TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 104, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. and opens a work session on HB 3474.

HB 3474 – WORK SESSION

006

Rep. Mac Sumner

House District 18.  Introduces and describes the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT A).

031

Rep. Ackerman

Raises his concerns about possible uses under the drafting language.  Inquires about an imposition on preexisting uses of the property?

040

Rep. Sumner

Agrees they should be, but the benefits outweigh the possible exchanges.

048

Rep. Ackerman

Argues that the term “church” does not show up in the bill.

053

Rep. Sumner

Clarifies his intention of the term “church”.

055

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires about a possible discrimination against religion under the current law.

059

Rep. Sumner

Responds that discrimination does not show up in the bill: this is merely an innocent oversight that the bill seeks to clarify.

063

Rep. Anderson

Wonders about the definition of a religious organization in the bill.

070

Rep. Sumner

Talks about the intent of the bill in relation to religion.

071

Rep. Anderson

Verifies that the intent of the bill is not social, but is intended to focus on places of worship.

076

Rep. Sumner

Responds that places of religion supply both material, spiritual, and emotional needs of the community.

080

Rep. Anderson

Agrees, but notes that the buildings where the social services occur could be defined in different terms than this main purpose.

086

Rep. Greenlick

Inquires if hospitals owned by religious organizations would be excluded from land use regulation.

095

Rep. Sumner

Responds that hospitals, by their nature, are for-profit organizations.

096

Rep. Greenlick

Corrects to say that certain hospitals, church-owned, are not for profit.

099

Rep. Sumner

Responds that he does not know under that circumstance.

102

Rep. Nolan

Talks about the bill applying to existing structures on the land as well as any property owned by the religious organization.  Thinks that the words on the page are more sweeping than what the bill was intended to accomplish. 

128

Rep. Sumner

References Section 2, subsection 3 referring to reasonable regulations concerning the physical characteristics of the authorized uses, including but not limited to, site and design review.  Explains what the bill seeks to accomplish. 

142

Rep. Nolan

Stresses that the text goes beyond the discussed intended focus of the bill.  Declares that a local government cannot impose a zoning restriction in this case; would have to allow the construction of a church-based school, soup kitchen, etc. in any location that the church may own the land.

162

Rep. Sumner

Responds that they have explicitly limited the bill to certain criteria.

171

Rep. Nolan

Notes the effect of the amendment deleting the term “educational uses” and suggests the possible misinterpretation and misuse of the bill because of this change.

194

Rep. Sumner

Discusses religion as being different for each person: the core meaning of the bill seeks to address the building abilities of churches.

205

Chair Garrard

Asks if he would be willing to draft some more amendments and they will bring the bill back at another meeting.

208

Rep. Sumner

Replies yes.

215

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3474 and opens a work session on HB 3284.

HB 3284 – WORK SESSION

221

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Describes HB 3284 relating to repealing the sunset provision of the Act authorizing industrial development in buildings of any size and type on certain lands outside the Willamette Valley and outside of urban growth boundaries of cities.  Introduces and explains the -2 and the -3 amendments (EXHIBITS B & C).  Talks about the fiscal impact (EXHIBIT D).

250

Sean Gillian

Legislative Aid, Rep. Bob Jenson.  Testifies in support of HB 3284 with the -3 amendment.  Reports its similarity to HB 2458. 

277

??????????

Expresses the importance in taking the sunset clause out of the bill.

294

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Speaks in opposition to the -3 amendment.

320

Elon Hasson

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Testifies in opposition to HB 3284 with the -2 and -3 amendments.

345

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC).  Relays the AOC’s support of the removal of the sunset clause.  Testifies in support of the -2 amendment and suggests holding HB 3284 until Friday, May 27, 2005.

387

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to recess while waiting for Rep. Jensen to arrive and testify.

390

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order.

394

Harlan Levy

Senior Staff Attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors.  Speaks in support of the -3 amendments and remarks on the amount of land affected by the bill.

431

Levy

Discusses building size limits being imposed through periodic review.  Talks about Umatilla county not receiving an exception for light industrial construction on a certain strip of land.

470

Rep. Greenlick

Comments on the -3 amendment concerning land use laws. 

TAPE 105, A

020

Levy

Explains the problem facing the counties resulting from a Supreme Court decision in 1987 concerning exceptions for industrial community development rights.

040

Rep. Greenlick

Asserts that the court case in question was 18 years old and the counties are still not relying on this ability.

044

Levy

Argues that these counties have been waiting to see how Goal 14 would apply to them.  Elaborates on these limitations.  

064

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3284-3 amendments dated 5/4/05.

VOTE:  5-1-1

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

NAY:               1 - Greenlick

EXCUSED:     1 - Nolan

071

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

072

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB 3284 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  5-1-1

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

NAY:               1 - Greenlick

EXCUSED:     1 - Nolan

078

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. JENSON will lead discussion on the floor.

081

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3284 and begins a committee discussion on Ballot Measure 37. 

BALLOT MEASURE 37 – COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

083

Chair Garrard

Begins discussion on the -2 amendment on SB 1037 being placed into HB 3120.  Argues for a committee extension past June 3, 2005.

112

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies that not all of the -2 amendment of SB 1037 will be included in HB 3120.

113

Chair Garrard

Responds in the affirmative.

114

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for an annotated copy of which sections of the -2 amendment for SB 1037 were not included.

116

Chair Garrard

Replies that they will receive the annotated copies.

117

Rep. Ackerman

Who is the “we” that took out sections of the -2 amendment?

120

Chair Garrard

Responds that he took the sections out.

125

Rep. Greenlick

Discusses the -2 amendment of SB 1037.

135

Rep. P. Smith

Asks why they took the -2 instead of -1 amendment?

136

Chair Garrard

States that there was no -1 amendment.

143

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires about the compensation piece in the -2 amendment?

144

Rep. Greenlick

Replies that the compensation piece remains in the new draft.

149

Rep. P. Smith

Addresses the connecting piece within the -2 amendment that correlated to a house bill.

164

Chair Garrard

Adjourns the committee at 2:18 p.m.