Laserfiche WebLink
<br />has provided. Thus, the City should reject LPI's assertion that the date of acquisition for these <br />properties should be the first date of acquisition. <br /> <br />For the reasons set forth in the preceding section, the correct date of acquisition for lots 1, <br />2, 3, 5 and 11 is April 13, 2005, and the correct acquisition date for lot 12 is February 26, 2006. <br />Consequently, the claims made on these lots should be denied, as LPI acquired title to these lots <br />after the effective date of the City's Land Use Code, August 1,2001. <br /> <br />3. Lot 9: Insufficient information to determine date of acquisition. <br /> <br />LPI did not provide ariy deeds or other information concerning lot 9. RLID reflects that <br />LPI is the current owner of this lot, but provides no information about when the lot was acquired. <br /> <br />B. "Land use regulations." <br /> <br />Measure 37 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations which <br />constitute "land use regulations" as that term is defined by Measure 37. Measure 37 and other. <br />state land use laws define differently the phrase "land use regulations." Measure 37 defines land <br />use regulation, with respect to local governments, as "local government comprehensive plans, <br />zoning ordinances, land division ordinances and transportation ordinances." On the other hand, <br />ORS 197.015(11) defines land use regulation as "any local government zoning ordinance, land <br />division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance <br />establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan." This. difference between <br />Measure 37's .definition and the prior statutory definition -i.e., the omission in Measure 37 of <br />the languageunderiined above - is significant.. Existing state law and Measure 37 both include <br />zoning ordinances and land divisiohordinances. ' Measure ,37, however, does not include the' <br />language "or' similar general ordinance establishmgstandards for implementing a comprehensive ' <br />plan." Because Measure 37 omits that language, while including the other language from ORS <br />197.015(11) relating to zoning ordinances and land division ordinances, a proper interpretation <br />of Measure 37 limits "land use regulation" to zoning ordinances and land division ordinances (in <br />addition to comprehensive plan provisions and transportation ordinances). <br /> <br />LPI includes as part of its claim all of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code and the Metro Plan. <br />Measure 37 defines "land use regulation" to include comprehensive plans, and consequently, to <br />the extent that LPI's claim is based on the Metro Plan, the claim meets this requirement. <br />Measure 37, however, does not define "land use regulation" to include all land use code <br />provisions, but instead, only "zoning ordinances," "land division ordinances" and "transportation <br />ordinances." Most of the regulations in Chapter 9 do not constitute any of those types of <br />ordinances. To the extent that LPI's claim is based on those parts of Chapter 9, the claim lacks <br />merit. <br /> <br />C. Enforcement. <br /> <br />Measure 37 states that a property owner has a claim if a public entity "enacts or enforces <br />a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date" <br />of Measure 37. With very few exceptions, all of the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code <br /> <br />Page 5 of9 <br />