Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 05 07 AIS PC Pernding Legislation 2012AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/7/2013 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Greg Mott/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3774 Estimated Time: 15 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: 2013 Oregon Legislative Session: Land Use Bills Summary and Status Update ACTION REQUESTED: General discussion of the potential implications of proposed land use bills ISSUE STATEMENT: Each biennial legislative session includes a variety of “land use bills” that if enacted, will result in changes to the process or the product of the city’s land use, planning, and development programs. The attached document provides a summary of these proposed bills and a brief staff response regarding potential effect and more frequently than not, a recommendation to support, oppose, or take no position. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pending Legislation – 2013 State of Oregon Legislative Session DISCUSSION: The 2013 Oregon legislative session includes 33 bills that are generally considered land use bills because they will most directly affect the city’s land use, planning, and development review processes and programs. For easier reading, the bills have been sorted into 8 categories that reflect the purpose or subject matter of the bills. These categories are: annexation; urban growth boundaries; appellate process; zone changes; state intervention in local land use process; local land use process; liability, assessment and pricing; and population projections. In addition to the summary and staff comments a notation appears on several bills that states a bill appears to have “died in committee.” We’ve provided this notation based on a report from the League of Oregon Cities that the League is no longer following a particular bill due to committee inaction. Staff will provide additional comments or evaluation of these bills at the Commission’s request. Pending Legislation – 2013 State of Oregon Legislative Session Bills concerning annexation Measure History For HB 2028-GREG Representative CLEM (Presession filed.) Authorizes district or city to require consent to eventual annexation of property before providing extraterritorial service to property. Creates exception if extraterritorial service is provided pursuant to certain intergovernmental agreements, if consent is not requirement of intergovernmental agreement or of comprehensive plan adopted for area in which property is situated and if extraterritorial service is service other than water service, sewer service, storm water service, constructing first paved access to property or service provided by municipal electric utility. Support; allows cities to require annexation agreements for extraterritorial extension of services; however, invalidates existing annexation agreements if the agreement was required by a district on behalf of a city. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Oppose 1 1/17/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use. 2-19(H) | Public Hearing held. 3/28/13 H - Work Session held. Measure History For HB 2617- GREG By Representative CLEM (Presession filed.) Requires that, in election proposing annexation, votes from city and territory to be annexed be counted separately to determine separate majorities if acreage to be annexed is 100 acres or more. Requires that votes from city and territory be combined to determine single majority if acreage to be annexed is less than 100 acres. This requires a vote of the residents of the city and residents of the territory for all island annexations initiated by the city; requires separate counting to determine majority both inside and outside if 100 acres or more; under 100 acres the votes are combined to determine election results. This is an expensive proposal given that the break point is 100 acres; I can’t imagine we’d ever want to force a 100 acre annexation, pay for the election and still be subject to the outcome of a remonstrance vote by the electors even if there are only 3 electors. I’m not so sure about supporting. 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use. 2-19(H) | Public Hearing held. 3-28(H) | Work Session held. 4-9(H) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For SB 743 By Senator EDWARDS Allows owner of territory not contiguous to city to annex to city if land is within 200 feet of existing city boundary, city was under jurisdiction of boundary commission on January 1, 2007, and owner acquired interest in territory prior to January 1, 1973. The current law does not allow non-contiguous annexation; it does allow extra-territorial extension of services. This looks like a highly specialized law but one that Springfield would qualify to implement. Not sure how many property owners comply with the two standards out of city control: located within 200 feet of the city limits; acquired an interest prior to 1973! Since this form of annexation is at the option of the city rather than obligatory, it’s probably a useful tool to have at our disposal in case a circumstance arises that is favorable to this solution. —LOC NEUTRAL 2-26(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 3-1(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. 4-11(S) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. Measure History For SB 773 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By COMMITTEE ON RURAL COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Prohibits city or district from requiring landowner to consent to eventual annexation in ex-change for continuation of extraterritorial service originally provided to landowner or predecessor in interest of landowner without requiring consent to annexation. Prohibits city or district from requiring consent to annexation solely because of change in name of payor on service account or change of address of payor. Limits to five years period during which separate written agreement may be effective for purpose of authorizing annexation. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Oppose 2 2/28/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 2-26(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 2-28(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. 4-18(S) | Public Hearing and Work Session scheduled. Bills concerning urban growth boundaries Measure History For HB 2255 GREG Modifies planning period for inclusion of land within urban growth boundary from 20 years to 15 years. Creates option, for purpose of inclusion of land within urban growth boundary, for projecting number of new jobs and demand for land to meet employment needs. Establishes process for designating industrial reserves separate from processes to designate other urban reserves. Authorizes Economic Recovery Review Council to receive and process applications from local governments for expedited project review of specified traded sector development that has siting needs that cannot be met in urban areas of county in which siting is proposed. Modifies sunset provision for council. Support: This is one of the package of 4 I worked on as a member of the Governor’s Urban Growth Advisory Committee. Allows cities to expand UGBs for industrial land based on coordinated 15 year population projections. This can occur outside of Periodic Review and may also be the reason to end Periodic Review. 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use. 3-7(H) | Public Hearing scheduled. 4-4(H) | Public Hearing held. 4-9(H) | Work Session scheduled Measure History For HB 2256- GREG Requires local government that expands urban growth boundary to cause renegotiation, as necessary, of urban service agreements. Requires urban service agreement to include preliminary estimate of capital cost of urban service infrastructure required for delivery of urban service anticipated by urban service agreement. Modifies criteria for electoral approval of annexation plan related to urban service agreements and expansion of urban growth boundaries. Authorizes Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority, in coordination with Department of Land Conservation and Development and Department of Transportation, to administer program to provide loans and grants for planning or construction of certain urban service infrastructure. Allows local government that has developed and evaluated alternative land use and transportation scenarios to enact or amend provision taxing fuel for motor vehicles without submitting proposed tax to electors for approval. Support: This is one of the package of 4 I worked on as a member of the Governor’s Urban Growth Advisory Committee. Requires county to coordinate urban services agreements for land brought into UGBs. 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use with subsequent referral to Ways and Means. Measure History For SB 250- GREG Authorizes local government required to have urban growth boundary to include land within boundary when inclusion of land is consistent with local economic development projections and public facilities plans. This strikes me as a reaction to some of Metro’s cities not wanting to include industrial land within their UGBs. The only thing here is that there is a 10 year moratorium on changing it to non-industrial zoning; it must be consistent with a locally adopted EOA; and the PFSP must demonstrate the ability to serve the land. Once again I don’t like additional standards added to the mix and I don’t like immutable stuff like 10 year moratoriums, but I believe this is favorable to efforts to add industrial land to the UGB. Interesting when juxtaposed to HB 2657 which does not include a time limit standard for rezoning property from industrial to non-industrial use. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-22(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. 2-26(S) | Public Hearing held. 4-16(S) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 3124 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By COMMITTEE ON LAND USE Requires local governments, including special districts, to enter into urban service agreements not later than January 1, 2015. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Oppose 2 2/22/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 2-22(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-1(H) | Referred to Land Use. 4-9(H) | Public Hearing and Work Session scheduled. Bills concerning the appellate process Measure History For SB 77 Requires appellate review of quasi-judicial land use decisions and limited land use decisions directly related to and made in response to land use application to be conducted in single proceeding in which Land Use Board of Appeals has joined all appeals. I was unaware of this one; requires all appeals of a land use decision, including each part of the decision, to be joined in a single proceeding and reviewed in a single proceeding. Also jumps fee from 100 to 1,000 and includes a 1,000 deposit. It sounds like this will reduce our cost to defend a decision at LUBA, but it will definitely cost the appellant more. Support the combining but don’t know about the fee increase. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. 2-26(S) | Public Hearing held. 4-11(S) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For SB 220- GREG By Senator THOMSEN (Presession filed.) Requires that person seeking to appeal land use decision or limited land use decision to Land Use Board of Appeals must be adversely affected by decision. Support -If I’m reading and interpreting this one correctly, it requires a person to be adversely affected by the decision in order to qualify to appeal, even if the person testified. There’s no companion piece describing “adversely affected” so I reviewed LUBA Headnotes and came up with this: “The decision impinges upon the petitioner’s use and enjoyment of his or her property or otherwise detracts from interests personal to the petitioner.” It does not appear that 1KF could appeal on the basis of adversely affected. If this narrows the scope of who can appeal it narrows the ability for frivolous lawsuits to those immediately impacted, not special interests. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Measure History For HB 3085 By Representative KENNEMER (at the request of Oregon Association of County Engineers and Surveyors) Modifies provisions authorizing dedication, conveyance or grant of property in subdivision or partition process. The most significant elements of this proposal include the following changes to ORS 92: Provides detailed definition for the term “Tract”, states examples of what the “Tract” can be used for, and specifically excludes residential or commercial structure on a “Tract”. The term “Tract” is commonly used in a subdivision to define a parcel which is to be used for other purposes than a building. Examples commonly seen on Springfield plats: future road, stormwater facility, park, common area, emergency access, etc. The “Tracts” have sometimes been improperly used for residential building in the past; I can think of several examples in Springfield, sometimes with, and sometimes without the proper involvement of the City and other stakeholders. The addition of this specificity will be good for the City because if someone desires to properly develop a “Tract” they will be required to perform a “Replat”, a process which will include the proper review and approvals by the City and other stakeholders. Requires more specificity in the “Declaration” on a plat when dedicating land to a public purpose. This is good for the City because it will impede improper or unapproved activities on easements or “Tracts” as defined above, whereas in the past there was no requirement of this specificity. This also states that when making this conveyance to the public entity with jurisdiction over the platted land, it is done on the plat, but if this conveyance is to another public entity that has no jurisdiction over the plated land, then there is a separate document for this conveyance. This is also a good clarification because it causes the proper review and approval by the public entity involved. All other amendments to statute included in this bill make no substantial or relevant changes and are simply rewording existing text. —LOC SUPPORT 2-22(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-1(H) | Referred to Land Use. Measure History For HB 3087 By Representative BAILEY; Representative BARKER, Senator PROZANSKI Limits amount of appeal fee that city or county may charge for quasi-judicial review of city or county decisions on land use application. Requires city or county to refund appeals fee and transcript fee when appellate authority of city or county declines to hear review. Prohibits city or county from charging fee for appeal of final decision of city or county to Land Use Board of Appeals. —LOC OPPOSE HB 3087 is a curious piece of legislation. It allows cities to insert an appellate body between a Hearings Official or “other [quasi-judicial] decision-maker” - presumably the Planning Commission qualifies as such – and the City Council, or the City Council can designate itself as the appellate body; or the City Council can simply declare that the HO or other decision-maker constitutes the “final decision of the city on the matter.” So create one, give the responsibility to yourself, or have no local appellate process. If the city selects one of the two options for a local appellate authority, that appellate authority can decline to hear the appeal, in which case the aggrieved party appeals to LUBA directly. The aggrieved party can appeal the decision of the appellate body to LUBA as well. The city can charge up to $1,000 for the local appeal and up to $500 to duplicate the record, but if the appellate body declines to hear the case and the aggrieved party files with LUBA, the city must not charge a fee. This strikes me as an opportunity to create a political solution for an outcome (initial q-j decision) that is not beneficial to the community or the applicant; why else create this additional review? I’m not sure what kind of legal standards are applied to the appellate body; I think it’s possible that the PC could be the appellate body for decisions of the HO, so the PC’s standard of review, reversal, remand, etc. should be less strenuous than that of a court. I must be too politically naïve to see the real meaning in this one, though since everything here is optional other than the fees, I’m officially neutral on this.-GMott 2-22(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-1(H) | Referred to Land Use with subsequent referral to Judiciary. 3-14(H) | Work Session held. 3-18(H) | Without recommendation as to passage and be referred to Judiciary by prior reference. 3-18(H) | Referred to Judiciary by prior reference. 4-10(H) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 3362 By Representatives CONGER, WHISNANT; Representatives HUFFMAN, MCLANE, Senator KNOPP Limits review by Land Use Board of Appeals of post-acknowledgement legislative changes to comprehensive plans and land use regulations implementing plans to issues raised during local planning process. Requires Department of Land Conservation and Development to study requirements for citizen involvement in local land use planning to identify changes that can reduce potential for appeals by ensuring more effective involvement in local land use planning. —LOC SUPPORT HB 3362 requires issues raised at LUBA to have been raised at the local hearing (proceeding) and entered into that record in writing. This applies to both land use and limited land use decisions. These issues must have enough specificity included to allow local decision makers the opportunity to respond. The only real change here is that the issue must be submitted in written form, not just as an oral comment during the hearing. It’s always better to have something in writing that way you can reduce the accusations of misinterpreting what was said or what was meant by what was said, so I like this part of the legislation. This Bill also requires/allows the DLCD to: “The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall review a statewide land use planning goal related to citizen involvement to determine whether changes can reduce the potential for appeal of local land use decision-making to the Land Use Board of Appeals by ensuring more effective citizen involvement in the review of local land use planning.” If this is license for DLCD to review the citizen involvement tools of any city that has a decision go to LUBA to determine what the city could do to reduce trips to LUBA, and the outcome of that evaluation is advisory, no problems. If the outcome is mandatory, not so sure this is a great idea, particularly if this is a case-by-case application and not a statewide measure, so I’m officially neutral on this part of the legislation. GMott 2-25(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-4(H) | Referred to Land Use with subsequent referral to Ways and Means. 3-14(H) | Public Hearing held. 4-16(H) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 3396 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By Representative SPRENGER; Representatives BENTZ, ESQUIVEL, FREEMAN, GILLIAM, HUFFMAN, JENSON, KENNEMER, OLSON, WHISNANT, WHITSETT, Senators GIROD, KNOPP, ROBLAN Requires that person seeking to appeal land use decision or limited land use decision to Land Use Board of Appeals must be adversely affected by decision. —LOC SUPPORT 2-27(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-6(H) | Referred to Land Use. Bills concerning zone changes Measure History For HB 2657- GREG By Representative DOHERTY (Presession filed.) Establishes requirements to be met by applicant before local government can [consider] approve application to rezone for nonindustrial use land that is planned and zoned for industrial use. This adds criteria of approval to any request to change an industrial designation to a non-industrial designation. Must prove that the property was marketed (through appropriate venues) for industrial development; owner must prove he solicited offers to purchase to hold land for future industrial use. I think this is insinuating state’s ethic about land use as if the local government wasn’t discerning enough to make this kind of decision. I’m not so sure about supporting. The main tenet of this bill is to require proof that legitimate attempts to sell the property for the purpose of industrial use have failed because of a lack of interest in developing for industrial use. This is not a new concept; the OAR for economic development includes the following language: (7) Availability. Cities and counties may consider land availability when designating the short-term supply of land. Available land is vacant or developed land likely to be on the market for sale or lease at prices consistent with the local real estate market. Methods for determining lack of availability include, but are not limited to: (a) Bona fide offers for purchase or purchase options in excess of real market value have been rejected in the last 24 months; (b) A site is listed for sale at more than 150 percent of real market values; (c) An owner has not made timely response to inquiries from local or state economic development officials; or (d) Sites in an industrial or other employment land category lack diversity of ownership within a planning area when a single owner or entity controls more than 51 percent of those sites. HB 2657 proposes a slightly different take on this rule: (1) The applicant has advertised the availability of the land to potential industrial developers in at least two ways, including: (a) Through the Oregon Business Development Department; (b) Through a local or regional economic development program; (c) Through an industry publication; or d) Another similar outlet or publication. (2) Changed circumstances in the vicinity of the land since the land was planned and zoned for industrial use have reduced the value or utility of the land for industrial uses or increased the potential for conflict with other uses in the vicinity. (3)The applicant has solicited offers to purchase the land from potential purchasers with the ability to hold or improve the land in anticipation of industrial development and use. Some of those bills I worked on this year included provisions to require no changes in plan designation or zoning for land brought into the UGB for at least 7 years, so the concept of a switcheroo being undesirable is not new. The one element that HB 2657 does not mention is time lines. I think if there was something that said the applicant had “actively solicited offers during the past five years without success” for example, it might be easier to understand. There is a requirement under the TPR that anytime you change the designation of 2 or more acres of commercial land the city must perform an analysis of the various impacts on the transportation system, so the state has already committed a good deal of effort to preserve land use allocations for their original purpose and intent. Since this bill does not compel approval of the amendment upon satisfaction of these standards, and it doesn’t appear that the city must provide this evidence if the city is initiating the action, I’m not sure that this diminishes the city’s consideration either way. Personally, I’m neutral on this; it’s not compelling, but then again, there’s no timing obligation to demonstrate the failure of the site for industrial use. Gmott 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Transportation and Economic Development with subsequent referral to Land Use. 3-8(H) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. 4-10(H) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 2839-GREG By COMMITTEE ON LAND USE (at the request of 1000 Friends of Oregon) Exempts from entitlement to just compensation land within, or to be included within, urban growth boundary that is rezoned to industrial zoning classification [that allows industrial uses]. SUPPORT-This law also excludes claims against the city imposing limitations on uses that are public nuisances, relate to public health, safety and welfare, is implementation of federal law, and prohibit pornography and nude dancing. This one deserves our support. 2-11(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 2-18(H) | Referred to Land Use. 3-21(H) | Public Hearing held. 4-11(H) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 2951 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Authorizes conditional approval, in exclusive farm use zones, of industrial uses that are not otherwise authorized in exclusive farm use zones. 2-18(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. Bills concerning state intervention in local land use process Measure History For SB 251- GREG Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President. (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Business, Transportation and Economic Development for Paloma Sparks) Authorizes Governor to convene meeting of federal, state and local permitting authorities to streamline or expedite approval process for proposed land development that addresses significant regional priorities. This allows the Governor to actually intervene in the local permitting process if two or more permits are required and at least one of those permits is a state or local permit, convene the permitting agencies and develop a permit review plan and schedule that expedites the process. His word is final with respect to state agencies and can be final with respect to local agencies “to the extent allowed by law.” I like the Governor expediting state agency participation, but don’t like being held to a plan and schedule dictated by Salem. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-22(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. 2-21(S) | Public Hearing held. 4-4(S) | Work Session held Measure History For SB 253- GREG Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President. (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Business, Transportation and Economic Development) Requires Oregon Business Development Department to establish and administer Oregon Industrial Site Readiness Assessment Program providing grants to perform due diligence assessments of [large] regionally significant industrial sites, to create detailed development plans to [make large industrial sites market-ready] move sites to state of market-readiness and to conduct regional industrial [site] land inventories. Establishes Oregon Industrial Site Readiness Assessment Program Fund. Continuously appropriates moneys in fund to Oregon Business Development Department. Allocates moneys from Administrative Services Economic Development Fund to department. Directs department to report to Legislative Assembly during 2015 regular session. Support: This is identical to HB 2285 providing grants for preparing “due diligence” reports on RSIA sites. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-22(S) | Referred to Business and Transportation, then Ways and Means. 3-18(S) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. 4-15(S) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 3384 By Representative PARRISH Authorizes Department of Land Conservation and Development to act in lieu of city or county with land use jurisdiction to issue permit for establishment of facilities to serve or support veterans on land to be donated to public body or nonprofit organization. This bill will allow a property owner to seek a development permit from DLCD instead of the city to allow “the establishment of facilities to serve or support veterans” if the land is donated by the property owner to a public body or a non-profit organization, and “If the proposed use of the land to be donated is generally consistent with the statewide land use planning goals.” If these circumstances apply DLCD must approve the permit. The property owner must seek DLCD approval prior to donation and then must make the donation within 2 years of the approval. I’m not a fan of ceding our authority to the state for any reasons, but I do appreciate the frustration represented in this law regarding the difficulty, delays and expense to overcome opposition to a permitted land use proposal, or at least a proposal that’s within the spirit and intent of the law. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Oppose 3 2/26/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 2-25(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-4(H) | Referred to Land Use. 3-28(H) | Public Hearing held. Measure History For HB 3385 By Representative PARRISH Authorizes Department of Land Conservation and Development to act in lieu of city or county with land use jurisdiction to issue permit for conditional use or exemption from land use regulation in specified circumstances. Allows issuance of permit for land use that is consistent with comprehensive plan designation for land but that cannot be approved under land use regulations when land use is approved by compact of owners and residents of nearby land. This proposal changes the game on local land use decisions for both counties and cities (ORS 215 and ORS 227) by inserting DLCD as the decision-maker in specific circumstances, one of those circumstances being the land must be designated as an Urban Reserve: “For land designated as urban reserve, a landowner may apply to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for a permit authorizing a conditional use or exemption from a land use regulation in the manner provided by this section for a use described in paragraph (c) of this subsection, in lieu of applying for a permit to the county with land use jurisdiction over the land…” The county is cited here because this section of the proposal modifies ORS 215; in another section of the proposal “city” is substituted for county because that part of the proposal modifies ORS 227. It’s interesting to note that urban reserves are always located outside UGBs therefore the county should always have land use jurisdiction. I’m not sure how many cities would bring an urban reserve area into a UGB and leave it as urban reserve, but caveat emptor if this proposal passes. Additional circumstances that must apply to the site include: (a) The landowner has proposed a use of the land that can be permitted under the comprehensive plan, and land use regulations implementing the plan; (b) Owners or other residents of nearby land object to the proposed use; and (c) The landowner and the owners and residents of nearby land have executed a compact approving another use that is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the land, but that cannot be zoned under existing land use regulations. This section establishes standards for eligibility; however, unlike most other standards that are at least somewhat logical, the second standard here requires that some neighbors must object to the proposal. Even more implausible is the last standard, which requires some other neighbors to have an executed agreement that supports the proposed use (as long as the proposed use is consistent with the comp plan). The last peculiarity of this bill is that DLCD cannot deny the proposal if the standards previously discussed are met: If the proposed use of the land is generally consistent with the statewide land use planning goals, the department: (a) May not prohibit a use that is the subject of a compact executed under subsection (2) of this section. The deference given to neighbor consent is extraordinary. This bill may be the tip of the sword regarding neighbors and neighborhoods becoming the de facto approval authority for certain confined or localized land use proposals. We’ve heard this in the past: if all of my neighbors support this, why should the city be able to say no. The reverse may also apply: If all the neighbors object, why should the city be able to approve the proposal. The action by DLCD is appealable to LUBA, but it doesn’t say if the Department has to defend its decision or if that becomes the obligation of the city/county. The bill also says the Department may adopt rules to implement the law. It’s possible that new rules would answer this question. Because there aren’t any urban reserves east of I-5, this probably won’t be an issue for us directly. However, if the precedent of neighbor deference and DLCD authority finds its way into other land use decisions, I’d be surprised if we’d think that was an improvement over existing law. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Oppose 3 2/26/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 2-25(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-4(H) | Referred to Land Use. 4-11(H) | Public Hearing and Possible Work Session scheduled. Bills concerning changes to local land use process Measure History For SB 393- GREG By Senator GEORGE (Presession filed.) Authorizes local government to adopt exception to statewide land use planning goal, without demonstrating that statutory standards for exception have been met, for use that is necessary for employer of 10 or more employees under specified circumstance. Requires employer in Willamette Valley seeking exception to provide green-collar jobs at family wage. Requires employer outside Willamette Valley seeking exception to provide family wage. Defines terms. Allows a goal exception for a use permitted by the goal but that cannot comply with approval standards as long as the proposal is for an employer with 10 or more “green collar jobs.” “Green-collar jobs” means manual, management and intellectual labor positions that provide a family wage and career track opportunities and either: (A) Contribute directly to preserving or improving environmental quality; or (B) Are performed in a business whose products and services directly improve environmental quality.” This is a huge benefit because the normal components necessary to comply with the exception requirements are essentially waived. Should think we should support. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Measure History For SB 419- GREG Prohibits public bodies from imposing requirement to show consistency or compatibility with state and local land use plans for lands to which federal government holds title by consent of State of Oregon. This law exempts the federal government with compliance with our plan or development regulations “when the State of Oregon has consented to the acquisition of title to the property by the United States.” I thought the federal government already had this prerogative? I’m always nervous when someone can do what they want without regard for our rules. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Measure History For HB 3298 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By Representative BARNHART, Senator PROZANSKI Requires certain statement by local government to accompany application for operating permit for surface mining. Specifies content of statement. —LOC MONITOR 2-25(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 3-4(H) | Referred to Agriculture and Natural Resources. Measure History For SB 676 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By Senator KRUSE Requires governing body of local government to make final land use decision of local government when resolution of issues requires interpretation of provision of comprehensive plan, or land use regulation implementing plan, that governing body has not interpreted previously. —LOC MONITOR 2-26(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 3-1(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Measure History For SB 750 No recent action; we believe this bill has died in committee By Senator KNOPP Requires local government to take final action on application for permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 60 days. Sunsets provisions on January 2, 2020, or 30 days after Governor proclaims unemployment rate of State of Oregon is at or below six percent.—LOC OPPOSE 2-26(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 2-28(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Measure History For HB 2202 By Representative CLEM (at the request of Oregon Farm Bureau) (Presession filed.) Prohibits conditional approval of mining permits for mining of tracts of land in Willamette Valley that are zoned for exclusive farm use and include five acres or more composed of Class I and Class II soils. Creates exceptions. This is an odd one; these sites can be mined if the applicant can demonstrate that the following alternatives weren’t available: (a) Land identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as exception land or nonresource land; (b) Resource land that is irrevocably committed to nonresource use; (c) Land within an urban growth boundary; or (d) A tract of land that does not include five acres or more of land composed of a combination of Class I and Class II soils. There’s nothing about proximity, i.e., in the same county, distance to UGBs, etc. I’m not sure what it means if there is a site within a UGB – does the site already need to be designated for mining? Does it need to have comparable resource to the EFU site proposed for mining? I appreciate the sentiment but it strikes me that there too many loopholes or deficiencies in the language to make this an effective law. LOC is not following this bill. 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use. 2-26(H) | Public Hearing held. 2-28(H) | Public Hearing held. 3-28(H) | Work Session held. Bills concerning liability, assessments, pricing Measure History For SB 336- GREG By Senator GEORGE (Presession filed.) Eliminates requirement for special relationship to establish liability of local government for economic injuries incurred by person acting in good faith reliance on negligent misrepresentation by local government of effect of comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Out of my league: eliminates “special relationship” standard for filing for tort liability when acting in good faith reliance on comprehensive plan or land use regulation. I assume this means the standard for filing gets easier, so is that something we really want to support? 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Health Care and Human Services. 2-4(S) | Work Session held. 2-5(S) | Recommendation: Without recommendation as to passage and be returned to President's desk for referral. Referred to Judiciary by order of the President. 2-5(S) | Referred to Judiciary. Measure History For SB 443 By Senator GEORGE (Presession filed.) Provides that all land within exclusive farm use zone qualifies for farm use special assessment. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. This law is for purposes of calculating when a farm use tax deferral in an exclusive farm zone is effective, including termination date. It only applies to land that has not been included in a UGB. We don’t have any exclusive farm use zones so this does not apply to us. 1-14(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. 1-16(S) | Referred to Rural Communities and Economic Development. Week 2 Measure History For SB 475 By Senator SHIELDS (at the request of Connecting Communities of Oregon) Repeals provision that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers. This law repeals Section 197.309 which forbids a city from establishing a sales price for a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or from limiting any particular class or group of purchasers. This section does allow the city to: “Adopt or enforce a land use regulation, functional plan provision or condition of approval creating or implementing an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus or other voluntary regulation, provision or condition designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units.” It’s not clear to me if this repeal also removes our ability to act as stated above or if the absence of this language constitutes a default to any other provisions that we deem applicable to the circumstances. 2-5(S) | Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk. Week 3 Measure History For HB 2890 By Representatives REARDON, BUCKLEY; Representatives FREDERICK, GOMBERG, JENSON, KENY-GUYER, VEGA PEDERSON, WILLIAMSON Repeals provision that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers. Repeals provision that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers. This law repeals 197.309 which is the same as SB 475, to which I responded: This law repeals Section 197.309 which forbids a city from establishing a sales price for a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or from limiting any particular class or group of purchasers. This section does allow the city to: “Adopt or enforce a land use regulation, functional plan provision or condition of approval creating or implementing an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus or other voluntary regulation, provision or condition designed to increase the supply of moderate or lower cost housing units.” It’s not clear to me if this repeal also removes our ability to act as stated above or if the absence of this language constitutes a default to any other provisions that we deem applicable to the circumstances. 2-11(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 2-18(H) | Referred to Human Services and Housing. 4-15(H) | Work Session scheduled. Measure History For HB 2917-GREG/JT By Representatives THATCHER, WITT (at the request of Dean Werth) Requires that offer of just compensation for condemned property may not be less than real market value of property as determined by county assessor or Department of Revenue. This law also includes proportional value based on the percentage of land sought for condemnation. I suppose you could argue that if this also includes land that can’t be used for anything because of some deficiency or building hardship (slope, wetland, etc.) that this proportional value is not reasonable. How often that might happen, or the extent to which this would become a problem for us is unpredictable and probably shouldn’t be used as a basis for objection, particularly if this proposal removes the need for independent appraisal. John t: I’d still oppose it because I don’t see enough good in it. 2/26/13 2-13(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 2-19(H) | Referred to Consumer Protection and Government Efficiency. Bills concerning population projections Measure History For HB 2253 GREG Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of Governor John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., for Department of Land Conservation and Development) Requires Portland State University Population Research Center to issue population forecasts for land use planning that are currently produced by counties. Support; transfers all population forecasting authority to PSU; forecasts will be produced every 4 years and will be used by cities and counties to update comprehensive plans. Position Priority Date Input Assigned To Category Support 1 1/17/13 Erin Doyle Land Use 1-14(H) | First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk. 1-22(H) | Referred to Land Use. 3-7(H) | Public Hearing scheduled. 4-4(H) | Public Hearing held. 4-9(H) | Work Session scheduled.