TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 39, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HB 2618.  Announces there will be a second public hearing with a work session following on Monday March 21, 2005.

HB 2618 – PUBLIC HEARING

004

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces the provisions of HB 2618.

010

Mike McCarthy

Farmer, Hood River County.  Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT A) and speaks in opposition to HB 2618.  Responds to a previous question from Rep. Patti Smith about what specific problems he has encountered from non-farm dwellings.

050

Chair Garrard

Asks what kind of problems would require him to call the police.

053

McCarthy

Describes a situation in which some of his trees were cut down resulting in three lost years of production, valued at $1200.  The court found in his favor but he never received damages.

075

Chair Garrard

Asks who the perpetrators were.

077

McCarthy

Responds they were neighbors on the “ranchette” next door.

091

McCarthy

Describes two other examples of damages caused by those in adjacent dwellings in a farm zone.  Discusses merits of the $80,000 income test to insure farming motivations on farm land.

154

Rep. Greenlick

Questions if this kind of test should apply for exclusive farm use (EFU) in places with less fertile lands.

174

McCarthy

Responds that the $80,000 test only applies to high value farmland and is a good way to distinguish those “serious” about farming and those who are not. 

184

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that HB 2618 suggests that other measures, like soil class, be taken into consideration.  Asks if McCarthy thinks this “opens the door” as it is his impression that lots of EFU-zoned (Exclusive Farm Use) land is not really Category 1.

195

McCarthy

Responds he thinks it is possible under some conditions.  Argues against allowing counties decide and promotes state-wide standards which allow the best land to be kept without additional houses.

204

Chair Garrard

Remarks that many farmers in eastern Oregon would disagree and are not making the $80,000 mark.  Asks how much land McCarthy farms.

206

McCarthy

Answers that he farms 110 acres.

220

Clif Kenagy

Retired farmer, Benton County.  Submits and reads from written testimony in opposition to HB 2618 (EXHIBIT B).

250

Kenagy

References chart titled “Average Gross & Average Net Income on Oregon Farms (’97 Census)” (EXHIBIT B, Page 2).  Enumerates six types of complaints he has received from neighbors (EXHIBIT B, Page 3).

293

Kenagy

Enumerates 14 complaints about his neighbors and damages they have caused (EXHIBIT B, Page 3).

345

Kenagy

Continues reading complaints against neighbors (EXHIBIT B, Page 4).

TAPE 40, A

010

Don Schellenburg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Notes intention of HB 2618 is to allow more farm dwellings on EFU farmland.  Reviews changes made in farm dwelling criteria noting various options other than the $80,000 income test to qualify for a farm dwelling.  Urges committee to support the proposed 30 year review of the land use planning system and make the changes suggested in HB 2618 within that context.

078

Chair Garrard

Reads from HB 2618 that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) must take into consideration “the capability of the lot or parcel” and asks how that would be done.

084

Schellenburg

Responds that it is vague but that he suggests the income test does that.

092

Rep. Greenlick

Asks where the $80,000 income test is described.

094

Schellenburg

Responds that it is in the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rules.

097

Rep. Greenlick

States it is his understanding that there are two different statutes.

099

Schellenburg

Responds they are the same but are listed in two different places.

102

Rep. Greenlick

Asks how HB 2618 will change the requirements for the $80,000 test and how it will direct DLCD to alter their actions.

115

Schellenburg

Responds that HB 2618 directs DLCD to look at other qualifications beyond the income test.

120

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that the income test is not the only option, just the only one adopted.  Asks where the $80,000 test is described.

125

Litke

Responds that it will be found in OAR 660-33 and not found in state statutes.

130

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if they could change their procedure immediately.

132

Litke

Responds affirmatively and relays that HB 2618 will direct LCDC to adopt new rules.

134

Schellenburg

Discusses the definition of “in conjunction with farm use”.

138

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearing on HB 2618 to be continued on Monday March 21, 2005 and opens an informational meeting on the Oregon Chapter of American Planning Association.

OREGON CHAPTER OF AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION – INFORMATIONAL MEETING

145

Stephen Kafoury

Oregon Chapter of American Planning Association (OCAPA).  Introduces panel. 

182

Bob Clay

President of the OCAPA.  Introduces pamphlet titled “Summary of Legislative and Policy Positions” (EXHIBIT A, Pages 1-2) and enumerates general topics of interest.   Discusses range of planners’ functions.

240

Clay

References a recent article titled “It is Time to Re-engage Oregonians in Land Use Planning” from the OCAPA newsletter (EXHIBIT A, Pages 3-4).

260

Clay

References and discusses an  OCAPA executive summary of a report titled “An Evaluation of Planning in Oregon 1973-2001” (EXHIBIT A, Pages 5-8).

310

Clay

Elaborates on the differences between the role of long-range planners and case planners.  Gives three examples of long-range planning developments currently in progress. 

TAPE 39, B

013

Rep. Greenlick

Offers personal condolences.

016

Chair Garrard

Adds committee’s sentiments. 

020

Philip Farrington

Vice-President, OCAPA.  Reviews his planning background and projects in progress.  Notes award winning project combining preservation of wetlands and industrial lands.  Emphasizes planners’ facilitation of many interests for the benefit of the community at large.

063

Reeve L. Hennion

Chairman, Jackson County Planning Commission.  References the COPE (Committee on the Oregon Planning Experience) report.  Discusses the role of planning commissioners.  Expresses importance of citizen involvement earlier in the planning process.

120

Hennion

Outlines the make-up of the Jackson County planning commission.

144

Hennion

Discusses Jackson County’s plans in implementing Measure 37 (2004) in the absence of clarification from the legislature.  Outlines long-term regional growth planning in Jackson County. 

225

Hennion

Makes distinctions about what is within planners’ scope of authority.

240

Hennion

Describes his experience as a small business owner in Medford and difficulties involved in the process.

283

Rep. Greenlick

Refers to Hennion’s comments on the White City circumstance.  References a floor letter from OCAPA against the bill allowing industrial and commercial development on areas zoned for industrial and commercial development but outside city limits (HB 2458).  Asks how their position on HB 2458 relates to the hopeful development of White City. 

300

Hennion

Responds that White City is a special case and is defined under state law as an urban unincorporated community under state law with definitive boundaries. 

315

Kafoury

Continues that their concern is that HB 2458 would not only allow development within confined areas, rather urban developments within rural areas. 

330

Rep. Greenlick

Interjects that the development would be in areas already zoned industrial and commercial and asks for further explanation of their position.

355

Kafoury

Discusses the process of zoning when land use planning came into effect in Oregon.  Asserts they are opposed to the bill and urban development in rural areas even if they are zoned industrial. 

383

Chair Garrard

States that Kafoury’s comments runs contrary to Don Schellenberg’s testimony.  Distinguishes their comments by the importance placed on what is already located in a certain area.

400

Kafoury

Disagrees with the distinction.

410

Chair Garrard

Restates understanding of Kafoury’s testimony that a local business zoned in a certain area wouldn’t necessarily open the door for larger companies in the same area.

420

Kafoury

Clarifies his example emphasizing serving the needs of the rural community versus urban development outside of cities.

TAPE 40, A

008

Rep. Anderson

Responds that they should allow flexibility for growth and encourage small nodular development.

025

Farrington

Comments that Rep. Anderson’s position is in line with what the OCAPA would promote.  Adds that the OCAPA tries to match appropriate types of industry with the infrastructure in place to serve them. 

041

Rep. Anderson

Discusses example of Silicon Valley, California and how development may have been shifted elsewhere if they’d had policies similar to what OCAPA is recommending.

050

Hennion

Agrees with Rep. Anderson and reiterates the importance of  infrastructure.

067

Rep. Anderson

Agrees.

072

Kafoury

Discusses the different meanings of  “rural” and “urban” as they relate to services provided and the size of the community.

091

Rep. Anderson

Points out that new technologies are allowing infrastructure in new areas and possible growth.

095

Rep. P. Smith

Clarifies that the bill she will carry on the floor (HB 2458) does not allow services to be connected and will allow for local control.

101

Rep. Greenlick

Wonders about political motives behind the floor letter from OCAPA on HB 2458.  Speculates that they would be in favor of good planning not a particular planning model.

121

Clay

Outlines process for developing positions on legislative policy.  Gives an example from Portland.

160

Kafoury

Suggests Clay address their position on allowing counties to make decisions within.

165

Clay

Discusses the framework between the state and local level. 

172

Chair Garrard

States that Clay’s position contributed to Measure 37.  Comments that planners are the “victims” of Measure 37 and anticipated new annexation laws disallowing them to plan.  Asks for a response to those issues.

190

Clay

Discusses response to Measure 37 and annexation.  Describes hesitation with “direct democracy” model but agrees on need for more citizen involvement.

216

Chair Garrard

Asserts planners aren’t heeding the people’s wishes. 

224

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that it is the job of planners to facilitate other people’s visions rather that planners’ vision.

235

Kafoury

Describes the planners’ role as adhering to goals envisioned by the people.  Reports that it may be time to review the goals with citizen participation, an issue addressed in SB 82.

257

Hennion

Refers to the COPE report and its primary recommendation of a review of statewide land use.  Expresses strong support for SB 82 and hope that the legislature will address the issue of fairness in regards to Measure 37. 

310

Rep. P. Smith

Adds that over a million people a voted for Measure 37 and states that is “good citizen involvement”.

325

Chair Garrard

Adjourns the meeting at 3:30 p.m.