HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE

 

 

March 02, 2005   Hearing Room 50

1:30 P.M. Tapes  32 - 33

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Bill Garrard, Chair

Rep. Gordon Anderson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, Vice-Chair

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:

HB 2549 – Work Session

                                                HB 2544 – Public Hearing

                                                HB 2458 – 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 32, A

001

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and opens a work session on HB 2549.

HB 2549 – WORK SESSION

004

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Reviews the public hearing and provisions of HB 2549.  Describes effect of -2 amendments.

044

Rep. Dennis Richardson

HD 4.  States position as proponent of HB 2549 and -2 amendments (EXHIBIT A).  Reiterates Litke’s description of amendments and highlights the “reinterpretation” issue and its intent.

082

Rep. Nolan

Notes the two types of  “reinterpretation” and her agreement and understanding of one.  Gives a hypothetical situation in which a property owner was mistakenly allowed the right to build a house by a local jurisdiction and was later overturned in error.  Asks if HB 2549 will grant people the right they didn’t originally have in this case.

100

Rep. Richardson

Responds that the change in interpretation would only apply to subsequent people.  Emphasizes that if on the date the owner purchased their property they were allowed to build a house, they should have that right now.

126

Rep. Ackerman

References Page 2, line 33 of HB 2549 and asks if the intent is to allow a different type of review in circuit court under which you would have entitlement to a jury trial

138

Rep. Richardson

Responds that there is no intent to change the judicial procedure and gives his expectation that the technical error will be addressed on the Senate side.

145

Rep. Ackerman

Reports his submittal of an amendment to limit conveyance of building permits to apply through inheritance only rather than conveyance to a third party. States his intention to propose his amendments on the Senate side to avoid delaying passage. 

158

Chair Garrard

Requests Don Schellenberg comment on the amendments and asks if the Farm Bureau will remain neutral on HB 2549.

163

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Defers his position on the bill, citing opposition to the current conveyance rights provided under HB 2549.

175

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2549-2 amendments dated 3/2/05.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

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

 

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

200

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB 2549-2 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

210

Rep. Greenlick

Reports intention to vote “no” and his opposition towards piecemeal solutions for Measure 37.  Discusses meeting with constituents and his openness in working towards an omnibus solution to make Measure 37 work. 

260

Rep. Nolan

Supports the intention behind the bill but believes it complicates matters rather than simplifying them.  Reviews her concern with usage of the word “reinterpretation”.  Signifies her “no” vote applies to the “words on the page” and looks forward to an improved bill from the Senate which she can support.

280

 

VOTE:  5-2-0

AYE:               5 - Ackerman, Anderson, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               2 - Greenlick, Nolan

290

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. RICHARDSON will lead discussion on the floor.

300

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 2549 and opens a public hearing on HB 2544. 

HB 2544 – PUBLIC HEARING

305

Rep. Robert Ackerman

HD 13.  Begins testimony

330

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces provisions of HB 2544.

350

Rep. Ackerman

Notes practical reasons for allowing reasonable extensions.  Reports low number of cases possibly effected by HB 2544.  Comments on LUBA appeals extension process in comparison with other courts.  Expresses support for HB 2544.

355

Chair Garrard

Asks Rep. Ackerman if  HB 2544 needs to be amended.

359

Rep. Ackerman

Responds not necessarily.  Expresses openness to shortening the time extension if the committee deemed that necessary in order to move the bill. 

TAPE 33, A

014

Stephen Kafoury

Oregon Chapter of American Planning Association.  Testifies in opposition to HB 2544.  Comments on the importance of the Oregon’s relatively quick land use decision and review process.

049

Rep. Greenlick

Notes that courts are under budget constraints and asks if cases with artificially short timelines are given priority over those cases that don’t.

060

Kafoury

Responds that he doesn’t know and has not heard that issue raised.

068

Rep. Ackerman

Notes that certain areas of the law are given priority.

071

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that there are other areas which do not have priority as LUBA appeals have a finite timeline and wonders if those cases are prolonged because of LUBA appeals.

 

Rep. Ackerman

Responds he doesn’t know but believes that prioritization of cases comes from the complexity of the case.

077

Kafoury

Interjects that if the courts are having difficulty hearing cases, it is within their authority to change the rules.  Reads a statement supporting this assertion.

088

Chair Garrard

Request Bruce Miller testify.

091

Bruce Miller

Office of the State Court Administrator. 

097

Rep. Greenlick

Restates question asking if appeals with finite timeline can drive out appeals which do not have finite timelines.

102

Miller

Responds that those with finite timelines cannot drive out those without, but that they can be delayed.

112

Rep. Greenlick

Concludes that the effect would be to give more flexibility to courts.

118

Miller

Confirms that it would allow more flexibility to the courts.  Clarifies the court’s rule of appellate procedure and notes that while they have a mechanism to change the rule, it is still very difficult.

138

Chair Garrard

Introduces written testimony from Richard Stein in support of HB 2544 (EXHIBIT B) to be a part of record without public testimony.

146

Doug Dupriest

Land use attorney, Hutchinson and Cox.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2544 (EXHIBIT C).  Reports the intention of HB 2544 is not to make significant changes to the expediency of decisions.  Urges support of HB 2544.

245

Zack P. Mittge

Land use attorney, Hutchinson and Cox.  Asserts that the inflexible timelines harm litigants and the development of land use law as issues don’t have time to be sufficiently reviewed.  Also reports that the 49-day deadline does not impact the timeline upon which the court of appeals hands down their decision.  Comments on difficulty in getting counsel on short notice, resulting in some litigants representing themselves.   

320

Al Johnson

Land use attorney, Johnson and Sherton.  Submits written testimony outlining his neutral position on HB 2544 (EXHIBIT D).  Discusses importance of time to proponents of land use projects and possibility of delay tactics from opponents.  References two cases to illustrate importance of time (EXHIBIT D, Pages 1-2).   Outlines the levels of tight deadlines in Oregon’s land use process (EXHIBIT D, Page 3). Expresses interest in addressing more basic issues in regards to the LUBA appeals process.

TAPE 32, B

036

Rep. Ackerman

References the Utsey case (EXHIBIT D, Page 1) and notes that the Court of Appeals granted themselves a wavier and confirms that this is not the same type of time they are discussing today.

038

Johnson

Confirms and elaborates.

040

Rep. Ackerman

Ask how long the waiver of time was.

042

Johnson

Responds it was a year, although no specific date was issued.

045

Rep. Ackerman

References (EXHIBIT D, Page 1) which states that the court granted LCDC months of time and confirms that this is not the same type of time they are discussing today.

048

Johnson

Confirms.

050

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what time limit was granted in that case.

051

Johnson

Confirms he’s referring to the action taken by the Supreme Court.

052

Rep. Ackerman

Responds affirmatively.

054

Johnson

Responds that the petition was originally due at the end of May but was granted extension until October.

059

Jon Chandler

Oregon Home Builders Association.  Speaks in opposition to HB 2544.  Discusses the importance of accessibility and timeliness in land use decisions.  Encourages a broader look at the land use appeals process. 

110

Chair Garrard

Asks if Rep. Ackerman is open to a discussion with Chandler about amending HB 2544.

113

Rep. Ackerman

Responds that he is, but only with respect to time limits.

132

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearing on HB 2544 and opens a work session on HB 2458. 

HB 2458 – WORK SESSION

145

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Reviews provisions of HB 2458 and introduces -1 (EXHIBIT F) and -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G).

194

Harlan Levy

Oregon Association of Realtors.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2458 and documentation from LCDC on amount of land effected (EXHIBIT E). Describes -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G) as result of the work group.  Gives statistics on land effected by HB 2458 and jobs created by the related HB 2614 (2003).

245

Levy

Outlines provisions of -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G) including:

  • lowering the population threshold,
  • requiring commercial projects not be approved within 5 miles of every city unless the city concurs,
  • specifying not to allow any conversion of industrial land to commercial use or vice versa and
  • those types of commercial projects that counties can currently approve would not be effected by this new limitation.

288

Rep. P. Smith

Asks for examples of cities that will be effected by the lowered population threshold.

301

Levy

Answers that Grant’s Pass, Ashland, Roseburg and Klamath Falls will be effected. 

310

Rep. Greenlick

Asks what the motivation for a county would be to designate land as commercial or industrial 3 miles from the city limits.

320

Chair Garrard

Responds with an example from Klamath Falls.

325

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties.  Discusses sites historically zoned for industrial services.

362

Rep. Greenlick

Concludes that counties are not siting arbitrarily but for historical reasons. 

370

Schlack

Responds affirmatively.

372

Chair Garrard

Asks if Schlack is satisfied with the -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G).

375

Schlack

 Responds affirmatively.

380

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  References previous concerns with HB 2458 and the -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G) as a compromise but not going as far as they would’ve liked.

400

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2458-2 amendments dated 3/1/05.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

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

 

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

415

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves HB 2458-2 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

445

 

VOTE:  6-1-0

AYE:               6 - Ackerman, Anderson, Greenlick, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               1 - Nolan

 

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. P. SMITH will lead discussion on the floor.

450

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 2458 and adjourns the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

  1. HB 2549, -2 Amendments, Rep. Dennis Richardson, 2 pp
  2. HB 2544, written testimony, Richard C. Stein, 1 p
  3. HB 2544, written testimony, Douglas DuPriest, 2 pp
  4. HB 2544, written testimony, Allen Johnson, 2 pp
  5. HB 2458, written testimony and requested information, Harlan Levy, 8 pp
  6. HB 2458, -1 amendments, staff, 1 p
  7. HB 2458, -2 amendments, Harlan Levy, 1 p