Resolution No. 4926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT A ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DECISION OF CITY COUNCIL DENYING WIPER MEASURE 37 CLAIM 1. Land Use Regulations The Reeder Letter asserts that the city manager's interpretation of the term "land use regulation" under Measure 37 is under inclusive. The plain language of Measure 37 limited the definition of "land use regulation" as applied to local governments, to "[l]ocal government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation ordinances." Measure 3 7 did not create an entitlement to relief for reduction in property values caused by laws and regulations that are not "land use regulations." To the extent that Claimant's claim is based on those provisions of the Eugene Code or other regulations or provisions which did not constitute land use regulations under Measure 3 7, the claim lacks merit. 2. Enactment or Enforcement The Reeder letter asserts that the City's interpretation of the plain language of Measure 37 fails for four reasons. First, no other jurisdiction has made the distinction between enactment and enforcement of a land use regulation, and the state has clearly rejected such a distinction. Second, the City's interpretation of Measure 37 as related to the Wiper claim is inconsistent with the City's previous decisions on the Lane Plywood and DMB Green claims. Third, the City's interpretation of the language of Measure 37 is unreasonable under PGE v. BOLl. Fourth and finally, the City has enforced various land use regulations against the property through litigation. Each of these arguments is addressed below. a. No Other Jurisdiction Has Advanced Such an Argument The Reeder letter provides no support for its assertion that no other jurisdiction has made a distinction between "enactment" and "enforcement." There are literally thousands of claims and decisions related to Measure 37, and the letter does not purport to review all of those to determine whether such a distinction was made. The Reeder letter also references two decisions on two claims by the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and asserts that the decisions show that the state "cleady rejects" the Report and Recommendation's distinction between enactment and enforcement of a land use regulation. Claimant misreads the referenced DLCD decisions. In neither decision did DLCD explicitly reject the distinction made by the Report and Recommendation. Most importantly, the Reeder letter fails to explain why interpretations by other jurisdictions or DLCD are relevant to how a court would interpret Measure 37. And, as explained below, the plain language of the measure demonstrates that such a distinction exists.