TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 58, A

003

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HB 3310.

HB 3310 – PUBLIC HEARING

012

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces HB 3310.

John Van Landingham

Chair, Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).  Discusses the Interim Committee on Periodic Review Reform and submits their report to the 2005 Legislature (EXHIBIT A).  States that  HB 3310 would implement the recommendations of the committee although the -1 amendments will be needed before the bill is ready.  Describes the history, process and problems with periodic review.  Reports there are 6 recommendations detailed in the report and makes mention of a minority report.

078

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Remarks on the effects of the proposed -1 amendments and how they will better target the use of periodic review to keep comprehensive plans up to date.

Rob Hallyburton

Community Services Division manager, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  States his availability to answer questions.

090

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the amendments to HB 3310 reflect the recommendations of the committee, if DLCD will support the bill.

Shetterly

Responds affirmatively.

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 3310 and opens a public hearing on HB 2616.

HB 2616 – PUBLIC HEARING

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Explains HB 2616.  Submits fiscal statement (EXHIBIT B).

122

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action.  Speaks in support of HB 2616 although it needs some work.  Discusses lands zoned either farm or forest land outside of urban growth boundaries (UGB) and the need for more non-resource zones.  Outlines the two options he expresses support for as having local governments rezone areas or allowing property owners to come in on a case by case basis to change the designation of their land.  Reports that amendments need to be prepared that will alter the criteria in definitions of agricultural land and forest land in the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) rules.

183

Rep. Greenlick

Expresses his understanding of the concept of HB 2616 with large plots of land but asks if as the bill is written a property owner could ask to rezone very small plots within a larger plot.

Hunnicutt

Responds that that is not the intent and expresses willingness to adopt language that would specify a certain percentage or some similar test before land would apply.  Remarks that an alternative would be to have counties rezone but that would create a fiscal impact.

219

Rep. Anderson

Asks for an illustration of what one or more rural zones might be termed.

Hunnicutt

Responds that it would depend on the county but recommends “non-resource zone”.

Chair Garrard

Asks for Hunnicutt to contact the committee when the amendments are ready to be heard.

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Remarks that the Department will wait to testify until there are amendments but states their position that miszoned property does not advance the goals of the land use system.

247

Marge Easley

League of Women Voters of Oregon.  Submits and reads testimony in opposition to HB 2616 (EXHIBIT C).

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  States agreement with Hunnicutt regarding reasons for the bill in that the biggest problem is the definition of agricultural land in Goal 3 combined with lack of resources to correctly map lands.  Issues support for having counties map land but notes difficulty in determining proper criteria.  States concern with the “case-by-case approach”.

Chair Garrard

Asks what agricultural products are produced on non-resource land.

Schellenberg

Discusses difficulty in determining what is “good land” and states position that the land be kept in large blocks.  Expresses willingness to work on amendments with Hunnicutt.

Rep. Greenlick

States understanding that farmers on EFU (exclusive farm use) land  have a property tax system based on the farm productivity.  Asks if the property tax base would change if some parcels were rezoned as resource use and asks if his members would be okay with that.

Schellenberg

Responds that they would be okay.  Says it is one of the most critical parts of the zoning activity.  States that farm use assessment is based on theability to produce and the value may change when other uses become available. 

Chair Garrard

States this would be a boon to farmers in his area because of the relationship between amount produced and water available.

Rep. Anderson

Asks if he is correct in stating that there is a limit of $80,000 earned income to build a home on 160 acre parcels.

TAPE 59, A

Schellenberg

Responds that that is not correct.  Outline three different criteria that would allow one to build a home on “other than high value farmland”.

030

Rep. Anderson

Notes that there are very few farms in his area that would meet the criteria described so there are some properties that should not be considered EFU.

Elon Hasson

Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 2616 on behalf of Carrie MacLaren (EXHIBIT D) and briefly summarizes its contents.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if he views the goals exception process as essential to this bill.  Restates asking if it is the goal to create a new classification of land, one could do it with out waiving the exception process as stated in Line 13.

Hasson

Responds he is unsure and offers to return with information.

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that this bill effects all counties and expresses concern about the effects within the Washington County and suggests possible amendments to exclude the Willamette Valley.

Chair Garrard

Suggests taking up this issue with Hunnicutt.  Closes public hearing on HB 2616 and opens the public hearing on HB 3351.

HB 3351 – PUBLIC HEARING

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces HB 3351. 

Rep. Derek Kitts

HD 30.  Reports that HB 3351 is the result of a constituent’s case brought forward by Oregonians in Action.  References the “North Plains bill” from a previous session and notes that HB 3351 will address the other side of the issue.

120

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action (OIA).  Speaks in support of HB 3351.  Discusses the priority statute 197.298 which defines classes of land that should be included in an urban growth boundary (UGB).  References Line 20 on page one of the bill through line 3 on page two.  Enumerates the four priorities and explains how HB 3351 will amend the current procedure. 

176

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the definition of “rural residential area” in line 9-17 is a new definition or if it is as defined in other parts of statute.

Hunnicutt

Responds that he believes this is the definition found with in Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) administrative rules and adds that he does not believe there is a statutory definition of “rural residential area”.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if by adding a definition to statutes, it will change the effect of other statutes related to rural residential areas.

Hunnicutt

Responds negatively explaining that HB 3351specifically provides on Line 5,  Page 1 “as used in this section”.

215

Bob Jossy

Resident, Hillsboro.  Submits and reads written testimony explaining their situation and the need for HB 3351 (EXHIBIT E).  References a map of his property and the zoning code (Page 3, EXHIBIT E).

295

Larry Derr

Counsel for Jossy.  Submits written testimony explaining HB 3351 (EXHIBIT F).  Reports that there is no opposition from North Plains or LCDC for the bill.  Reviews the Jossy situation and the compromise HB 3351 provides.    References Rep. Greenlick’s earlier question about the language of “rural residential area” and states it was taken from LCDC administrative rules.  Discusses possible amendments from LCDC to Goal 14.  Notes the exclusion of the Metro UGB.  Reports that the bill would be self-executing and elaborates.

TAPE 58, B

Rep. Nolan

Asks Derr if he knows how much land would be effected or have its status changed by HB 3351.

Derr

Responds that it is he has no knowledge of land beyond the Jossy property because LCDC has not yet approved another UGB expansion under this scenario.  Adds that with changes that LCDC is proposing to make, they are anticipating additional cases in the future.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if it is likely with the zone change, that there is a Measure 37 claim.

020

Derr

Responds that there is probably not and elaborates on why the land would not apply. 

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if the zoning now is for any residential uses at all.

Jossy

Responds that the zoning is “agriculture five” and “rural residential five”meaning one can build a house on 5 acres.

Derr

Adds that those are two separate zones.

040

Rep. Greenlick

Remarks that in the existing statute it is not explicitly stated that “having passed up” the use of exception land in one UGB expansion would prohibit its use in the next UGB.  Adds that the testimony seems to say that at one time there was a reasonable expectation that the property would be taken into the UGB and that expectation no longer exists.

Derr

Responds that in this situation the city has made their position very clear and were endorsed by LCDC.

068

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Notes LCDC rule regarding minimum lot sizes and discusses expansion of UGB for use of industrial land.   References a bill that will be brought forward to address expanding UGB for a specific purpose.  Mentions uncertainty on the applicability of this bill to certain lands and wishes to amend their written testimony for this purpose.

111

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if Rindy views HB 3351 as a mandate to extend the UGB to include the rural residential area contemplated by the bill.

Rindy

Responds that he does not see it that way, but remarks that he is concerned about the language on Lines 16-17 on page 2 as to whether that requires the county to approve 2 acres even if they don’t want to.

Rep. Ackerman

Continues, asking if this is not a mandate to include this land within the UGB, what value the subdivision of 2 acres or more is.  Asks if the land is not within the UGB, how one would extend infrastructure to these lots.

Rindy

Responds that generally in this area, lots are served by septic tanks when if they pass “perc tests” and use well water when available.

132

Rep. Greenlick

Remarks that when this bill is heard again, he would like to hear more from DLCD on what exactly will be effected beyond the property discussed.

147

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC).  Raises concerns about not making the proposed action for the counties voluntary and dealing with rural development opportunities in lands outside UGB in the context of Measure 37.  Urges committee to do a comprehensive review or an omnibus bill on Measure 37 rather than making individual adjustments.

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 3351 and opens a public hearing on HB 2619.

HB 2619 – PUBLIC HEARING

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces HB 2619.

223

Ross Day

Director of Legal Affairs, Oregonians in Action.  Notes authorship of HB 2619 and reviews the legislative history of HB 2619 as HB 2689 in the 2003 session.  Explains the bill and emphasizes that it will effect land that is not resource land. 

271

Marge Easley

League of Women’s Voters of Oregon.  Reiterates her previous testimony on HB 2616 and notes firm opposition to HB 2619.  Submits testimony in opposition to HB 2619 (EXHIBIT G).

299

Rep. Anderson

Asks what burden is placed on local government when the land in question is private land.

Easley

Responds that someone has to decide what criteria will categorize land and that responsibility will fall to the local governments.

Rep. Anderson

Asks if she would consider it a burden on the private land owner who has land that can not be used for farm, forestry or anything else.

Easley

Responds that something needs to be done to correct this but HB 2619 is not the right approach because it would superimpose a new goal that would take precedence over old goals.

320

Harlan Levy

Senior staff attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors.  Testifies in support of HB 2619 and reviews the support for the concept in the past.  Points to Lines 4 and 5 and notes this is the “Rural Planning and Economic Development Act.”  Stresses that HB 2619 is a permissive bill and elaborates on its effects.  Discusses development plans that were prohibited or modified until they became unviable and explains how this sparked legislation. 

TAPE 59,  B

Levy

Continues testimony, describing the intent of HB 2619.  Urges support of HB 2619.

032

Glenn W. Gross

Urban Planning Administrator, City of Salem.  Testifies in opposition to HB 2619 for major fiscal concerns.

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Submits and summarizes written testimony HB 2619 which raises concerns of the department on behalf of Lane Shetterly (EXHIBIT H).  Notes that DLCD is working on amendments to administrative rules and are dealing with these issues.

079

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Submits and reads written testimony raising concerns and suggesting amendments to HB 2619 (EXHIBIT I).

Chair Garrard

Remarks on the Farm Bureau’s change in direction in their recent neutrality on bills with suggestions for improvement.  Enters Lynn Beaton’s, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, testimony in opposition to HB 2619 as written into the record (EXHIBIT J).

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  Outlines the cities’ concerns as encouraging counties to designate uses outside of UGBs and infrastructure impacts.  Notes this bill has more broad impacts than similar bills.  Reports concern with HB 2619 without narrowing its impacts.

150

Elon Hasson

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Submits testimony on behalf of Mary Kyle McCurdy in opposition to HB 2619 (EXHIBIT K).

Chair Garrard

Asks Levy, Schellenberg and Day to make changes and bring the bill back before the committee.  Closes the public hearing on HB 2619 and opens a public hearing on HB 3313.

HB 3313 – PUBLIC HEARING

Sam Like

Committee Administrator.  Introduces HB 3313. 

205

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action.  Discusses the “forest template test” and explains the situation of a template line drawn through a dwelling excluding the dwelling.  Outlines the subsequent court cases and resulting legislation of HB 3313.  Comments that there is only one known property effected and discusses amending the language.

Chair Garrard

Comments on schedule conflicts of Kathleen Worman, the property owner, and notes that after amendments are received they will have another hearing.

Hunnicutt

Stresses that while he does not know of other properties effected, it is not designed to effect only one property.

312

Rep. Anderson

Poses a hypothetical situation with a template that has six dwellings to be within it, but the sixth has no portion within it and asks how you declare the sixth is actually partially in.

Hunnicutt

Responds that if no portion of the dwelling is within, it would not count.

Rep. Anderson

Asserts that is what the bill states and asks if this is the portion that will be amended.

Hunnicutt

Responds that the language needs work.

Rep. Nolan

Asks Hunnicutt for a distinction about when he thinks counties should have decision making authority and when the state should intervene.

Hunnicutt

Responds that in most cases local control is best but asserts that in this case the county goes beyond what most people consider to be common sense.

354

Rep. Nolan

States that in the case Hunnicutt cites, the county could have said, “it has to be six” and then in order to change that ruling, you would have to change their number.

Hunnicutt

Responds that the county could have said it was six, and if they had said it was six then their client would not have gone through court proceedings.  States it was an irrational decision that needs to be fixed.

Rep. Nolan

Asks if the County’s regulation is ambiguous.

Hunnicutt

Responds affirmatively and states that it is because of the word “within” and lists possible interpretations for the word in context. 

Rep. Nolan

Asks if it is fair to say that they are trying to help people not present claims or request permits under ambiguous language.

Hunnicutt

Responds that in this case they are trying to help property owner who has been irrationally denied a dwelling.

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 3313 and adjourns the meeting at 3:28 p.m.