Item 4: PH on Lane Plywood Measure 37 Claim

Home Browse Search

and the Metro Plan were enacted prior to Measure 37. Therefore, the mere adoption or existence of those provisions is not enough to give rise to a Measure 37 claim. Instead, Measure 37 requires something more. Following the passage of Measure 37, the City has not applied or enforced any of the provisions of Chapter 9 or the Metro Plan to LPI's property. Measure 37 requires that some type of "enforcement" take place. Since that has not happened, the claim should be denied in its entirety. D. Restriction on nse, reduction in value, LPl's subdivision and CC&Rs. A "land use regulation" gives rise to a Measure 37 claim only if the regulation would "restrict the use" of private property and have the effect of reducing the fair market value of property. LPI did not identify which of the more than 550 pages of Chapter 9 LPI asserts "restrict the use" of property, and which "reduces the value" of property. To qualify as a valid claim, a provision must both restrict the use and reduce the value. Even if provisions of Chapter 9 restricted the use and reduced the value of some property within the City, there are three additional factors applicable to LPl's property which preclude a finding that LPI can meet these requirements: the historic zoning of the property; the land use approval that LPI sought and obtained for the lots; and the Covenants, Codes & Restrictions (CC&Rs) adopted for and recorded on all of the lots at issue in this Measure 37 claim. LPI first asserted that it intends to use the subject lots for "commercial development and billboards." LPI later amended its claim to assert its intent to use these lots for "all forms of : industrial,.commercial, residential, signage, and mixed use, in addition to the commercial uses and placement of billboards described in the original claim." LPI asserts that it is restricted from using the property for its intended uses by the City's. "industrial zoning" and by "a number of other city land use regulations currently in effecC However, these lots historically have been zoned heavy industrial (1-3 and 1\1-3). LPI has not offered any evidence that the zoning or regulations today reduce the value or restrict uses in any significant manner beyond what existed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, even if the City agreed to "not apply" or "waive" the regulations, the use and. development of the properties would remain restricted by the subdivision approval sought and obtained by LPI and the CC&Rs LPI voluntarily placed on the property. During the subdivision approval process, LPI asserted that a contract is established between the subdivider (LPI) and the municipality (the City) once a tentative plan for subdivision is approved. The tentative plan approval (and ultimately final plat) was consistent with LPI's subdivision application. That application limited the uses to which LPI would put the property in the future to those allowed in an 1-3 zone. LPI's application further stated that, although the 1-3 zone allowed uses permissible in both the 1-2 and 1-1 zones, it was not going to put the land to any of the uses allowed in the 1-1 zone. Thus, LPI has, by its own voluntary actions, limited itself to 1-3 and 1-2 (but not I-I) uses on the land, as subdivided. Just as LPI Page 6 of9