresses support of HB 2162.

147

Schlack

Reads from written testimony (EXHIBIT C).

164

Schlack

Discusses the background of HB 2614 (2003).

174

Schlack

Gives examples of use of the bill from Hood River and Umatilla County.

185

Schlack

Concedes that only a few cases have made use of HB 2614 but asserts that the provisions have only been in effect since Jan. 1, 2004.  There has also been a change in administrative rule from LCDC.  Also notes that some counties “expressed their appreciation to the legislature for the opportunities that the bill provides.”

196

Schlack

Urges support of HB 2162.

207

Chair Garrard

Remarks that during the interim, the Land Use Committee found that this was a large priority among Eastern Oregon constituents.

214

Rep. Anderson

Wonders about the difference between HB 2162 and the “shovel ready” bill and if there are any major zoning differences. 

220

Schlack

Discusses the “mill bill” HB 2691 (2003) Explains limitation on redevelopment of industrial zones.  Notes that the “mill bill” is similar but HB 2614 (2003) goes further to include non-mill sites.

246

Harlan Levy

Senior Staff Attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors.  Expresses his support for the concept of the bill and announces the legislation that will soon be introduced.  Discusses background of HB 2691 (2003) and the introduction of  HB 2614 (2003) which addressed the problems found in HB 2691.

270

Levy

Notes that the mill portion of the bill does not have a sunset and now they seek to remove the sunset on the rest of the legislation.

281

Levy

Calls it an economic development bill which will benefit the most needing areas of the state.  References a Hermiston example.

310

Levy

Asserts the new bill will also expand the scope to include rural commercial areas and provide more jobs.  Points out that they are only giving authority to county commissioners to allow uses of lands which they’ve already planned and zoned for.

323

Rep. Greenlick

Confirms that Levy’s bill will only deal with existing zoned property.

327

Levy

Confirms that the bill will only deal with land planned and zoned for rural industrial and rural commercial uses.  Notes that it is a “grandfathering bill.”  Reiterates the positive features of his bill.

353

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development.

391

Shetterly

Wants to highlight the work group organized to deal with industrial and commercial issues of rural lands in the context of the goals of the land use planning system.  Requests that instead of a removal, an extension of the sunset be made.

408

Shetterly

Notes that he is not against the goals of HB 2162, but would like to allow the work group to finish.

TAPE 5, B

013

Chair Garrard

Asks if he has seen LC 1540, “son” of HB 2162. 

014

Shetterly

Responds he has.

015

Chair Garrard

Asks if his position would remain the same towards the introduction of LC 1540 as a bill.

016

Shetterly

Requests that the work group be allowed to conclude before a legislature action is made.  Also notes that they are dealing with industrial and commercial.

024

Stephen Kafoury

Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association.  Supports the  DLCD position.  Notes that he is a member of work group.

037

Chair Garrard

Asks how much time is expected before the work group will be finished.

042

Kafoury

Says that he expects to finish in a couple of months, not years.

056

Kafoury

Believes the issues can be taken care of administratively by possibly amending Goal 14 (LCDC).

059

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  Expresses her strong support for HB 2162.  Concedes she would also support the position of an extension of the sunset clause if not lifted.

076

Ludwig

Explains the benefits of increased flexibility with urban growth expansions. 

090

Ludwig

Cites problems with restricted revenue to cities. 

102

Chair Garrard

Asks if taxing districts are compressed.

107

Ludwig

Responds affirmatively. 

119

Ludwig

Reads examples of results from a survey of cities taken last session, which express discontent with limitations on UGBs and conflicts between delivering services to unincorporated areas.    

161

Ludwig

Reiterates her support of HB 2162 as is and asks for recognition of the concerns around this issue.

172

Chair Garrard

Asks if there are any cities which do not charge system development charges.

175

Ludwig

Responds affirmatively and discusses some differences between charges.

180

Chair Garrard

Asks if the counties share some of the burden of the cities.

186

Ludwig

Responds affirmatively.

194

Doug Riggs

Central Oregon Cities Organization.  Gives his history of strong support for previous bills HB 2614 (2003) Mill Bill HB 2691 (2003), and  SB 467-HB 2011.

213

Riggs

Gives his support for the bill and says an extension to the sunset would also be acceptable.  He has concerns with unlimited commercial development without a legislative work group discussion. 

261

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearing on HB 2162.

270

Chair Garrard

Adjourns meeting at 2:48 PM.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

  1. Metro Council Legislative Priorities, David Bragdon, 16 pp.
  2. Metro Council Map, David Bragdon, 2 pp.
  3. HB 2162, Arthur Schlack, 1 p.
  4. HB 2162, Lane Shetterly, 2 pp.