HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 9-24-18 MeetingSeptember 24, 2018, Meeting
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 24, 2018
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of September 24, 2018;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Mike Clark, President Betty Taylor, Vice President Greg Evans Chris Pryor Emily Semple Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1.PUBLIC FORUM
2.CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutesa.September 10, 2018, Work Sessionb.September 10, 2018, Meetingc.September 12, 2018, Work Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
3.ACTION: A Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim and Waiving a Provision
of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 for Property Located Adjacent to 70
West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700)
September 24, 2018, Meeting
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Public Forum Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This segment allows citizens the opportunity to express opinions and provide information to the council. Testimony presented during the Public Forum should be on City-related issues and should not address items which have already been heard by a Hearings Official or are on the present agenda as a public hearing item.
SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required; this is an informational item only.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 2A
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes for the September 10, 2018, Work Session and Meeting as well as the September 12, 2018, Work Session.
ATTACHMENTS A. September 10, 2018, Work Session B. September 10, 2018, Meeting C. September 12, 2018, Work Session
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 10, 2018 Page 1
Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
September 10, 2018
5:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Greg Evans, Chris Pyror Mayor Vinis opened the September 10, 2018, Work Session of the Eugene City Council.
1. Committee Reports and Items of Interest Council Discussion
• In light of recent Boise, Idaho court case related to sleeping on the streets, Eugene should designate a place where people can legally lie down to sleep.
• Concerns expressed about predatory towing; interest in banning Styrofoam and general recycling concerns.
• Suggestion made to look at laws regulating short term rentals and nuisance issues specifically related to dry grass.
• Appreciation expressed to City Manager for issuing an administrative order that prohibits city employees from collecting data related to immigration status.
• League of Oregon Cities is meeting in Eugene from September 26-29 and the theme is focused on homelessness and affordable housing.
• City Manager will return to Council with policy options related to contract with Northwest Natural Gas, including input from Sustainability Commission.
2. WORK SESSION: Transportation System Plan Update Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld gave a presentation about the Transportation System Plan Strategy, including background and next steps. Council Discussion
• Would like to coordinate TSP planning with SDC methodology in order to, on a long-term basis, coordinate a wish list with what it will cost.
• Request made for more detail about the Urbanism Next study and what it will cover.
• Based on the current TSP plan, the City can get to a 40 percent reduction by 2035, though the goal is to get to 50 percent reduction by 2030. Concern expressed about not presenting a plan that would show how to meet that goal.
• Questions asked about how staff selected the list in terms of priorities, and if it was based on Council priorities.
• Support needed for some of these things in Salem; ensure that the City is coordinating its message and working with Ethan Nelson and IGR.
• Questions asked about the Franklin corridor design and timeline.
• The Land Conservation Development Commission is expected to amend some rules and potentially require new performance measures. Important to ensure it fits in with the City’s timeline, and doesn’t duplicate efforts.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 10, 2018 Page 2
Work Session
• With regard to MovingAhead corridors , there is a need for federal funding and clarity on where the City is in terms of positioning for federal funding and mix of local, state, and federal money.
• Concern expressed that Eugene is behind and hasn’t put forth a plan that meets current CRO goals.
• The CRO sets a goal for 50 percent fossil fuel reduction by 2030. Clarification requested on whether that is a legal imperative or a nice goal.
• Explanation requested of how the TSP would be approached if Council wanted to cut transportation SDCs in an effort to make housing more affordable.
• Instead of investing money on new corridors now, it would make sense to look more closely at enhanced mobility and waiting for technology to progress because it’s rapidly changing.
• It’s not clear that autonomous vehicles or Uber/Lyft lead to a reduction in greenhouses gases; they may actually be creating more.
• Consider adopting performance measures early before LCDC adopts its goals in order to track TSP goals as soon as possible.
3. WORK SESSION: Improvement of Unimproved Roads City Engineer Mark Schoening gave a presentation that reviewed residential land supply and unimproved roads and discussed a framework for an ordinance and the practical application of an ordinance. Council Discussion
• Confirmation that a funding stream would essentially be added to the CIP was requested.
• North Eugene has seen a large amount growth and density and there is much more development occurring than when the people originally bought their homes alongthese major corridors.
• Questions asked about why applicability is limited to arterials and collectors; consider expanding.
• Would like to explore definitions a little bit more, specifically how arterial and collector are defined and determined.
• Question asked about the trade-offs if council adopts this policy, including what its impacts are on what is already occurring that wouldn’t be done.
• Concerns expressed about equity because historically people have paid for improvements that come with new development as part of their housing costs. Adopting this policy would mean that the next group of people would not have to pay for the same improvements?
• Question asked about how much it would be to fund all unimproved streets that are triggered by new development and what the number would be for just collectors. MOTION: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to extend for 10 minutes. PASSED 8:0
Council Discussion
• The way the City has funded streets in the past has been inequitable.
• Question asked about a potential ordinance and what it might include from the list in the agenda packet.
• Concerns expressed about streets that would not qualify for improvement, for example 10 local streets surrounding a school even though it would promote safe routes to school and vision zero goals.
• Consider the fact that there are a high level of renters and landlords not wanting to pay to have the streets improved.
• Council has a lot more thinking to do to give direction on specifics.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 10, 2018 Page 3
Work Session
• Request made for a prioritization scheme when this comes back to Council and options for how to address different priorities moving forward.
• Request made for costs and percentages related to the arterials and collectors portion and the potential projects that could meet the 20 single-family unit and 30 multi-family unit threshold and where they might be.
The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elena Domingo Deputy City Recorder Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Meeting September 10, 2018 Page 1
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
September 10, 2018
7:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Greg Evans, Claire Syrett, Chris Pyror Mayor Vinis opened the September 10, 2018, meeting of the Eugene City Council.
1. PUBLIC FORUM 1. Laurie Powell – spoke about the Climate Recovery Ordinance, specifically related to the TSP. 2. John Clarenbach – shared concerns about the large increase of homeless on Mill Street. 3. Jerry Smith – talked about Eugene’s need for a public shelter. 4. David Igl – requested that council make a public statement regarding the renaming of Dunn Hall. 5. Nicholas Knight – spoke about the smoking ban and its effect on minimum wage workers. 6. John Thielking – talked about the Ninth Circuit Court opinion regarding sleeping and camping. 7. Justin MacDonald – shared concerns about public safety issues and unhoused individuals. 8. Phoenix Downer – spoke about homeless camping. 9. Gwendolyn Iris – talked about the Ninth Circuit Court opinion regarding sleeping and camping. 10. Janet Zoll – asked if the City of Eugene is in compliance with the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. 11. Michael Weed – shared concerns about City’s stance on Ninth Circuit Court ruling. 12. Kathy Walker – asked City Council to remove the camping ban. 13. Todd Boyle – asked council to focus public resources on low-income housing. 14. Ken Neubeck – expressed disappointment in the City’s response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling. 15. Tracy Joscelyn – supported working hard towards housing individuals with winter coming. 16. Eric Jackson – spoke about moving forward after Ninth Circuit Court Decision. 17. Patrick – asked Council to think before acting with regard to unhoused individuals. 18. Daniel DeLay – spoke about the homeless epidemic. 19. Alex Reitz – talked about how the unhoused need a place to be. 20. Jerry Glass – shared opinion that it feels like war has been declared against the homeless. 21. Nicole St. Germain – asked council to think about kindness and humility towards the unhoused. Council Discussion
• Thankful for all of the valuable input and believe that the Boise decision does affect Eugene.
• Want to be able to provide a safe place where people can lie down and legally go to sleep.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes a. July 9, 2018, Meeting b. July 9, 2018, Work Session c. July 11, 2018, Work Session d. July 16, 2018, Meeting e. July 16, 2018, Work Session f. July 18, 2018, Work Session g. July 23, 2018, Meeting h. July 23, 2018, Work Session i. July 25, 3018, Work Session
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Meeting September 10, 2018 Page 2
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Approval of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-04-23-13, Tax Lot 109—located on 1127 and 1129 Maclay Drive)(City File: Jesse Brabham; A 18-2) D. Approval of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-03-28-40, Tax Lots 1401 and 1402—located on 1 and 2 Chevy Chase Lane). (Chase/LeCompte; A 18-4)
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. PASSED 8:0
3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Changing the Street Name of the Undeveloped Portion of Suzanne Way to Tennyson Avenue, as it Extends North From Crescent Avenue to Tennyson Avenue (City File SC 18-1)
Mayor Vinis opened the public hearing and asked if any councilors needed to disclose any bias, onflicts of interest, ex parte communications or abstentions. Councilor Clark disclosed that before the meeting started he asked the person who is going to testify if she thought this was a good idea or not, but said he was capable of making an unbiased decision. Associate Planner Nick Gioello introduced the Public Hearing topic. Support 1. Teresa Bishow - spoke in support of the proposed street name change. Neutral No one spoke with a neutral stance on this issue. Oppose No one spoke in opposition to this issue. Mayor Vinis closed the Public Hearing and the record.
4. ACTION: A Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim and Waiving a Provision of Chapter 9
of the Eugene Code, 1971 for Property Located Adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene,
Oregon (Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700)
MOTION: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt the Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim for Property Located adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene Oregon.
Assistant Planner Dan Lawler and Senior Planner Gabe Flock introduced the action item.
Council Discussion
• Questions asked about the 2014 code amendments and why the city added a provision that restricted the building size on alley access lots.
• Concern expressed that a decision made in this case would set a precedent for other Measure 49 cases, cases related to ADUs, or alley access lots.
• This situation seems to be an unintended consequence stemming from the 2014 code changes and the lot in question does seem to qualify for an exemption to the rule.
• Encourage re-opening the record to allow the public to make additional comments.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Meeting September 10, 2018 Page 3
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute for the current motion to re-open the record for the Measure 49 claim for additional written testimony until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 12, 2018 and the claimant’s rebuttal period until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 19, 2018 and postpone council’s vote to Monday September 24, 2018. PASSED 6:2, Councilors Syrett and Pryor opposed. Council Discussion
• Request made for a better staff analysis of the evidence that was presented throughout the process and whether or not it was applicable to the decision.
• Question asked about the timeline to make the decision and whether opening the record would affect the deadline at all. VOTE: PASSED 8:0 The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elena Domingo Deputy City Recorder
Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 12, 2018 Page 1
Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
September 12, 2018
12:00 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pyror
Councilors Absent: Greg Evans
Mayor Vinis opened the September 12, 2018, Work Session of the Eugene City Council.
1. WORK SESSION: Marginalized Voices Report and Recommendations Equity Accessibility Analyst Katie Babits, along with Bonnie Souza and Ib Hamide of the Human Rights Commission, gave a report about marginalized voices, specifically findings from the WeCU Work Group. Council Discussion
• Appreciate the amount of thoughtful work that went into the report and presentation, and thankful to everyone that was involved organizing and participating.
• This work is helping us move towards the goal of helping the community understand each other’s experiences and creating a safe and welcoming community.
• Believe it is important that the council take a position to support the recommendations put forth by the WeCU work group.
• Supportive of the recommendations, would like to dig deeper on the second recommendation and think about what message we should be sending when putting together a rapid response.
• Can use the communication opportunity to alter the unconscious actions or complicity that occurs, can help change the frame of reference.
• Most interested in the rapid response recommendation because it seems like something that would be cheap and easy, but want to know what it would look like or entail.
• Interested in hearing more about what a multicultural center looks like, what it would do, and how it would be operated.
• Question asked about a group that used to help people understand each other that presenter Ib Hamide had been a part of.
• If the City develops a cultural liaison position, that person should also act as a Sister City liaison.
• Consider using Ceremonial Matters portion of the council meeting as an opportunity to invite individuals to come and inform people about special holidays, etc.
• We neglect the relationships with the Native Americans who were here before all of us and we should learn more about their customs.
• Questions asked about what would constitute an “other threatening act” and when a response would be solicited.
• Challenged the Human Rights Commission members to think of that definition differently and think about how we can stand together more frequently on all fronts.
• Interested in other goals including the website and want to hear from the work group what they imagine having on the website.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 12, 2018 Page 2
Work Session
• Designated physical spaces is something that could happen quickly, but consider what kind of spaces are they going to be, how they make people feel safe, and how it would be different from anything available now.
• Request made for a list of spaces that could be used now.
• Staff is moving forward on the initiative of recognizing 20 cultures by 2021, and it may be a shortcut to establishing a multi-cultural center.
2. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session
City Manager’s Office Division Manager Becky DeWitt and City Recorder Beth Forrest gave an overview of the process work session, including goals, information items, and options for consideration and discussion. Council Discussion
• Concerned that a two-tiered work session request process would lead to one councilor feeling satisfied by the answers received, but others still wanting to have a dialogue.
• Would like to see the introduction of resolutions put into a formal policy like a work session poll because it’s currently an ad-hoc process that can move forward without consensus.
• Work sessions are requested by a councilors because they want council to have a public discussion about an idea, not necessarily because there are questions.
• A conversation can be had about streamlining work sessions and how to get through them quicker once they have been scheduled.
• Questions asked about the two-hour rule and asking for staff help. If something is going to take a significant amount of time, then it should be put forth by the council as a body.
• Appreciate the responsiveness from staff on the mayor and council email list.
• A further screen for holding a work session is unnecessary as most work session requests are put forth to discuss creating or changing a policy and couldn’t be answered with a simple document.
• It is awkward that you cannot respond to something someone has said on the spot and instead have to wait until your turn in the queue.
• “No surprises” policy continues to be relevant; try to reaffirm dedication to as much lead time as possible.
• Concerns expressed about when work sessions are added to the end of a meeting, when additional work sessions are added, and when time is extended during a meeting.
• Important to keep public hearings at 7:30 p.m. because that is what the public is used to. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to extend 10 minutes. PASSED 7:0 Council Discussion
• Clarification requested about why the cost estimate for a City-employed minutes recorder was so high.
• Frustration expressed that current minutes are available later than when needed and have so little information in them.
• Would like to have other options than re-watching the tape to get answers about meetings because it takes too long.
• Consider sharing draft minutes with Council once available, whether or not a packet or meeting is upcoming.
• Prefer minutes the way they used to be, which provided what people said with context and a sense of what was being talked about.
• It would be nice to have minutes that reflect a sense of council intent.
• Suggestion made to keyword indexing the webcast to find things easier within the video.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 12, 2018 Page 3
Work Session
• Interested in having a system of technology at the council table that would enable meetings to go faster, with an electronic board and the ability to interact with it and move through the meetings more quickly.
• Used to have frequent minute corrections because it was easy to look through for your name and put forth corrections if needed.
• Written minutes will be obsolete in a few years; would rather spend time enhancing our current system and enabling searchable words for our webcast videos. The meeting adjourned at 1:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elena Domingo Deputy City Recorder Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 2B
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 2B Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council Tentative Working Agenda.
BACKGROUND On July 31, 2000, the City Council held a process session and discussed the Operating Agreements. Section 2, notes in part that “The City Manager shall recommend monthly to the council which items should be placed on the council agenda. This recommendation shall be placed on the consent calendar at the regular City Council meetings (regular meetings are those meetings held on the second and fourth Monday of each month in the Council Chamber). If the recommendation contained in the consent calendar is approved, the items shall be brought before the council on a future agenda. If there are concerns about an item, the item may be pulled from the consent calendar at the request of any councilor or the Mayor. A vote shall occur to determine if the item should be included as future council business.” Scheduling of this item is in accordance with the Council Operating Agreements.
RELATED CITY POLICIES There are no policy issues related to this item.
COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may choose to approve, amend or not approve the tentative agenda.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager has no recommendation on this item.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the items on the Tentative Working Agenda.
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 2B
ATTACHMENTS A. Tentative Working Agenda
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
Work Session Action Public Hearing Public Forum Consent Calendar
Committee Reports/Items of Interest Ceremonial Matters Pledge of Allegiance
Updated September 20, 2018
Meeting Location: Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue, unless otherwise noted
September 2018
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
24‐Sep
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Police Auditor/Civilian Review
Board Report
(Work Session)
Ordinance on Street Name Change,
SC 18‐1 Living Strong, LLC
(Action)
45 mins
30 mins
Mark Gissiner, PA
Nick Gioello, PDD
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Resolution on Elise Moore Measure
49 Claim (M49 18‐1)
(Action)
Dan Lawler, PDD
Expected absences for 9/24: none
26‐Sep
Wednesday
12 pm
Community Safety System Update
(Work Session)
90 mins
Kristie Hammitt, CS
Expected absences for 9/26: none
2
October 2018
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
8‐Oct
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
URA Riverfront Update
(Work Session and Possible
Action)
Downtown Riverfront Local
Improvement District
(Action)
60 mins
30 mins
Michael Kinnison, PDD
Denny Braud, PDD
Mark Schoening, PW
7:30 pm
Ceremonial Matters
Public Forum
Resolution Annexing Land on
Filbert Avenue (Monkey Hero, LLC;
A 18‐3)
(Consent Calendar)
Nick Gioello, PDD
Expected absences for 10/8: none
10‐Oct
Wednesday
12 pm
Joint City Council/Lane County
Commission – Homeless Services
Systems Analysis Interim Update
(Work Session)
90 mins
Jason Dedrick, CS
Expected absences for 10/10: none
5:30 pm
Transit Tomorrow Update
(Work Session)
Transportation SDC Methodology
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Rob Inerfeld, PW
Dan Kaler, PW
15‐Oct
Monday
7:30 pm
TBD
(Public Hearing)
Expected absences for 10/15: none
17‐Oct
Wednesday
12 pm
Police Commission Annual Report
and Work Plan
(Work Session)
MUPTE Application for Obie
Development
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Jeremy Cleversey, EPD
Amanda Nobel, PDD
Expected absences for 10/17: none
22‐Oct
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Community Safety System Update
– Part 2
(Work Session)
90 mins
Kristie Hammitt, CS
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Ordinance Granting Comcast
Franchise Agreement
(Public Hearing)
Pam Berrian, CS
Expected absences for 10/22: none
3
24‐Oct
Wednesday
12 pm
Joint City Council/Planning
Commission Meeting
(Work Session)
90 mins
Robin Hostick, PDD
Expected absences for 10/24: none
31‐Oct
Wednesday
12 pm
Climate Action Plan Update
(Work Session)
River Road/Santa Clara N’hood
Plan – Project Update
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Chelsea Clinton, CS
Eric Brown, PDD
Expected absences for 10/31: Taylor, Pryor
November 2018
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
13‐Nov Tuesday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Town Square Update
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Will Dowdy, PDD
7:30 pm
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Public Forum
Resolution Annexing Land
Located at 183 Ferndale Drive,
(McGinley A 18‐5)
(Consent Calendar)
Ordinance Granting Comcast
Franchise Agreement
(Action)
Dan Lawler, PDD
Pam Berrian, CS
Expected absences for 11/13: none
14‐Nov
Wednesday
12 pm
Parks SDC Methodology
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
TBD, PW
Expected absences for 11/14: none
4
19‐Nov
Monday
5:30 pm
Human Rights Commission and
Sustainability Commission
Work Plans
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Katie Babits, CS
Chelsea Clinton, CS
7:30 pm
TBD
(Public Hearing)
Expected absences for 10/15: none
26‐Nov Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Clear and Objective Housing
Approval Criteria Update
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Jenessa Dragovich, PDD
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 11/26: none
28‐Nov
Wednesday
12 pm
Recycling Update
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Michael Wisth, PDD
Expected absences for 11/28: none
December 2018
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
10‐Dec Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Housing Tools and Strategies
(Work Session)
90 mins
Mike Kinnison, PDD
Anne Fifield, PDD
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Resolution Acknowledging Receipt
of CAFR
(Consent Calendar)
Supplemental Budget
(Public Hearing and Action)
URA Supplemental Budget
(Public Hearing and Action)
URA‐Resolution Acknowledging
Receipt of URA Annual Financial
Report
(Action)
Finn Cronin, CS
Jamie Garner, CS
Jamie Garner, CS
Finn Cronin, CS
Expected absences for 12/10: none
5
12‐Dec
Wednesday
12 pm
Emergency Operations Center
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Randi Bowers‐Payne,
CS
Expected absences for 12/12: none
Council Break: December 13 – January 3
January 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
3‐Jan
Thursday
5:30 pm
State of the City
Expected absences for 1/3: none Soreng Theater, Hult Center
14‐Jan Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 1/14: none
16‐Jan
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
Expected absences for 1/16: none
5:30 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
22‐Jan Tuesday
7:30 pm
TBD
(Public Hearing)
Expected absences for 1/22: none
23‐Mon
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 1/23: none
28‐Jan
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
6
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 1/28: none
30‐Jan
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
Expected absences for 1/30: none
February 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
11‐Feb Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 2/11: none
13‐Feb
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
Expected absences for 2/13: none
5:30 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
19‐Feb Tuesday
7:30 pm
TBD
(Public Hearing)
Expected absences for 2/19: none
20‐Feb
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 2/20: none
25‐Feb
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
7
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 2/25: none
27‐Feb
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
Expected absences for 2/27: none
March 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
11‐Mar Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 3/11: none
13‐Mar
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
Expected absences for 3/13: none
Council Break: March 14 – April 8
Work Session Action Public Hearing Public Forum Consent Calendar
Committee Reports/Items of Interest Ceremonial Matters Pledge of Allegiance
Approved Work Session Polls to be Scheduled Councilor Date Approved
Hwy 99/Bethel Urban Renewal District Evans 11/9/17
Home Energy Score Policy
Data Collection Policy/Protection of Individuals and Groups
Semple
Syrett
3/9/18
7/19/18
Follow‐Up Work Sessions to be Scheduled
$1 Million Shelter
Commercial Setbacks
Inclusionary Zoning
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 3
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: A Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim and Waiving a Provision of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 for Property Located Adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700) Meeting Date: September 24, 2018 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Dan Lawler
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5282
ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council is scheduled to take action on a Measure 49 claim submitted by Elise Moore for the alleged reduction in fair market value to property located on a vacant lot adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon. A vicinity map is provided as Attachment A.
BACKGROUND In 2007, Oregon voters approved Measure 49 (codified as ORS 195.300-336), which grants a property owner of residentially zoned land located within an urban growth boundary the right to compensation or waiver of a regulation (at the option of the government) if the following five substantive requirements are met:
• The claimant owns title to the property.
• The regulation constitutes a “land use regulation” as defined in Measure 49 and it was enacted after January 1, 2007, but not more than five years before the date the claim was filed.
• The regulation “restrict[s] the residential use” of residentially zoned private property.
• The effect of the regulation reduces the fair market value of the property.
• The regulation does not fall within one of Measure 49’s six exemptions. The council must decide: 1) whether a Measure 49 claim meets all five requirements listed above, and 2) if the Measure 49 claim meets all five requirements, whether to compensate the claimant, or waive enforcement of the land use regulation. This Measure 49 claim seeks waiver of a land use regulation, adopted in 2014 as part of the Single Family Code Amendments, that limits building size on alley access lots to 10 percent of the total lot size or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller. The property owner asserts that the land use regulation restricts the residential use of her property because it limits the size of a dwelling on her property to a maximum of 462 square feet and leaves her with no way to build the 1,200 square foot home she desires for the property. Prior to adoption of the regulation, the property owner could have built a home of at least 2,000 square feet. As a result, the property owner claims that the regulation restricts her residential use and reduces the fair market value of her property and she seeks compensation or waiver of the regulation.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
A City Council public hearing on this Measure 49 claim was held on July 16, 2018. The claimant’s attorney, Bill Kloos, testified in favor of granting the claim. No other testimony was received at the public hearing. Following the hearing, the council left the record open one week, until 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2018, for submission of written testimony and provided the claimant an additional week, until 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2018, to rebut evidence and arguments submitted. At the council meeting on July 23, 2018, the council voted to extend the open record period until 5:00 p.m. on July 27, 2018, and to extend the claimant’s rebuttal period until 5:00 p.m. on August 3, 2018. At the council meeting on September 10, 2018, the council voted to extend the open record period again until 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2018, and to extend the claimant’s rebuttal period until 5:00 p.m. on September 19, 2018. All testimony and evidence received to date is available at http://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=M49-18-0001. Copies of materials received prior to the most recent open record period were previously provided to the City Council under separate cover. For ease of reference, materials submitted during the most recent open record period (September 10-19) are included as Attachment B. Testimony received during the most recent open record period raised two primary issues:
• The argument that the council should deny the Measure 49 claim because limitations on dwelling size regulate a dwelling’s physical characteristics, but do not constitute a restriction of residential use of the property.
• The argument that granting the Moore Measure 49 claim will lead to a proliferation of future Measure 49 claims seeking waiver or compensation for any regulation that impacts the physical characteristic of residential dwellings. Staff have reviewed the newly submitted testimony and continue to recommend that the City Council grant the claim. Staff has provided the council with a resolution that approves the property owner’s Measure 49 claim, along with the City Manager’s supporting Report and Recommendation (Exhibit A to the resolution), which are included with this AIS as Attachment C. Staff has also provided the council as Attachment D, an alternative resolution that denies the claim, along with findings (Exhibit A to the resolution) concluding that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict the residential use of the Claimant’s property. The Report and Recommendation has been updated to reflect council’s vote to re-open the record. A detailed description of staff’s analysis of several issues related to the claim can be also found in the memo provided to Council on July 20, 2018, which is included in the record materials previously provided to Council. A copy of the Measure 49 claim, along with record materials submitted prior to September 10, 2018, is contained in a notebook available at the City Manager’s Office. A copy of that notebook is also available for public inspection at the Eugene Planning and Development Department, First Floor Reception, 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, 97401 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Measure 49 requires the council to make a decision on the claimant’s claim within 180 days of the
September 24, 2018, Meeting – Item 3
date the claim was deemed complete. In this case, council must approve or deny this claim no later than October 6, 2018.
RELATED CITY POLICIES None.
COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the attached resolution granting the Moore Measure 49 claim. 2. Adopt the attached resolution denying the Moore Measure 49 claim. 3. Adopt one of the attached resolutions with specific modifications as determined by City Council.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that City Council adopt the resolution granting the claim.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt a Resolution Granting a Measure 49 Claim for Property Located adjacent to 70 W. 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon.
ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Open Record Materials received between September 10 and 19, 2018 C. Resolution Granting Claim and Exhibit A to Resolution, (City Manager’s Report and Recommendation) D. Resolution Denying Claim and Exhibit A to Resolution (Findings)
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dan Lawler, Assistant Planner Telephone: 541-682-5282 Staff E-Mail: dlawler@eugene-or.gov
Caution:This map is based on imprecisesource data, subject to change,and for general reference only.
Vicinity Map
Legend
Subject Property 0 150 30075Ft
W 25TH AVE
W 24TH PL
W 24TH AVE
PO
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
OL
I
V
E
A
L
Y
PO
R
T
L
A
N
D
A
L
Y
OL
I
V
E
S
T
WI
L
L
A
M
E
T
T
E
A
L
Y
MC
M
I
L
L
A
N
S
T
OL
I
V
E
S
T
PO
R
T
L
A
N
D
S
T
´
September 17, 2018
EUGENE
UGB
Subject Property
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 4:40 PM
To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Cc:LAWLER Daniel R
Subject:Testimony: Draft "Analysis" for City Manager Report (and Resolution findings) to DENY
M49 18-1
Attachments:M49 18-1 Analysis to Deny DRAFTx.pdf
September 12, 2018 (by e-mail at 4:39 PM)
Mayor and City Councilors,
Please find attached DRAFT text that could be used in an alternative "City Manager's Report and
Recommendation" that is attached and adopted as findings for a Council Resolution that DENIES the
Moore Measure 49 claim (M49 18-1).
Please forgive the unpolished formatting. I produced this my editing a PDF of the CM Report for the
"Wilson" M49 claim, that the City Council denied.
The City Manager should provide the Council will a complete, alternative report with these or
equivalent findings.
The Council should insist that they have before them two complete alternatives to consider on
September 24.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Exhibit A
III. Analysis of Claim
A. Ownership
Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific
regulations for "owners" of real property. Measure 49 defines "owner" to include "[t]he owner of
fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is located[.]"
ORS 195.300(18).
B."Land Use Regulations"
Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations that constitute
"land use regulations" as that term is defined by Measure 49. Further, the regulation must have
been enacted after January I, 2007, but within five years of the date of the claim. Measure 49
defines "land use regulation," with respect to cities, as a "provision of a city comprehensive plan,
zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real
property zonedfor residential use."ORS 195.300(14)(c). (Emphasis added).
Page 2 - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
Based on information that the Claimant submitted (Warranty Deed 2010-033733) and
information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Manager
concludes that Claimant Elise Moore acquired fee title to the subject property on July 8, 2010.
Accordingly, Claimant Elise Moore is the owner of the property.
C. Restriction on Residential Use
A "land use regulation" only gives rise to a Measure 49 claim if the regulation restricts the
residential use of private real property. The specific regulation that the Claimant points to is
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., which limits the square footage of new dwellings built on alley access
lots. The Claimant alleges that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts the residential use of her property
because it prevents her from building a home that would have been allowed before the
regulation took effect.
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3 is a provision of the City's zoning ordinance, and it regulates residential
uses on property zoned for residential uses. EC 9.2751(18)(a)3 was adopted as part of Ordinance No.
20541 as part of the Single Family Code Amendments, which became effective August 29, 2014. The
Claimant filed her Measure 49 claim on January 29, 2018. EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. was enacted after
January 1, 2007, but within five years of the date of the claim. However, as discussed in more detail
in section C, below, EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict the residential use of Moore's property;
therefore, EC 9.2751(18)(a)3 does not qualify as a "land use regulation" for purposes of Measure 49.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Exhibit A
Page 3 -REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
(18) Alley Access Lots in R-1
(a) General Standards.
1. Applicability. Except as provided in (b) below, the following standards apply to development on
alley access lots in R-1.
2. Use Regulations. Alley access lots have the same land use regulations as the base zone except
that there is no allowance for a secondary dwelling.
3. Building Size. The total building square footage of a dwelling shall not exceed 10 percent of the
total lot area or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller. Total building square footage is measured
at the exterior perimeter walls and is defined as all square footage inside of the dwelling,
including, but not limited to hallways, entries, closets, utility rooms, stairways and bathrooms..
Prior to the Council's adoption of the above-quoted code provision, general R-1 zoning regulations
applied to alley access lots and allowed lot owners to build structures that cover up to 50% of the
lot. Thus, the Claimant could have built a 1,200 square foot house on her alley access lot before
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. went into effect because the total lot size is 4,620 square feet. Now, however,
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. limits any structure on the Claimant’s lot to a maximum of 462 square feet,
which restricts the Claimant’s ability to build an economically and practically feasible home on the
property.
Adopted on July 28, 2014 (by Ordinance No. 20541) and effective on August 29, 2014, EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. establishes the following limitations on square footage of buildings on alley access
lots:
Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.. is a "land use regulation" that "restricts the
residential use" of their property because prior to the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No.20541,
the existing residence on Claimants'property would have automatically qualified to allow a
1,200 s.f. dwelling. However, following the adoption of Ordinance No.20541,the
dwelling would be limited to 462 s.f..
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Exhibit A
Page 4 - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
However, despite the dwelling size restrictions imposed by EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., staff has
determined that a 462 s.f. one-family would be legal and practicable to build and occupy.
As Planning staff point out, while EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.prevents claimant from building a
1,200 s.f. one-family dwelling,EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.does not foreclose the Claimant from developing
a one-family dwelling. The Claimant argue that her use of the property is restricted because prior
to EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., the dwelling she desires to build could be 1,200 s.f. (or larger) and now it
cannot exceed 462 s.f. However, Measure 49 requires that a landuse regulation restrict a residential
use and as noted above,EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.does not prevent the residential use of the property
generally, nor does it prohibit Claimant from establishing a one-family dwelling on the subject
property. Paul Conte and Bill Aspegran have also submitted testimony into the record arguing that
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.does not restrict the use ofClaimant's property.
Because the Claimant can still place a one-family dwelling on the subject property, the City
Manager concludes that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict the residential use of Claimant's
property as required by Measure 49.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:Margie James <margjam57@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 3:17 PM
To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; LAWLER Daniel R
Subject:Measure 49 (Moore) Claim
Dear Mayor and Councilors,
As active leaders in Friendly Area Neighborhood (FAN), the neighborhood in which Mrs.
Moore's property lies, we have been following planning department recommendations
and other testimony provided and we urge you to deny her Measure 49 claim.
We have concerns that if city council approves this claim, there will be more M-49 filings
, and handling claims on a case by case basis is not efficient for an already strapped
planning department, nor is it solving the underlying problem which has to do with code
for maximum dwelling size for alley access lots. It seems that initiating a code
amendment to increase the size of dwellings allowed on alley access lots would be a
better approach, currently 10% of lot size... what about 20%? 25%?
There needs to be consistency in council response to M-49 claims. Providing improved
code for maximum dwelling size on alley access lots would benefit property owners who
have been "caught" in the rule change that doesn't change a property owner's ability to
build housing, but does change what that housing might look like. At the same time, not
having to deal with additional M49 claims would free staff time to move forward with the
many other projects on their table.
Please deny the current Measure 49 claim (Moore) and initiate change in code for
maximum dwelling size on alley lots that is more reasonable for property owners than
current code, and allows city staff to use their time more constructively.
Thank-you,
Margie James
Pam Wooddell
FAN co-chairs
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
The VERY SIMPLE Story of Measure 49
A Measure 49 claim must demonstrate a restriction in the use of the
property.
A primary residential use was allowed on Elsie Moore's property
under regulations prior to Ordinance 20526 of 2014 and that same use
is allowed under 20526. Therefore, the adoption of R1 code
amendments in 2014 had no effect on the potential use of this property.
Every proposed project is required to be in compliance with current code
standards.
Dimensions such as height, square footage, setback etc. all may
represent limitations to the form of what may be built but they do not
constitute usage.
If the standards for a project like the one proposed by the claimant no longer
seem adequate then the appropriate action would be to make changes to the
code.
In other words, the only defensible resolution would be to deny this claim
which is without legal merit and move to correct the code.
The moral of the story: Failure to deny this claim increases the likelihood of
a proliferation of such Measure 49 cases, and, even more worrisome, may
cripple the City's ability to make and enforce meaningf ul code changes
going forward.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 12, 2018
To: Dan Lawler
From: Bill Aspegren
Re: Additional Testimony Relating to Elsie Moore’s Measure 49 Claim
Cc: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
Elsie Moore has filed a Measure 49 claim alleging the value of her alley lot has decreased due to code changes
that were implemented in 2014, limiting the size of a house she can build on her alley lot. Rather than
compensation she is asking for an exemption.
Staff has recommended giving Moore an exemption to allow a 1200 square foot home on her alley lot. Based on
lot size the recent code would still allow a house on her lot, but only roughly 460 square feet.
I believe this is an incorrect recommendation and not based on an accurate interpretation of the facts.
Consider these points:
x The 2014 code changes have not restricted “the residential use of [the] private real property” (ORS
197.305(1)). A house could be built on the alley lot prior to and after the 2014 changes. In fact, there is
testimony showing a home was recently built on an alley lot that was slightly smaller than the Moore
lot.
x Physical characteristics, such as building height, square footage, setbacks and other physical elements
do not restrict the residential use. Glenn Klein, former Eugene Attorney, affirmed this interpretation in
the recent Wilson Measure 49 claim.
o The Wilson claim was rejected because the residential use was not restricted due to the 2014
code changes. The Moore claim is similar in that residential use is not restricted and consistency
dictates that the claim should be rejected.
x Approving this claim sets a dangerous precedent. Any change to Eugene’s code that affects physical
characteristics of a residential use would be subject to a measure 49 claim for five years. This would
virtually eliminate the City’s ability to make changes that would improve compatibility and transition,
thus enhancing livability.
o The City attorney stated that she did not feel this was a problem. This is a poorly thought out
response, and approval of an exemption for this claim could open the City to many similar
Measure 49 claims.
x Hypothetical appraisals representing a year before and after the 2014 changes allege the alley lot owned
by Moore lost $25,000 in value. These appraisals were never verified by an independent appraiser as
was done for the Wilson Measure 49 claim. There are certainly questions as to the accuracy of the
appraisals and an independent look should be a standard practice.
o The lot was purchased by Moore in 2010 for $55,550 from a neighbor.
o The county assigns Real Market Values (RMVs) to land. Although not necessarily what a property
will sell for they do reflect a pattern. Below are RMVs for the Moore alley lot. After purchase the
RMV fell, but by 2013 the RMV was rising and continued to rise. This should have been a clue to
get an independent evaluation of the appraisals.
2010 RMV $86,528
2011 RMV $78,708
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
2012 RMV $78,708
2013 RMV $73,807
2014 RMV $76,917
2015 RMV $79,963
2018 RMV $83,771
Rejecting this claim does not mean the 2014 code change cannot be reviewed after the claim is settled. I believe
by simply changing the allowed house square footage from 10% to 20% of lot square footage would provide for
a larger alley house, without creating an incompatible structure. Fixing the code is a more practical way to solve
this problem rather than making an exception, which will prevent future necessary code changes.
Before voting to grant an exemption for this measure 49 claim make sure you have an accurate understanding of
the facts. Please vote to reject this claim.
Thanks,
Bill Aspegren
Ward 3
South University Neighborhood
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:32 PM
To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Cc:LAWLER Daniel R
Subject:Testimony M49 18-1 (Moore) Statutory Interpretation
Attachments:TestimonyM49_18-1Sep11CONTE.pdf
September 11, 2018
Mayor and Councilors,
Please review the attached testimony that provides substantial additional support for the correct
interpretation of the M49 statutes.
While it is pretty technical, it provides compelling analysis that supports the interpretation that
Glenn Klein presented, and with which I agree.
In contrast, the planner and City Attorney have done no legitimate analysis to support their
erroneous interpretation.
This message and attachment are submitted for the record in M49 18-1 (Moore).
Respectfully,
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
&' "!, !##"& ' "! '"
%!' ! ' &(%
""%
(D1<8CC431H&0D;>=C4>=(4?C4<14A
1H4<08;
)745>;;>F8=6?A>E834B0338C8>=0;;460;5>D=30C8>=B5>AC74?A>?4A8=C4A?A4C0C8>=>5C74#40BDA4
BC0CDC4B C8B=424BB0A8;H N;460;8BC82O 1DC8C5>;;>FBC74AD;4B5>ABC0CDC>AH2>=BCAD2C8>=)748CHCC>A=4H
70E43>=40C;40BC0BC7>A>D6709>11DC383=>C
)78B<0C4A80;0D6<4=CB?A4E8>DBC4BC8<>=H>=C748=C4A?A4C0C8>=>5#
BC0CDC4B8=2;D38=6C74
8=C4A?A4C0C8>=<0341H5>A<4A8CHCC>A=4H ;4==!;48=
B0A4<8=34A74A48BC74C4GC>5C745D=30<4=C0;2A8C4A8>=C70C<DBC14<4C145>A4NC74>F=4A>5C74
?A>?4ACHB70;;144=C8C;43C>9DBC2><?4=B0C8>=O C7A>D670#40BDA4
2;08<
%'(
50?D1;824=C8CH4=02CB>=4>A<>A4;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=BC70CA4BCA82CC74A4B834=C80;
DB4>5?A8E0C4A40;?A>?4ACH>A050A<8=6>A5>A4BC?A02C8240=3C70CA43D24C74508A<0A:4CE0;D4>5
C74?A>?4ACHC74=C74>F=4A>5C74?A>?4ACHB70;;144=C8C;43C> 9DBC2><?4=B0C8>=5A><C74?D1;82
4=C8CHC70C4=02C43C74;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=>AA46D;0C8>=B0B?A>E83438=%'(
C>
)74 D;H
<4<>5A><0="0F;4AC>C748CH>D=28; A4BC0C4BC78B ;0F0BB4AC8=6C70C
N.C/74 BC0CDC>AH BC0=30A35>A4E0;D0C8=6#
2;08<B8BF74C74A0A46D;0C8>=A4BCA82CBC74 & %
A4B834=C80;DB4 >5C74?A>?4ACHO <?70B8B03343 )74F>A3N34B8A43O3>4B=>C0??40A 0=HF74A4 8=
C74 5D=30<4=C0; BC0CDC>AH2A8C4A8>=5>A4=C8C;4<4=CC>0#40BDA4
2;08< "0F;4AMB<4<>8=2>AA42C;H
0CC4<?CBC>8=B4AC;0=6D0648=C>C74BC0CDC>AH2A8C4A8>= >5%'(
1H28C8=6C> 0 2><?;4C4;H
38554A4=C BD1B42C8>=>5%'(
F7827BC0C4B
?4AB>=<0H58;402;08<5>A9DBC2><?4=B0C8>=D=34A%'(
0=3
C>
05C4A
D=4 85
0)74?4AB>=8B0=>F=4A>5C74?A>?4ACH0=30;;>F=4AB>5C74?A>?4ACH70E42>=B4=C438=
FA8C8=6C>C7458;8=6>5C742;08<
1)74?4AB>=MB34B8A43DB4>5C74?A>?4ACH8B0A4B834=C80;DB4>A050A<8=6>A5>A4BC?A02C824
2)74?4AB>=MB34B8A43DB4>5C74?A>?4ACH8BA4BCA82C431H>=4>A<>A4;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B
4=02C4305C4A 0=D0AH
0=3
3)744=02C<4=C>5>=4>A<>A4;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B05C4A 0=D0AH
>C74AC70=;0=3
DB4A46D;0C8>=B34B2A81438=%'(
><?4=B0C8>=5>AA4BCA82C8>=>5DB4>5A40;
?A>?4ACH3D4C>;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>= 70B A43D243C74508A<0A:4CE0;D4>5C74?A>?4ACH
"0F;4AMB<4<> 4;4E0C4B C74?7A0B4N34B8A43DB4>5C74?A>?4ACH8BA4BCA82C43O8=BD1B42C8>=
2
0BB4AC8=6 >=C70C10B8B0;>=4 C70C0?4AB>=MB ?4AB>=0; N34B8A4BO4=2><?0BB4E4AH?DA?>B4 4E4AH
?7HB820; 270A02C4A8BC82 0=3 4E4AH >C74A 540CDA4 >503F4;;8=6DC"0F;4AMB<4<>2>=E4=84=C;H=46;42CB
C74?A42438=6BD1B42C8>=
1 F7827<0:4B2;40AC70C8B=>CC74"468B;0CDA4MB8=C4=C
1)74?4AB>=MB34B8A43DB4>5C74?A>?4ACH8B %& !' (&>A050A<8=6>A5>A4BC
?A02C824
=C78BBD1B42C8>=N0A4B834=C80;DB4O8B>=C74B0<4;4E4;0BN0 50A<8=6>A5>A4BC?A02C824O0=370BC74
CH?820;<40=8=6>5 N.C/74?DA?>B4 5>AF7827;0=3>A01D8;38=68B0AA0=64334B86=43>A8=C4=343>A
8B>22D?843>A<08=C08=43O 0B 2>3858438=D64=4>343458=8C8>=B
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
)74;0=6D0648= 0338C8>=0; B42C8>=B>5C74#40BDA4
BC0CDC4B ?A>E834 0?>F4A5D;4G0<?;4>5N2>=C4GCO
C70C74;?B4BC01;8B7NC74 8=C4=C8>=>5C74;468B;0CDA4O0B%'(
A4@D8A4B
"!'+' . ! ! "/(&0 !"' %&(&' "!&"&(%
&''('&
)F> 3458=8C8>=BD=34A%'(
A454AC>NDB4O F8C7C742;40A<40=8=6>5NDB4O0B0 >A
4G0<?;4
N,08E4O>ANF08E4AO<40=B 0=02C8>=>A3428B8>=>50?D1;824=C8CHC><>385HA4<>E4>A=>C
0??;H>=4>A<>A4;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=BD=34A%'(
C>
0=3B42C8>=BC>
270?C4A
%A46>="0FB B42C8>=B C>0=3
270?C4A%A46>="0FB 0=3
B42C8>=B C>270?C4A%A46>="0FB
>A%'(
0B8=45542C8<<4380C4;H145>A4
424<14A C>0;;>FC74>F=4AC>DB4?A>?4ACH "%(&#% ''* !' "*!%
$( %' #%"#%',
N->=435>AA4B834=C80;DB4O<40=BI>=8=6C70C && '&#% %,#(%#"&& ! ,
%& !' (& <?70B8B03343
#>BC ;8C4A0;0=32><?4;;8=6 8BC74?7A0B4 8=BD1B42C8>= N70B0B8CB?A8<0AH #(%#"&B8=6;450<8;H
A4B834=C80;DB4O <?70B8B03343 )78B?7A0B458CB4G02C;HF8C7C74D64=4>34 3458=8C8>=>5
N*B4O0B
N)74 #(%#"&5>AF7827;0=3>A01D8;38=68B0AA0=64334B86=43>A8=C4=343>A5>AF782748C74A
;0=3>A01D8;38=68B>22D?843>A<08=C08=43O
=35DAC74A<>A4NB8=6;450<8;HA4B834=C80;O8B >=4>5C740??A>E43NDB4BO K
>=450<8;H
3F4;;8=6 K 8= C74 D64=4>345>AC74 '
A4B834=C80;I>=4;40A;HC743458=8C8>=8=%'(
3>4B =>C CA40CNDB4O0B02>=24?C C70CF>D;3 4<1>3H?0AC82D;0A
>503F4;;8=6
,8C7A4B?42CC> %'(
58ABC=>C4C70CC74#
BC0CDC4B?A>E834C74;>20;9DA8B382C8>=
C74
D64=48CH>D=28; CF>0;C4A=0C8E4BC>A43A4BBN;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=BC70CA4BCA82CC74A4B834=C80; DB4>5
?A8E0C4A40;?A>?4ACHO48C74A
0 ><?4=B0C8>= >A
1 ,08E4A
%1E8>DB;HC74CF>0;C4A=0C8E4B0??;HC>C74B0<4N?A>1;4<O84A4BCA82C.8=6/C74A4B834=C80;DB4>5
?A8E0C4A40;?A>?4ACH =31420DB4NF08E4AO4G?;828C;HN0;;>FBC74>F=4AC>DB4?A>?4ACH5>A 0DB4O 0
F08E4A8B8=C4=343C>A43A4BB?A>1;4<BF74A41H0=4F;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=
C74>F=4A5A><
DB8=6C74?A>?4ACH5>A 0DB422>A38=6;HC74>C74A0;C4A=0C8E42><?4=B0C8>=<DBC0;B>148=C4=343C>
A43A4BB?A>1;4<BF74A41H0=4F;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=
C74>F=4A5A><DB8=6C74?A>?4ACH5>A 0
DB4
=3C7DBNA4BCA82CC74A4B834=C80;DB4>5?A8E0C4A40;?A>?4ACHO70BC><40=N38B0;;>F C74>F=4A5A><
DB8=6C74?A>?4ACH5>A 0 DB4ON DB4O8B0C4A<>50AC8=;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B0=38C8B38BC8=2C5A>< 0
?0AC82D;0A
BD270B B8I40=3>C74A A46D;0C434;4<4=CB>5 3F4;;8=6B
)74C4A<N0DB4OD=34AC743458=8C8>=>5NF08E4AO2;40A;H20=A454AC> 3458=43 DB4BBD270BN3F4;;8=6O
0=3N7>B?8C0;O>A4E4=<>A4B?42858220C46>A84BBD270BNB8=6;450<8;H3F4;;8=6ON3D?;4GO4C2C70C0A4
10B43>=C748=C4=343?DA?>B446C>7>DB4>=450<8;HC>7>DB4CF>50<8;84BC>7>DB40=3CA40CB82:
?4AB>=B >F4E4AF74=C74C4A<N0DB4O8BA454A4=2438=;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=BC74C4A< 20==>C
A40B>=01;HA454AC> B><4C78=6B>B?4285820B N0
B@D0A45>>C3F4;;8=6O>A0=H>C74A1D8;38=6C70C8B
B>B?4285820;;H3458=431H8CB ?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82BA0C74AC70=8CB8=C4=343?DA?>B4
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
& ' ) &'"%,
)74;460;<0C4A80;D=34A N#40BDA4
O 8=C740CC02743%A46>=+>C4AMB&0<?7;4C2>=C08=BC7402CD0;5D;;
C4GC>5C74<40BDA4C70CF0B03>?C430BF4;;0BC74(42A4C0AH>5(C0C4MB >558280;4G?;0=0C8>= #D27>5
C7403>?C43<40BDA48BA42>A343D=34A N%A46>="0FBO A0C74AC70=8=C74 N%A46>='4E8B43(C0CDC4BO
)74B4B42C8>=B0A4=>=4C74;4BB>=C74B0<4;460;;4E4;0B C74B42C8>=B8=2;D3438=%'(
)74#
10;;>C C4GC0=3C74 (42A4C0AH>5(C0C4MB 4G?;0=0C8>= 8=0A6D01;H4BC01;8B7C70C#
F0B 0=38B
01>DCC74B?428582 NDB4O >5A4B834=C80;;HI>=43?A>?4ACHC>1D8;3>=4>A<>A43F4;;8=6B >A4G0<?;4
N,08E4AO8BDB43=D<4A>DBC8<4BF8C7A454A4=24C>N=D<14A>5;>CB?0A24;B>A3F4;;8=6B34B2A81438=
F08E4AO (42C8>= 0 0=3(42C8>= 0 0=3
C> NB8=6;450<8;H3F4;;8=6BO (42C8>=
0 0=3
0=3C> N3F4;;8=6B 0DC7>A8I431H0F08E4AO(42C8>=
)74A48B=><4=C8>= 0C0;; >5B?428582 ?7HB820; 270A02C4A8BC82B >5 3F4;;8=6B 8=C74#
10;;>C<40BDA4 )74
<D;C8?;4A454A4=24BC> N=D<14A>5 P 3F4;;8=6BO 0;B><0:4B2;40AF7HC74#
BC0CDC4BDB4C74C4A<
NA4BCA82CO A0C74AC70= N?A>7818CO =<0=H20B40#40BDA4
0=3#40BDA4 145>A4C70C2;08<F0B
10B43>=0;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=C70CA4BCA82C43C74
>53F4;;8=6B1DC383=>C?A>7818C3F4;;8=6B
0;C>64C74A =C7420B4>5C74#>>A4 2;08< C74BD1942C ?A>?4ACH8B=48C74AA4BCA82C43=>A?A>7818C435A><
0338=6>=4 3F4;;8=6
)74#
10;;>C<40BDA48=2;D3430=D<14A>5B42C8>=B033A4BB8=67>F?A8>A#40BDA4 2;08<BF4A4C>
1470=3;43D=34A#40BDA4
(42C8>= 340;CF8C7 N;08<B'4;0C8=6C>&A>?4ACH ,8C78=*A10= A>FC7
>D=30A84BO 8=2;D38=6D64=4
2;08<0=CC70C58;4302;08<D=34A%'(
>=>A145>A4C7430C4>5
039>DA=<4=CB8=4384>5C74 A46D;0AB4BB8>=>5C74(4E4=CH 5>DAC7"468B;0C8E4BB4<1;H5>A
?A>?4ACH;>20C438=F7>;4>A8=?0ACF8C78=0=DA10=6A>FC71>D=30AH<0H4BC01;8B7>=4C>
B8=6;450<8;H3F4;;8=6B>=C74?>AC8>=>5C74?A>?4ACH;>20C43F8C78=C74DA10=6A>FC7
1>D=30AH
)74=D<14A>5B8=6;450<8;H3F4;;8=6BC70C<0H144BC01;8B743>=C74?>AC8>=>5C74?A>?4ACH
;>20C43F8C78=C74DA10=6A>FC71>D=30AHD=34AC78BB42C8>=<0H=>C4G2443C74;4BB4A>5
0 )74 !( %"& ! ,* ! &34B2A81438= 0F08E4A8BBD431H#4CA>028CH
>A02>D=CH145>A4C74 45542C8E430C4>5C78B 2C
)>@D0;85H5>AC74A4;845?A>E83431HC78BB42C8>=PC742;08<0=C<DBC4BC01;8B7C70C
3%=C742;08<0=CMB02@D8B8C8>=30C4C742;08<0=C;0F5D;;HF0B #% '''"&' &
' &'' !( %"* ! &>=C74?A>?4ACHC70C0A40DC7>A8I43D=34AC78BB42C8>=
4)74?A>?4ACH8BI>=435>AA4B834=C80;DB4
5%=4>A<>A4 ;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B #%" '&' & ! ' & ! ,* ! &
<?70B8B03343
;;>5C74B4?A>E8B8>=B340;F8C7
>53F4;;8=6B=>CC74?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B
)74(42A4C0AH>5(C0C4 NG?;0=0C>AH(C0C4<4=CO 8=C74+>C4AMB&0<?7;4C 4G?;08=43
N0;;>C#40BDA4
A4@D8A4B6>E4A=<4=CBC>?0H;0=3>F=4AB>A5>A6>4=5>A24<4=CF74=
24AC08=;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=BA43D24C748A?A>?4ACHE0;D4B)78B<40BDA4 .
/ <>38584B#40BDA4
C>68E4;0=3>F=4ABF7> 70E458;43#40BDA4 2;08<BC74A867CC>1D8;37><4B0B
2><?4=B0C8>=5>A;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B8<?>B4305C4AC74H02@D8A43C748A?A>?4AC84B
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
N
N)>BCA40<;8=4C740??A>E0;?A>24BB5>AB<0;;2;08<BC78B<40BDA4?A>E834BC70CC7>B4F7>
27>>B4C>0??;H 5>AD?C>C7A447><4B=443>=;HB7>FC74H703C74A867CC>1D8;3C747><4B
C74H0A4A4@D4BC8=6F74=C74H02@D8A43C748A?A>?4ACHO&064
B8=C74C4GC>5C7410;;>C<40BDA48CB4;5C744G?;0=0C8>=A454AB C>=D<14A>53F4;;8=6BF8C7=>
<4=C8>=>5?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B
)7410;;>C<40BDA40;B>8=2;D34B (42C8>=
A460A38=6# 2;08<B148=6A>;;435>AF0A3C>#
2;08<B
BD138E8B8>=>A?0AC8C8>=>5?A>?4ACH >AC744BC01;8B7<4=C>503F4;;8=6>=
?A>?4ACH 0DC7>A8I43D=34AB42C8>=BC>
>5C78B 2C (&' " # ,* ' ##
&'!%& ")%! ! ' & ' ! "%) "# !'"' * ! "'"%#% ! ( ! ('!"'
''"' "' "!& ! "!&'%(' "!"%& -"' * ! "'"%#% >F4E4AC74
BC0=30A3B<DBC=>C140??;8438=0<0==4A C70C70BC7445542C>5 #%" ' ! ' &' & !'
" ' * ! ;>C>A?0A24;0DC7>A8I43D=34AB42C8>=B C>
>5C78B 2CD=;4BBC74
BC0=30A3B0A4A40B>=01;H =424BB0AHC>0E>83>A010C40=D8B0=24C>?A>C42C ?D1;82740;C7>A
B054CH>AC>20AAH>DC5434A0;;0F <?70B8B03343
)78BB42C8>=4G?;828C;HA4@D8A4B2><?;80=24F8C7 N0;;0??;8201;4BC0=30A3B6>E4A=8=6C74B8C8=6>A
34E4;>?<4=C>5C743F4;;8=6O 0B;>=60BC74B4BC0=30A3B3>=>C70E4 NC7445542C>5?A>7818C8=6C74
4BC01;8B7<4=C>5C743F4;;8=6O =#>>A4MB20B4C74 0<4=343BC0=30A35>A<0G8<D<B8I4383 =>C
?A>7818CC744BC01;8B7<4=C>50B8=6;450<8;H3F4;;8=6,78;4(42C8>=
4G?;828C;H0??;843C>?A8>A#
2;08<B148=670=3;4D=34A#
?A>243DA4B8CF>D;31401BDA3C>8=C4A?A4CC74#
BC0CDC4B0B
A4@D8A8=62><?;80=24F8C734E4;>?<4=CBC0=30A3B5>A2;08<B 8=8C80;;H58;43 D=34AC74<>A4;814A0;#
B2>?40=3H4C=>CA4@D8A42><?;80=24F8C7 2;08<B58;4305C4AC74#
<40BDA4F0B03>?C43 ,8C7C74
2>AA42C8=C4A?A4C0C8>=>5 NDB4O 8=C74 =4F #40BDA4
B42C8>=BC74A48B=>=4435>A C74BC0CDC4B C>
4G?;828C;HBC0C4C70C3F4;;8=6B<DBCBC8;;2><?;HF8C734E4;>?<4=CBC0=30A3BB8=240E0;83#
2;08<
A4@D8A4BC70CC74 NO 14A4BCA82C43841HA43D28=6>A?A>7818C8=6C743F4;;8=6BC70C0A40;;>F43>=0
BD1942C?A>?4ACH )78B8B F70C ;4==!;48=4G?;08=438=78B0=0;HB8B>5C74,8;B>=#
2;08<#
0=378B2>=2;DB8>=C70CC7428C43A46D;0C8>=383
A4BCA82CC74A4B834=C80; DB4>5,8;B>=MB
?A>?4ACH
4A40A4B><45DAC74AA454A4=24B8=%A46>="0FBC70C?A>E834 0338C8>=0; 2>=C4GC 5>A 8=C4A?A4C8=6C74
C4A<N0DB4O8=;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B
N*B4O3458=431HN?A8<0AH?DA?>B4O
%'( 458=8C8>=>5N50A<DB4O
BDB438=%'( C>
N50A<DB4O
<40=BC742DAA4=C4<?;>H<4=C>5;0=35>AC74?A8<0AH #(%#"&>5>1C08=8=60?A>58C8=<>=4H
1H
0'08B8=670AE4BC8=60=3B4;;8=62A>?B
1 4438=61A4438=6<0=068=6>AB4;;8=6;8E4BC>2:?>D;CAH5DA140A8=60=8<0;B>A
7>=4H144B>AC74?A>3D24C74A4>5
4C2 <?70B8B03343
1D8;38=6MB NDB4O 0B 38BC8=6D8B7435A>< 01D8;38=6MB N0A40O8=I>=8=638BCA82CB
70?C4A L N8CH&;0==8=60=3->=8=6O
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
%'( &>F4AB0=33DC84B>52><<8BB8>=
G24?C0B>C74AF8B4?A>E83431HC7428CH2>D=28;
028CH?;0==8=62><<8BB8>=<0H
0'42><<4=30=3<0:4BD664BC8>=BC>C742>D=28;0=3C>>C74A?D1;820DC7>A8C84B2>=24A=8=6
BC01;8B7<4=C>538BCA82CB5>A;8<8C8=6C74DB474867C0A40 1D;:0=3>C74A270A02C4A8BC82B >5
1D8;38=6B0=3BCAD2CDA4BA4;0C43C>;0=334E4;>?<4=C
G0<?;4>5N0DB4O0B0C4A<>50ACC70C8B0BBD<43C>14D=34ABC>>30=33458=438=;>20;2>34B8=24
NDB4O8B=>C4G?;828C;H3458=43D=34AC740??;8201;4BC0CDC4B
%'(
(D??;4<4=C0;0??;820C8>=5>AA4<08=8=6?4A<8CC43DB4B5>;;>F8=634=80;>58=8C80;
0??;820C8>=
?4AB>=F7>B40??;820C8>=5>A0?4A<8C8B34=8431HC746>E4A=8=61>3H>5028CH>A8CB
34B86=44D=34A%'(
<0HBD1<8CC>C7428CH0BD??;4<4=C0;0??;820C8>=5>A0=H
>A0;;>C74ADB4B0;;>F43D=34AC7428CHMB2><?A474=B8E4?;0=0=3;0=3DB4A46D;0C8>=B8=
C74I>=4C70CF0BC74BD1942C>5C7434=8430??;820C8>=
)746>E4A=8=61>3H>5028CH>A8CB34B86=44B70;;03>?CB?42858258=38=6B34B2A818=6C74
A40B>=B5>A0??A>E8=6>A34=H8=6
0DB45>AF78270??A>E0;8BB>D67CD=34AC78BB42C8>=
BCAD2CDA4MB NDB4O38BC8=6D8B7435A>< 0 BCAD2CDA4MB N0??40A0=24O
%'(
'46D;0C8>=>534E4;>?<4=C
BDB438=C78BB42C8>=N34E4;>?<4=CO<40=B01D8;38=6>A<8=8=6>?4A0C8>=<0:8=60
<0C4A80;270=648=C74 (&"%##%!>50BCAD2CDA4>A;0=338E838=6;0=38=C>CF>>A
<>A4?0A24;B8=2;D38=6?0AC8C8>=B0=3BD138E8B8>=B0B?A>E83438=%'(
C> 0=3
2A40C8=6>AC4A<8=0C8=60A867C>50224BB <?70B8B03343
$>C47>FC74B8I4>501D8;38=6 F>D;338A42C;H05542C N0??40A0=24O
N<0BBO1DC=>C
?DA?>B4DB4
1D8;38=6MB NDB4O38BC8=6D8B7435A>< 0 1D8;38=6MB N2>=BCAD2C8>=O
%'( 8CH>A38=0=24B0??;8201;4C>?D1;82?A>?4ACH8CH>A38=0=24BA46D;0C8=6C74
;>20C8>=2>=BCAD2C8>=<08=C4=0=24A4?08A0;C4A0C8>=DB40=3>22D?0=2H>5;0=30=31D8;38=6B
0=3>C74ABCAD2CDA4BB70;;0??;HC>?D1;82;H>F=43?A>?4ACH4G24?C0BC74>A38=0=24B?A4B2A814
C>C742>=CA0AH
'46D;0C8=61D8;38=6BM N2>=BCAD2C8>=O 8=2;D34BA46D;0C8=6<0G8<D< B8I474867C4C20=3 A46D;0C8=6
NDB4O 8B0
20C46>AH8=C78B;8BC
N&'# ))*(( $-%$(O %'( C> =64=4A0;34<>=BCA0C4BC70CNDB4O8B10B43
>=?DA?>B4>A5D=2C8>==>C?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B
?A>?4ACHMB NDB4O38BC8=6D8B7435A>< C74 N?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B >5C74DB4O
%'( 28CH<0H
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
&064J
0(D1942CA40;?A>?4ACH34B2A81438=BD1B42C8>=
>5C78BB42C8>=C>A40B>=01;4A46D;0C8>=B
8=2;D38=6B8C4A4E84F0=334B86=A4E84F2>=24A=8=6C74?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B>5C74DB4B
0DC7>A8I43D=34ABD1B42C8>=
>5C78BB42C8>=
)78B8B>=4>5C74 2;40A4BC4G0<?;4BC70CNDB4O8B038BC8=2C0B?42C>50 ?A>?4ACH>ABCAD2CDA4 C70C8B
A46D;0C43B4?0A0C4;H5A><N?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82BOBD270BB8I4>5C741D8;38=6 5C74"468B;0CDA4
8=C4=343NDB4OC>4=2><?0BB?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B0BF4;;0B?DA?>B4C74 "468B;0CDA4F>D;3=>C
70E44G?;828C;H834=C85843C74CF>0B?42CBBC0CDC>AH8=C4A?A4C0C8>=<DBC 68E445542CC>0;;
?A>E8B8>=B %'(
)><H:=>F;4364=>>=40CC748CH>A"70B834=C858430=HC4GC2>=C4GC>A;468B;0C8E478BC>AHC70C
F>D;3BD??>ACC748=C4A?A4C0C8>=>5%'(
?7A0B4NA4BCA82CC74A4B834=C80;DB4>5?A8E0C4A40;
?A>?4ACHOC>4=2><?0BB1D8;38=6BM?7HB820;270A02C4A8BC82B46A4BCA82C8=61D8;38=6B8I4%1E8>DB;H
;40E8=60B834A4BCA82C8>=B>=1D8;38=6540CDA4BC70CF>D;3A4=34ADB40B03F4;;8=68<?>BB81;4>A
8<?A02C820;)70C8B=MC0=8BBD48=C74?A4B4=C20B4
=2>=2;DB8>= K ;4== !;48=6>C8CA867C 10B43>=0C7>A>D670=3;468C8<0C40=0;HB8B)742DAA4=C 8CH
#0=064AMB'4?>AC383=MC4E4=<0:40=0CC4<?C0=38=BC4030BBD<430=4=C8A4;H8=3454=B81;4
8=C4A?A4C0C8>= >5C74#
BC0CDC4B
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Voters’
Pamphlet
Oregon Special Election
November 6, 2007
Bill Bradbury
Oregon Secretary of State
This Voters’ Pamphlet is provided for assistance
in casting your vote-by-mail ballot.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
BILL BRADBURY
SECRETARY OF STATE
JEAN STRAIGHT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
ELECTIONS DIVISION
JOHN LINDBACK
DIRECTOR
141 STATE CAPITOL
SALEM, OREGON 97310-0722
(503) 986-1518
Dear fellow Oregonian,
In the coming weeks, you will have another chance to take the future of our state in
your hands by voting.
This November’s special election includes two ballot measures that deal with issues
that are important to our state. Because these measures touch on such fundamental
issues, they have attracted a large number of arguments. One hundred seventy-five
arguments outline the debates in favor of and against the measures. I encourage you
to spend some time reading through them so that you can vote wisely.
Special elections are those that are called by the Legislature when they refer issues to
the voters. Our initiative and referendum system – one of the first in the nation – is now
over 100 years old and gives the power of law-making to the people. That system only
works, however, when citizens choose to engage in it by voting.
We are lucky in Oregon to be a vote-by-mail state – the only one in America! But
increasingly, other states are investigating voting through the mail because it fits into
the busy demands of a 21st century lifestyle. With vote-by-mail, every voter has over
two weeks to read their Voters’ Pamphlet and fill out their ballot. Voters can deliberate
on their choices and discuss their ideas with friends and family before completing it.
October 16th is the last day to register to vote for this election if this is your first time
voting in Oregon. Because of our new centralized voter registration database, you
can change your address until Election Day at 8 pm and still have the opportunity to
vote.
If you have more questions about voting, please visit our website at
www.oregonvotes.org. There you can find the locations of your local county elections
office as well as links that will help you find official ballot dropsites.
Remember, every vote counts, so make sure yours is among them. The future of
Oregon rests in your hands!
Best wishes,
Bill Bradbury
Oregon Secretary of State
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
Voters’ Pamphlet
Your official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
provides you with information about state measures 49 and 50.
These measures were referred to the ballot by the 2007
Legislature. Additionally, you can find information about
vote-by-mail and voter registration, as well as contact
information for county elections officials across the state.
For each of the measures in this Voters’ Pamphlet you will find
the following information:
(1) the ballot title;
(2) the estimate of financial impact;
(3) an explanation of the estimate of financial impact, if
determined to be necessary by the committee;
(4) the complete text of the proposed measure;
(5) an impartial statement explaining the measure (explanatory
statement);
(6) a legislative argument in support of the measure; and
(7) any arguments filed by proponents and opponents of the
measure.
The ballot title, estimate of financial impact, and explanatory
statement for each measure was written by the legislature.
Citizens or organizations may file arguments in favor of or in
opposition to measures by purchasing space for $500 or by
submitting a petition signed by 1,000 voters. Arguments in
favor of a measure appear first, followed by arguments in
opposition to the measure, and are printed in the order in which
they are filed with the Secretary of State’s office.
Measure arguments are printed as submitted by the
author. The state does not correct punctuation,
grammar, syntax errors or inaccurate information. The
only changes made are attempts to correct spelling
errors if the word as originally submitted is not in the
dictionary.
The Voters’ Pamphlet has been compiled by the Secretary of
State since 1903, when Oregon became one of the first states to
provide for the printing and distribution of such a publication.
One copy of the Voters’ Pamphlet is mailed to every household
in the state. Additional copies are available at the State Capitol,
local post offices, courthouses and all county elections offices.
Website
Most of the information contained in this Voters’ Pamphlet
is also available in the Online Voters’ Guide at
www.oregonvotes.org.
Español
Una versión en español de algunas partes de la Guía del Elector
está a su disposición en el portal del Internet cuya dirección
aparece arriba. Conscientes de que este material en línea
podría no llegar adecuadamente a todos los electores que
necesitan este servicio, se invita a toda persona a imprimir la
versión en línea y circularla a aquellos electores que no tengan
acceso a una computadora.
Important!
If your ballot is lost, destroyed, damaged or you make a mistake
in marking your ballot, you may call your county elections
office and request a replacement ballot. One will be mailed to
you as long as you request it by November 1, 2007. After that,
you may pick it up at the elections office. If you have already
mailed your original ballot before you realize you made a
mistake, you have cast your vote and will not be eligible for a
replacement ballot.
Your voted ballot must be returned to your county elections
office by 8pm election day, Tuesday, November 6, 2007.
Postmarks do not count!
County elections offices are open on election day from
7am to 8pm.
Voter Information
For questions about voter registration, ballot delivery and
return, marking the ballot, requesting a replacement ballot,
absentee ballots, signature requirements, the Voters' Pamphlet,
when and where to vote, and other questions about elections
and voting, call the toll-free voter information line at
1-866-ORE-VOTES (1-866-673-8683).
Voter information line representatives can provide services in
both English and Spanish. TTY services for the hearing
impaired are also available at 1-866-350-0596.
General Information
3 | General Information
Page
County Elections Offices .................................................... 90
Measure 49 .......................................................................... 7
Measure 50 .......................................................................... 63
Vote-by-Mail Information.................................................... 87
Page
Voter Registration Card ...................................................... 5, 88
Voter Registration Information .......................................... 4
Voters with Disabilities........................................................ 6
Table of Contents
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
Registering to Vote
To vote in Oregon you need to be registered in the county
where you reside.
You can register if you can answer yes to these three questions:
Are you a resident of Oregon?
Are you a US citizen?*
Are you at least 18 years old?*
*In some cases you can register to vote before you turn 18 or before you
become a citizen. For more information call 1-866-ORE-VOTES.
How to register
You can get a voter registration card at any of the following
places:
in this Voters’ Pamphlet
any County Elections Office
the Secretary of State’s Office
some state agencies such as the Division of Motor Vehicles
a voter registration drive
You can fill the card out in person or send it in by US mail.
You can also print out a registration card online at
www.oregonvotes.org.
To vote in the November 6, 2007, Special Election, your
completed voter registration card must be either:
postmarked by Tuesday, October 16, 2007
delivered to a county elections office by Tuesday,
October 16, 2007 or
delivered to any voter registration agency (e.g., DMV) by
Tuesday, October 16, 2007.
What information is required to register?
To complete your registration you will provide your:
Full legal name
Home address
Date of birth
Signature
Valid identification
What are the identification requirements?
1. If you have a current, valid Driver’s License or ID number
issued by the State of Oregon Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), you must provide it on the card.
2. If you do not have a current, valid Driver’s License or
ID number issued by the State of Oregon Division of Motor
Vehicles, you must affirm this on the card by marking the
circle in Section 4 and you must then provide the last four
digits of your Social Security number in Section 4a of the
card.
3. If you do not have a Social Security number, you must affirm
this on the card by marking the circle in Section 4a.
4. If you do not have a Driver’s License or ID number, or a
Social Security number, and you are registering by mail,
you must provide a copy of one of the following:
valid photo identification
a paycheck stub
a utility bill
a bank statement
a government document
proof of eligibility under the Uniformed and Overseas
Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) or the Voting Accessibility for
the Elderly and Handicapped Act (VAEH)
If you do not provide valid identification, you will not be eligible
to vote for federal races. You will, however, still be eligible to
vote for state and local contests.
Selecting a political party
You may want to select a political party when you register but it
is not required.
Updating your voter registration
Once you have registered, you are responsible for keeping your
information up to date. You can do this by completing and
returning a voter registration card with the new information.
You should update your registration if you do any of the
following:
change your home address
change your mailing address
change your name
change your signature
want to change or select a political party
If you notify your county elections office of your change of
residence address after October 16, 2007, you must request that
a ballot be mailed to you or go to your county elections office to
get your ballot.
Voter Registration Information
4 | General Information
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
x x x - x x -
1 qualifications If you mark no in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form.
Are you a citizen of the United States of America? yes no
Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day? yes no
2 personal information *denotes optional information
name last first middle
Oregon residence address (include apt. or space number) city zip code
date of birth (month/day/year) county of residence*
phone number* email address*
mailing address (required if different than residence address) city zip code
3 political party choose one of the following:
Constitution Party Democratic Party Independent Party
Libertarian Party Pacific Green Party Republican Party
Working Familes Party Not a member of a party Other
4 Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID number If you fill in this section, do not send a copy of ID.
valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID number
Mark here only if you do not have a valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID and go to step 4a.
4a last four digits of Social Security number If you fill in this section, do not send a copy of ID.
last four digits of Social Security number
Mark here only if you do not have a valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID or
a Social Security number. If you are registering by mail, please include a copy of
acceptable identification, listed to the left.
5 signature I swear or affirm that I am qualified to be an elector and I have told the truth on this registration.
sign here date today
If you sign this card and know it to be false, you can be fined up to $125,000 and/or jailed for up to 5 years.
6 registration updates If you are previously registered and updating your information, fill out this section.
previous registration name previous county and state
home address on previous registration date of birth (month/day/year)
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
If, because of a disability, you would like assistance in
voting your ballot
or
If you would like instructions on assisting voters with
disabilities
call 1 866 ORE VOTES/673 8683
se habla español
tty 1 866 350 0596
for the hearing impaired
If, because of a disability, you would like a cassette or
CD version of the Voters’ Pamphlet, the League of Women
Voters Easy To Read Voters’ Guide, or the League of
Women Voters Regular Nonpartisan Voters’ Guide
call Talking Book and Braille Services
1 800 452 0292
Digital audio and accessible text versions of the
Voters’ Pamphlet are available online at
www.oregonvotes.org
Digital audio and accessible text versions of the
League of Women Voters’ Guides are available online at
www.lwvor.org/votersguide.htm
Voters with Disabilities
6 | General Information
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
House Bill 3540—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon by the
2007 Legislative Assembly to be voted on at the Special
Election, November 6, 2007.
Ballot Title
49
MODIFIES MEASURE 37; CLARIFIES RIGHT TO BUILD
HOMES; LIMITS LARGE DEVELOPMENTS; PROTECTS
FARMS, FORESTS, GROUNDWATER.
RESULT OF “YES” VOTE:“Yes” vote modifies Measure 37;
clarifies private landowners’ rights to build homes; extends
rights to surviving spouses; limits large developments; protects
farmlands, forestlands, groundwater supplies.
RESULT OF “NO” VOTE:“No” vote leaves Measure 37
unchanged; allows claims to develop large subdivisions,
commercial, industrial projects on lands now reserved for
residential, farm and forest uses.
SUMMARY:Modifies Measure 37 (2004) to give landowners
with Measure 37 claims the right to build homes as
compensation for land use restrictions imposed after they
acquired their properties. Claimants may build up to three
homes if previously allowed when they acquired their
properties, four to 10 homes if they can document reductions
in property values that justify additional homes, but may not
build more than three homes on high-value farmlands,
forestlands and groundwater-restricted lands. Allows claimants
to transfer homebuilding rights upon sale or transfer of
properties; extends rights to surviving spouses. Authorizes
future claims based on regulations that restrict residential uses
of property or farm, forest practices. Disallows claims for
strip malls, mines, other commercial, industrial uses.
See Explanatory Statement for more information.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT:The measure would
require one-time state administrative expenditures of $8.7 to
$12.5 million to evaluate claims received to date for adherence
to measure requirements.
In the short term, the measure would require state adminis-
trative expenditures of $1 million to $2 million per biennium
to evaluate future claims. In the long term, state administrative
costs may be reduced as the measure limits the scope of
potential future claims. The amount of those potential
reductions cannot be determined.
Potential state litigation costs cannot be determined.
The measure authorizes compensation to landowners. The
amount of state expenditures to pay claims for compensation
cannot be determined.
The measure authorizes establishing a claims review fee for
new claims not to exceed the actual and reasonable cost of
reviewing a claim. The impact on state revenues cannot be
determined.
The measure clarifies ongoing claims review processes and
is expected to reduce local government claim processing costs
from current levels. The amount of these potential reductions
cannot be determined.
The measure authorizes compensation to landowners.
The amount of local government expenditures to pay claims for
compensation cannot be determined.
The effect of the measure on local government revenues
cannot be determined.
Text of Measure
AN ACT
Relating to compensation for loss of value of private real
property resulting from land use regulation; creating new
provisions; amending ORS 93.040 and 197.352;
appropriating money; and providing that this Act shall be
referred to the people for their approval or rejection.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.Sections 2, 3 and 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act
are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 195.
SECTION 1a.ORS 197.352 is added to and made a part
of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act.
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 2.As used in this section and sections 3
and 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act:
(1) “Acquisition date” means the date described in
section 21 of this 2007 Act.
(2) “Claim” means a written demand for compensa-
tion filed under:
(a) ORS 197.352, as in effect immediately before the
effective date of this 2007 Act; or
(b) Sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and
ORS 197.352, as in effect on and after the effective
date of this 2007 Act.
(3) “Enacted” means enacted, adopted or amended.
(4) “Fair market value” means the value of property as
determined under section 21b of this 2007 Act.
(5) “Farming practice” has the meaning given that
term in ORS 30.930.
(6) “Federal law” means:
(a) A statute, regulation, order, decree or policy
enacted by a federal entity or by a state entity acting
under authority delegated by the federal government;
(b) A requirement contained in a plan or rule enacted
by a compact entity; or
(c) A requirement contained in a permit issued by a
federal or state agency pursuant to a federal statute or
regulation.
(7) “File” means to submit a document to a public
entity.
(8) “Forest practice” has the meaning given that term
in ORS 527.620.
(9) “Ground water restricted area” means an area
designated as a critical ground water area or as a
ground water limited area by the Water Resources
Department or Water Resources Commission before the
effective date of this 2007 Act.
(10) “High-value farmland” means:
(a) High-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710
that is land in an exclusive farm use zone or a mixed
farm and forest zone, except that the dates specified in
ORS 215.710 (2), (4) and (6) are the effective date of this
2007 Act.
(b) Land west of U.S. Highway 101 that is composed
predominantly of the following soils in Class III or IV or
composed predominantly of a combination of the soils
described in ORS 215.710 (1) and the following soils:
(A) Subclassification IIIw, specifically Ettersburg Silt
Loam and Croftland Silty Clay Loam;
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
7 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(B) Subclassification IIIe, specifically Klooqueth Silty
Clay Loam and Winchuck Silt Loam; and
(C) Subclassification IVw, specifically Huffling Silty
Clay Loam.
(c) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone or a
mixed farm and forest zone and that on the date of
adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the
Seventy-fourth Legislative Assembly is:
(A) Within the place of use for a permit, certificate or
decree for the use of water for irrigation issued by the
Water Resources Department;
(B) Within the boundaries of a district, as defined in
ORS 540.505; or
(C) Within the boundaries of a diking district formed
under ORS chapter 551.
(d) Land that contains not less than five acres planted
in wine grapes.
(e) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that
is at an elevation between 200 and 1,000 feet above
mean sea level, with an aspect between 67.5 and 292.5
degrees and a slope between zero and 15 percent, and
that is located within:
(A) The Southern Oregon viticultural area as described
in 27 C.F.R. 9.179;
(B) The Umpqua Valley viticultural area as described
in 27 C.F.R. 9.89; or
(C) The Willamette Valley viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.90.
(f) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that
is no more than 3,000 feet above mean sea level, with an
aspect between 67.5 and 292.5 degrees and a slope
between zero and 15 percent, and that is located within:
(A) The portion of the Columbia Gorge viticultural
area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.178 that is within the
State of Oregon;
(B) The Rogue Valley viticultural area as described in
27 C.F.R. 9.132;
(C) The portion of the Columbia Valley viticultural
area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.74 that is within the
State of Oregon;
(D) The portion of the Walla Walla Valley viticultural
area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.91 that is within the
State of Oregon; or
(E) The portion of the Snake River Valley viticultural
area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.208 that is within the
State of Oregon.
(11) “High-value forestland” means land:
(a) That is in a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest
zone, that is located in western Oregon and composed
predominantly of soils capable of producing more than
120 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber and that is
capable of producing more than 5,000 cubic feet per
year of commercial tree species; or
(b) That is in a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest
zone, that is located in eastern Oregon and composed
predominantly of soils capable of producing more than
85 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber and that is
capable of producing more than 4,000 cubic feet per
year of commercial tree species.
(12) “Home site approval” means approval of the
subdivision or partition of property or approval of the
establishment of a dwelling on property.
(13) “Just compensation” means:
(a) Relief under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act
for land use regulations enacted on or before
January 1, 2007; and
(b) Relief under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act for
land use regulations enacted after January 1, 2007.
(14) “Land use regulation” means:
(a) A statute that establishes a minimum lot or parcel
size;
(b) A provision in ORS 227.030 to 227.300, 227.350,
227.400, 227.450 or 227.500 or in ORS chapter 215 that
restricts the residential use of private real property;
(c) A provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning
ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts
the residential use of private real property zoned for
residential use;
(d) A provision of a county comprehensive plan,
zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that
restricts the residential use of private real property;
(e) A provision of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or
an administrative rule of the State Board of Forestry
that regulates a forest practice and that implements the
Oregon Forest Practices Act;
(f) ORS 561.191, a provision of ORS 568.900 to
568.933 or an administrative rule of the State
Department of Agriculture that implements
ORS 561.191 or 568.900 to 568.933;
(g) An administrative rule or goal of the Land
Conservation and Development Commission; or
(h) A provision of a Metro functional plan that
restricts the residential use of private real property.
(15) “Measure 37 permit” means a final decision by
Metro, a city or a county to authorize the development,
subdivision or partition or other use of property
pursuant to a waiver.
(16) “Owner” means:
(a) The owner of fee title to the property as shown in
the deed records of the county where the property is
located;
(b) The purchaser under a land sale contract, if there is
a recorded land sale contract in force for the property;
or
(c) If the property is owned by the trustee of a
revocable trust, the settlor of a revocable trust, except
that when the trust becomes irrevocable only the
trustee is the owner.
(17) “Property” means the private real property
described in a claim and contiguous private real
property that is owned by the same owner, whether or
not the contiguous property is described in another
claim, and that is not property owned by the federal
government, an Indian tribe or a public body, as defined
in ORS 192.410.
(18) “Protection of public health and safety” means
a law, rule, ordinance, order, policy, permit or other
governmental authorization that restricts a use of
property in order to reduce the risk or consequence of
fire, earthquake, landslide, flood, storm, pollution,
disease, crime or other natural or human disaster or
threat to persons or property including, but not limited
to, building and fire codes, health and sanitation
regulations, solid or hazardous waste regulations and
pollution control regulations.
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
8 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(19) “Public entity” means the state, Metro, a county
or a city.
(20) “Urban growth boundary” has the meaning given
that term in ORS 195.060.
(21) “Waive” or “waiver” means an action or decision
of a public entity to modify, remove or not apply one or
more land use regulations under sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act or ORS 197.352, as in effect immediately
before the effective date of this 2007 Act, to allow the
owner to use property for a use permitted when the
owner acquired the property.
(22) “Zoned for residential use” means zoning that
has as its primary purpose single-family residential use.
LEGISLATIVE POLICY
ON FAIRNESS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
SECTION 3.(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) In some situations, land use regulations unfairly
burden particular property owners.
(b) To address these situations, it is necessary to
amend Oregon’s land use statutes to provide just
compensation for unfair burdens caused by land use
regulations.
(2) The purpose of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act
and the amendments to Ballot Measure 37 (2004) is to
modify Ballot Measure 37 (2004) to ensure that Oregon
law provides just compensation for unfair burdens
while retaining Oregon’s protections for farm and forest
uses and the state’s water resources.
BALLOT MEASURE 37
SECTION 4.ORS 197.352 is amended to read:
197.352. [The following provisions are added to and made a
part of ORS chapter 197:]
(1) If a public entity enacts [or enforces a new land use
regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to
December 2, 2004, that restricts] one or more land use
regulations that restrict the residential use of private real
property or [any interest therein] a farming or forest
practice and [has the effect of reducing] that reduce the fair
market value of the property, [or any interest therein,] then the
owner of the property shall be [paid just compensation]
entitled to just compensation from the public entity
that enacted the land use regulation or regulations as
provided in sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act.
(2) Just compensation under sections 12 to 14 of this
2007 Act shall be [equal to] based on the reduction in the fair
market value of the [affected] property [interest] resulting from
[enactment or enforcement of] the land use regulation [as of
the date the owner makes written demand for compensation
under this section].
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to land use
regulations that were enacted prior to the claimant’s
acquisition date or to land use regulations:
[(A)] (a)Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and
historically recognized as public nuisances under common
law[. This subsection shall be construed narrowly in favor of a
finding of compensation under this section];
[(B)] (b)Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection
of public health and safety[, such as fire and building codes,
health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste
regulations, and pollution control regulations];
[(C)] (c)To the extent the land use regulation is required to
comply with federal law; or
[(D)] (d)Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for
the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude
dancing. [Nothing in this subsection, however, is intended to
affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States
Constitutions; or]
[(E) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by
the owner or a family member of the owner who owned the
subject property prior to acquisition or inheritance by the
owner, whichever occurred first.]
[(4) Just compensation under subsection (1) of this section
shall be due the owner of the property if the land use regulation
continues to be enforced against the property 180 days after the
owner of the property makes written demand for compensation
under this section to the public entity enacting or enforcing the
land use regulation.]
[(5) For claims arising from land use regulations enacted
prior to December 2, 2004, written demand for compensation
under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of
December 2, 2004, or the date the public entity applies the land
use regulation as an approval criteria to an application
submitted by the owner of the property, whichever is later.
For claims arising from land use regulations enacted after
December 2, 2004, written demand for compensation under
subsection (4) shall be made within two years of the enactment
of the land use regulation, or the date the owner of the property
submits a land use application in which the land use regulation
is an approval criteria, whichever is later.]
[(6) If a land use regulation continues to apply to the
subject property more than 180 days after the present owner
of the property has made written demand for compensation
under this section, the present owner of the property, or any
interest therein, shall have a cause of action for compensation
under this section in the circuit court in which the real
property is located, and the present owner of the real property
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs,
and other disbursements reasonably incurred to collect the
compensation.]
(4)(a) Subsection (3)(a) of this section shall be
construed narrowly in favor of granting just compensa-
tion under this section. Nothing in subsection (3) of
this section is intended to affect or alter rights provided
by the Oregon or United States Constitution.
(b) Subsection (3)(b) of this section does not apply to
any farming or forest practice regulation that is enacted
after January 1, 2007, unless the primary purpose of the
regulation is the protection of human health and safety.
(c) Subsection (3)(c) of this section does not apply to
any farming or forest practice regulation that is enacted
after January 1, 2007, unless the public entity enacting
the regulation has no discretion under federal law to
decline to enact the regulation.
[(7)] (5)A [metropolitan service district, city, or county, or
state agency] public entity may adopt or apply procedures for
the processing of claims under [this section, but in no event
shall these procedures act as a prerequisite to the filing of a
compensation claim under subsection (6) of this section, nor
shall the failure of an owner of property to file an application for
a land use permit with the local government serve as grounds
for dismissal, abatement, or delay of a compensation claim
under subsection (6) of this section] sections 12 to 24 of this
2007 Act.
[(8)] (6)[Notwithstanding any other state statute or the
availability of funds under subsection (10) of this section, in lieu
of payment of just compensation under this section, the
governing body responsible for enacting] The public entity
that enacted the land use regulation [may modify, remove, or
not to apply the land use regulation or land use regulations to
allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the
time the owner acquired the property] that gives rise to a
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
9 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
claim under subsection (1) of this section shall provide
just compensation as required under sections 12 to 24
of this 2007 Act.
[(9)] (7)A decision by a [governing body under this section
shall not be considered a] public entity that an owner
qualifies for just compensation under sections 5 to 22
of this 2007 Act and a decision by a public entity on the
nature and extent of that compensation are not land use
[decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (11)] decisions.
[(10) Claims made under this section shall be paid from
funds, if any, specifically allocated by the legislature, city,
county, or metropolitan service district for payment of claims
under this section. Notwithstanding the availability of funds
under this subsection, a metropolitan service district, city,
county, or state agency shall have discretion to use available
funds to pay claims or to modify, remove, or not apply a land
use regulation or land use regulations pursuant to subsection
(6) of this section. If a claim has not been paid within two years
from the date on which it accrues, the owner shall be allowed to
use the property as permitted at the time the owner acquired
the property.]
[(11) Definitions - for purposes of this section:]
[(A) “Family member” shall include the wife, husband, son,
daughter, mother, father, brother, brother-in-law, sister,
sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild,
grandparent, or grandchild of the owner of the property, an
estate of any of the foregoing family members, or a legal entity
owned by any one or combination of these family members or
the owner of the property.]
[(B) “Land use regulation” shall include:]
[(i) Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest
therein;]
[(ii) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation
and Development Commission;]
[(iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, land division ordinances, and transportation
ordinances;]
[(iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans,
functional plans, planning goals and objectives; and]
[(v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and
forest practices.]
[(C) “Owner” is the present owner of the property, or any
interest therein.]
[(D) “Public entity” shall include the state, a metropolitan
service district, a city, or a county.]
[(12)] (8)The [remedy] remedies created by [this section is]
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act are in addition to any
other remedy under the Oregon or United States
[Constitutions] Constitution, and [is] are not intended to
modify or replace any [other] constitutional remedy.
[(13)] (9)If any portion or portions of this section are declared
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
portions of this section shall remain in full force and effect.
BALLOT MEASURE 37 CLAIMS MADE
ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF ADJOURNMENT
SINE DIE OF THE 2007 REGULAR SESSION
OF THE SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Generally)
SECTION 5.A claimant that filed a claim under
ORS 197.352 on or before the date of adjournment sine
die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly is entitled to just compensation as
provided in:
(1) Section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act, at the claimant’s
election, if the property described in the claim is located
entirely outside any urban growth boundary and entirely
outside the boundaries of any city;
(2) Section 9 of this 2007 Act if the property described
in the claim is located, in whole or in part, within an
urban growth boundary; or
(3) A waiver issued before the effective date of this
2007 Act to the extent that the claimant’s use of the
property complies with the waiver and the claimant has
a common law vested right on the effective date of this
2007 Act to complete and continue the use described in
the waiver.
(Claims Relating to Property
Outside Urban Growth Boundaries)
SECTION 6.(1) A claimant that filed a claim under
ORS 197.352 on or before the date of adjournment sine
die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly is eligible for three home site
approvals on the property if the requirements of this
section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act are met.
The procedure for obtaining home site approvals under
this section is set forth in section 8 of this 2007 Act.
(2) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may
be approved for property under this section may not
exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings described
in a waiver issued by the state before the effective
date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the
number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the
claim filed with the state; or
(b) Three, except that if there are existing dwellings
on the property or the property contains more than one
lot or parcel, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings
that may be established is reduced so that the combined
number of lots, parcels or dwellings, including existing
lots, parcels or dwellings located on or contained within
the property, does not exceed three.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a
claimant that otherwise qualifies for relief under this
section may establish at least one additional lot, parcel
or dwelling on the property. In addition, if the number of
lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued
by the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act
or, if a waiver was not issued, the number of lots,
parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed with
the state is more than three, the claimant may amend
the claim to reduce the number to no more than three by
filing notice of the amendment with the form required
by section 8 of this 2007 Act.
(4) If a claim was for a use other than a subdivision
or partition of property, or other than approval for
establishing a dwelling on the property, the claimant
may amend the claim to seek one or more home site
approvals under this section. A person amending a
claim under this subsection may not make a claim under
section 7 of this 2007 Act.
(5) If multiple claims were filed for the same property,
the number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be
established for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of this
section is the number of lots, parcels or dwellings in the
most recent waiver issued by the state before the
effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the most recent claim filed with the state, but
not more than three in any case.
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
10 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(6) To qualify for a home site approval under this
section, the claimant must have filed a claim for the
property with both the state and the county in which the
property is located. In addition, regardless of whether a
waiver was issued by the state or the county before the
effective date of this 2007 Act, to qualify for a home
site approval under this section the claimant must
establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in
writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located entirely outside any urban
growth boundary and entirely outside the boundaries of
any city;
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit
establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling;
(e) The establishment of the lot, parcel or dwelling is
not prohibited by a land use regulation described in
ORS 197.352 (3); and
(f) On the claimant’s acquisition date, the claimant
lawfully was permitted to establish at least the number
of lots, parcels or dwellings on the property that are
authorized under this section.
(7) If the claim was filed after December 4, 2006, to
issue a home site approval under this section, the
Department of Land Conservation and Development
must verify that the claim was filed in compliance with
the applicable rules of the Land Conservation and
Development Commission and the Oregon Department
of Administrative Services.
(8) Except as provided in section 11 of this 2007 Act,
if the Department of Land Conservation and
Development has issued a final order with a specific
number of home site approvals for a property under this
section, the claimant may seek other governmental
authorizations required by law for the partition or
subdivision of the property or for the development of
any dwelling authorized, and a land use regulation
enacted by the state or county that has the effect of
prohibiting the partition or subdivision, or the dwelling,
does not apply to the review of those authorizations.
SECTION 7.(1) A claimant that filed a claim under
ORS 197.352 on or before the date of adjournment sine
die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly for property that is not high-value
farmland or high-value forestland and that is not in a
ground water restricted area is eligible for four to 10
home site approvals for the property if the requirements
of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act
are met. The procedure for obtaining home site
approvals under this section is set forth in section 8 of
this 2007 Act.
(2) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may
be established on the property under this section may
not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings described
in a waiver issued by the state before the effective
date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the
number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the
claim filed with the state;
(b) 10, except that if there are existing dwellings on
the property or the property contains more than one lot
or parcel, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings that
may be established is reduced, so that the combined
number of lots, parcels or dwellings, including existing
lots, parcels or dwellings located on or contained within
the property, does not exceed 10; or
(c) The number of home site approvals with a total
value that represents just compensation for the
reduction in fair market value caused by the enactment
of one or more land use regulations that were the basis
for the claim, as set forth in subsection (6) of this
section.
(3) If the number of lots, parcels or dwellings
described in a waiver issued by the state before the
effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings
described in the claim filed with the state is more than
10, the claimant may amend the claim to reduce the
number to no more than 10 by filing notice of the
amendment with the form required by section 8 of this
2007 Act.
(4) If multiple claims were filed for the same property,
the number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be
established for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of this
section is the number of lots, parcels or dwellings in the
most recent waiver issued by the state before the
effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the most recent claim filed with the state, but
not more than 10 in any case.
(5) To qualify for a home site approval under this
section, the claimant must have filed a claim for the
property with both the state and the county in which the
property is located. In addition, regardless of whether a
waiver was issued by the state or the county before the
effective date of this 2007 Act to qualify for a home site
approval under this section, the claimant must establish
that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in
writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located entirely outside any urban
growth boundary and entirely outside the boundaries of
any city;
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit
establishing the lot, parcel or dwelling;
(e) The establishment of the lot, parcel or dwelling is
not prohibited by a land use regulation described in
ORS 197.352 (3);
(f) On the claimant’s acquisition date, the claimant
lawfully was permitted to establish at least the number
of lots, parcels and dwellings on the property that are
authorized under this section; and
(g) The enactment of one or more land use
regulations, other than land use regulations described
in ORS 197.352 (3), that are the basis for the claim
caused a reduction in the fair market value of the
property that is equal to or greater than the fair market
value of the home site approvals that may be
established on the property under subsection (2) of this
section, with the reduction in fair market value
measured as set forth in subsection (6) of this section.
(6) The reduction in the fair market value of the
property caused by the enactment of one or more land
use regulations that were the basis for the claim is equal
to the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the
property from the date that is one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is
one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim
is based on the enactment of more than one land use
regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in
the fair market value of the property caused by each
regulation shall be determined separately and the
values added together to calculate the total reduction in
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
11 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
fair market value. The reduction in fair market value
shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes not
paid as a result of any special assessment of the
property under ORS 308A.050 to 308A.128, 321.257 to
321.390, 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855,
plus interest, offset by any severance taxes paid by the
claimant and by any recapture of potential additional
tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for the
property if the property is disqualified from special
assessment under ORS 308A.703. Interest shall be
computed under this subsection using the average
interest rate for a one-year United States Government
Treasury Bill on December 31 of each year of the period
between the date the land use regulation was enacted
and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually
on January 1 of each year of the period.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section,
a claimant must provide an appraisal showing the fair
market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis
for the claim and the fair market value of the property
one year after the enactment. The appraisal also must
show the fair market value of each home site approval
to which the claimant is entitled under section 6 (2) of
this 2007 Act, along with evidence of any ad valorem
property taxes not paid, any severance taxes paid and
any recapture of additional tax liability that the
claimant has paid or will pay for the property if the
property is disqualified from special assessment under
ORS 308A.703. The actual and reasonable cost of
preparing the claim, including the cost of the appraisal,
not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation
of the reduction in fair market value under subsection
(6) of this section. The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chap-
ter 674 or a person registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, as authorized by the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of
the property at the time the land use regulation was
enacted.
(8) Relief may not be granted under this section if the
highest and best use of the property was not residential
use at the time the land use regulation was enacted.
(9) If the claim was filed after December 4, 2006, to
issue a home site approval under this section, the
Department of Land Conservation and Development
must verify that the claim was filed in compliance with
the applicable rules of the Land Conservation and
Development Commission and the Oregon Department
of Administrative Services.
(10) Except as provided in section 11 of this 2007 Act,
if the Department of Land Conservation and
Development has issued a final order with a specific
number of home site approvals for the property under
this section, the claimant may seek other governmental
authorizations required by law for the subdivision or
partition of the property or for the development of any
dwelling authorized, and a land use regulation enacted
by the state or county that has the effect of prohibiting
the subdivision or partition, or the dwelling, does not
apply to the review of those authorizations.
SECTION 8.(1) No later than 120 days after the
effective date of this 2007 Act, the Department of Land
Conservation and Development shall send notice to all
the following claimants that filed a claim for property
outside an urban growth boundary:
(a) A claimant whose claim was denied by the state
before the effective date of this 2007 Act, but who
may become eligible for just compensation because of
section 21 (2) of this 2007 Act or any other provision of
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act;
(b) A claimant whose claim was approved by the state
before the effective date of this 2007 Act; and
(c) A claimant whose claim has not been approved or
denied by the state before the effective date of this
2007 Act.
(2) The notice required by subsection (1) of this
section must:
(a) Explain the claimant’s options if the claimant
wishes to subdivide, partition or establish a dwelling on
the property under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act;
(b) Identify any information that the claimant must
file; and
(c) Provide a form for the claimant’s use.
(3) A claimant must choose whether to proceed
under section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act by filing the form
provided by the department within 90 days after the
date the department mails the notice and form required
under subsection (1) of this section. In addition, the
claimant must file any information required in the
notice. If the claimant fails to file the form within 90
days after the date the department mails the notice, the
claimant is not entitled to relief under section 6 or 7 of
this 2007 Act.
(4) The department shall review the claims in the
order in which the department receives the forms
required under subsection (3) of this section. In addition
to reviewing the claim, the department shall review the
department’s record on the claim, the form required
under subsection (3) of this section, any new material
from the claimant and any other information required by
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act to ensure that the
requirements of this section and section 6 or 7 of this
2007 Act are met. The department shall provide a copy
of the material submitted by the claimant to the county
where the property is located and consider written
comments from the county that are timely filed with the
department. If the department determines that the only
land use regulations that restrict the claimant’s use of
the property are regulations that were enacted by the
county, the department shall transfer the claim to the
county where the property is located and the claim shall
be processed by the county in the same manner as
prescribed by this section for the processing of claims
by the department. The county must consider any
written comments from the department that are timely
filed with the county.
(5) If the claimant elects to obtain relief under section
7 of this 2007 Act, the claimant must file an appraisal
that establishes the reduction in the fair market value
of the property as required by section 7 (6) of this
2007 Act. The actual and reasonable cost of preparing
the claim, including the cost of the appraisal, not to
exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation of the
reduction in fair market value under section 7 (6) of this
2007 Act. The appraisal must be filed with the
department or, if the claim is being processed by the
county, with the county within 180 days after the date
the claimant files the election to obtain relief under
section 7 of this 2007 Act. A claimant that elects to
obtain relief under section 7 of this 2007 Act may
change that election to obtain relief under section 6 of
this 2007 Act, but only if the claimant provides written
notice of the change on or before the date the appraisal
is filed. If a county is processing the claim, the county
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
12 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
may impose a fee for the review of a claim under
section 7 of this 2007 Act in an amount that does not
exceed the actual and reasonable cost of the review.
(6) The department or the county shall review claims
as quickly as possible, consistent with careful review of
the claim. The department shall report to the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee on or before March 31,
2008, concerning the department’s progress and the
counties’ progress in completing review of claims under
sections 6 and 7 of this 2007 Act.
(7) The department’s final order and a county’s final
decision on a claim under section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act
must either deny the claim or approve the claim. If the
order or decision approves the claim, the order or
decision must state the number of home site approvals
issued for the property and may contain other terms
that are necessary to ensure that the use of the property
is lawful.
(Claims Relating to Property Within
Urban Growth Boundaries)
SECTION 9.(1) A claimant that filed a claim under
ORS 197.352 on or before the date of adjournment sine
die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly for property located, in whole or
in part, within an urban growth boundary may establish
one to 10 single-family dwellings on the portion of the
property located within the urban growth boundary.
(2) The number of single-family dwellings that may be
established on the portion of the property located
within the urban growth boundary under this section
may not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of single-family dwellings described in
a waiver issued by Metro, a city or a county before the
effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number described in the claim filed with
Metro, a city or a county;
(b) 10, except that if there are existing dwellings on
the property, the number of single-family dwellings that
may be established is reduced so that the maximum
number of dwellings, including existing dwellings
located on the property, does not exceed 10; or
(c) The number of single-family dwellings the total
value of which represents just compensation for the
reduction in fair market value caused by the enactment
of one or more land use regulations that were the
basis for the claim, as set forth in subsection (6) of this
section.
(3) If the number of single-family dwellings described
in a waiver issued by Metro, a city or a county before the
effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number described in the claim filed with
Metro, a city or a county is more than 10, the claimant
may amend the claim to reduce the number to no more
than 10 by filing notice of the amendment with the
information required by section 10 of this 2007 Act.
(4) If multiple claims were filed for the same property,
the number of single-family dwellings that may be
established for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of this
section is the number in the most recent waiver issued
by Metro, a city or a county before the effective date of
this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the most
recent claim filed with Metro, a city or a county, but not
more than 10 in any case.
(5) To qualify for the relief provided by this section,
the claimant must have filed a claim for the property
with the city or county in which the property is located.
In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued
by Metro, a city or a county before the effective date of
this 2007 Act, to qualify for relief under this section,
the claimant must establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in
writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located, in whole or in part, within
an urban growth boundary;
(d) On the claimant’s acquisition date, the claimant
lawfully was permitted to establish at least the number
of dwellings on the property that are authorized under
this section;
(e) The property is zoned for residential use;
(f) One or more land use regulations prohibit
establishing the single-family dwellings;
(g) The establishment of the single-family dwellings
is not prohibited by a land use regulation described in
ORS 197.352 (3);
(h) The land use regulation described in paragraph (f)
of this subsection was enacted after the date the
property, or any portion of the property, was brought
into the urban growth boundary;
(i) If the property is located within the boundaries of
Metro, the land use regulation that is the basis for the
claim was enacted after the date the property was
included within the boundaries of Metro;
(j) If the property is located within a city, the land use
regulation that is the basis for the claim was enacted
after the date the property was annexed to the city; and
(k) The enactment of one or more land use
regulations, other than land use regulations described
in ORS 197.352 (3), that are the basis of the claim
caused a reduction in the fair market value of the
property, as determined under subsection (6) of this
section, that is equal to or greater than the fair market
value of the single-family dwellings that may be
established on the property under subsection (2) of this
section.
(6) The reduction in the fair market value of the
property caused by the enactment of one or more land
use regulations that were the basis for the claim is
equal to the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of
the property from the date that is one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is
one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim
is based on the enactment of more than one land use
regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in
the fair market value of the property caused by each
regulation shall be determined separately and the
values added together to calculate the total reduction in
fair market value. The reduction in fair market value
shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes not
paid as a result of any special assessment of the
property under ORS 308A.050 to 308A.128, 321.257 to
321.390, 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855,
plus interest, offset by any severance taxes paid by the
claimant and by any recapture of potential additional
tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for
the property if the property is disqualified from special
assessment under ORS 308A.703. Interest shall be
computed under this subsection using the average
interest rate for a one-year United States Government
Treasury Bill on December 31 of each year of the period
between the date the land use regulation was enacted
and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually
on January 1 of each year of the period.
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
13 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section,
a claimant must provide an appraisal showing the fair
market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis
for the claim and the fair market value of the property
one year after the enactment. The appraisal also
must show the fair market value of each single-family
dwelling to which the claimant is entitled under
subsection (2) of this section, along with evidence of
any ad valorem property taxes not paid, any severance
taxes paid and any recapture of additional tax liability
that the owner has paid or will pay for the property if
the property is disqualified from special assessment
under ORS 308A.703. The actual and reasonable cost of
preparing the claim, including the cost of the appraisal,
not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation
of the reduction in fair market value under section 7 (6)
of this 2007 Act. The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chap-
ter 674 or a person registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, as authorized by the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of
the property at the time the land use regulation was
enacted.
(8) Relief may not be granted under this section if the
highest and best use of the property was not residential
use at the time the land use regulation was enacted.
(9) When Metro, a city or a county has issued a final
decision authorizing one or more single-family
dwellings under this section on the portion of the
property located within the urban growth boundary, the
claimant may seek other governmental authorizations
required by law for that use, and a land use regulation
enacted by a public entity that has the effect of
prohibiting the use does not apply to the review of those
authorizations, except as provided in section 11 of this
2007 Act. If Metro is reviewing a claim for a property,
and a city or a county is reviewing a claim for the same
property, Metro and the city or county shall coordinate
the review and decisions and may:
(a) Provide that one of the public entities be
principally responsible for the review; and
(b) Provide that the decision of each of the public
entities is contingent on the decision of the other public
entity.
(10) The only types of land use that are authorized
by this section are the subdivision or partition of land
for one or more single-family dwellings, or the
establishment of one or more single-family dwellings
on land on which the dwellings would not otherwise be
allowed.
SECTION 10.(1) If Metro, a city or a county issued a
waiver before the effective date of this 2007 Act for
property located, in whole or in part, within an urban
growth boundary, the public entity that issued the
waiver must review the claim, the record on the claim
and the waiver to determine whether the claimant is
entitled to relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act. If the
public entity that issued the waiver lacks information
needed to determine whether the claimant is entitled to
relief, the public entity shall issue a written request to
the claimant for the required information. The claimant
must file the required information within 90 days after
receiving the request. If the claimant does not file the
information, the public entity shall review the claim
based on the information that is available. The public
entity shall complete a tentative review no later than
240 days after the effective date of this 2007 Act.
The public entity shall provide written notice to the
claimant, the Department of Land Conservation and
Development and any other person entitled to notice
of the tentative determination as to whether the
claimant qualifies for relief under section 9 of this
2007 Act and, if so, the specific number of single-family
dwellings that the public entity proposes to authorize.
The notice must state that the recipient has 15 days to
submit evidence or arguments in response to the
tentative determination, after which the public entity
shall make a final determination. A public entity shall
make the final determination under this subsection
within 300 days after the effective date of this
2007 Act.
(2) If Metro, a city or a county has not made a final
decision before the effective date of this 2007 Act on a
claim filed for property located, in whole or in part,
within an urban growth boundary, the public entity with
which the claim was filed shall send notice to the
claimant within 90 days after the effective date of this
2007 Act. The notice must:
(a) Explain that the claimant is entitled to seek relief
under section 9 of this 2007 Act;
(b) Identify the information that the claimant must
file; and
(c) Provide a form for the claimant’s use.
(3) Within 120 days after the date the public entity
mails notice under subsection (2) of this section, a
claimant must notify the public entity if the claimant
intends to continue the claim and must file the
information required in the notice. If the claimant fails
to file the notice and required information with the
public entity within 120 days after the date the public
entity mails the notice, the claimant is not entitled to
relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act.
(4) A public entity that receives a notice from a
claimant under subsection (3) of this section shall
review the claim, the record on the claim, the notice
received from the claimant and the information required
under subsection (3) of this section to determine
whether the claim demonstrates that the requirements
of section 9 of this 2007 Act are satisfied. The public
entity shall complete a tentative review no later than
120 days after receipt of the notice from the claimant
and shall provide written notice to the claimant, the
department and any other person entitled to notice of
the tentative determination as to whether the claimant
qualifies for relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act and,
if so, the specific number of single-family dwellings
that the public entity proposes to authorize. The notice
must state that the recipient has 15 days to submit
evidence or arguments in response to the tentative
determination, after which the public entity shall make
a final determination. A public entity shall make the
final determination under this subsection within 180
days after receipt of the notice from the claimant.
(5) If a claimant filed a claim that is subject to this
section after December 4, 2006, the claim must have
included a copy of a final land use decision by the city or
county with land use jurisdiction over the property that
denied an application by the claimant for the residential
use described in the claim. If the claim was filed after
December 4, 2006, and did not include a final land use
decision denying the residential use described in the
claim, the claimant is not entitled to relief under
section 9 of this 2007 Act.
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
14 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(Development Standards; Transferability)
SECTION 11.(1) A subdivision or partition of property,
or the establishment of a dwelling on property,
authorized under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act must
comply with all applicable standards governing the
siting or development of the dwelling, lot or parcel
including, but not limited to, the location, design,
construction or size of the dwelling, lot or parcel.
However, the standards must not be applied in a manner
that has the effect of prohibiting the establishment of
the dwelling, lot or parcel authorized under sections 5
to 11 of this 2007 Act unless the standards are reason-
ably necessary to avoid or abate a nuisance, to protect
public health or safety or to carry out federal law.
(2) Before beginning construction of any dwelling
authorized under section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act,
the owner must comply with the requirements of
ORS 215.293 if the property is in an exclusive farm use
zone, a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone.
(3)(a) A city or county may approve the creation of a
lot or parcel to contain a dwelling authorized under
sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act. However, a new lot or
parcel located in an exclusive farm use zone, a forest
zone or a mixed farm and forest zone may not exceed:
(A) Two acres if the lot or parcel is located on
high-value farmland, on high-value forestland or on
land within a ground water restricted area; or
(B) Five acres if the lot or parcel is not located on
high-value farmland, on high-value forestland or on
land within a ground water restricted area.
(b) If the property is in an exclusive farm use zone, a
forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone, the new
lots or parcels created must be clustered so as to
maximize suitability of the remnant lot or parcel for
farm or forest use.
(4) If an owner is authorized to subdivide or partition
more than one property, or to establish dwellings on
more than one property, under sections 5 to 11 of this
2007 Act and the properties are in an exclusive farm use
zone, a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone, the
owner may cluster some or all of the dwellings, lots or
parcels on one of the properties if that property is less
suitable than the other properties for farm or forest use.
If one of the properties is zoned for residential use, the
owner may cluster some or all of the dwellings, lots or
parcels that would have been located in an exclusive
farm use zone, a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest
zone on the property zoned for residential use.
(5) An owner is not eligible for more than 20 home site
approvals under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act,
regardless of how many properties that person owns or
how many claims that person has filed.
(6) An authorization to partition or subdivide the
property, or to establish dwellings on the property,
granted under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act runs
with the property and may be either transferred with the
property or encumbered by another person without
affecting the authorization. There is no time limit on
when an authorization granted under section 6, 7 or 9 of
this 2007 Act must be carried out, except that once the
owner who obtained the authorization conveys the
property to a person other than the owner’s spouse or
the trustee of a revocable trust in which the owner is
the settlor, the subsequent owner of the property must
create the lots or parcels and establish the dwellings
authorized by a waiver under section 6, 7 or 9 of this
2007 Act within 10 years of the conveyance. In addition:
(a) A lot or parcel lawfully created based on an
authorization under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act
remains a discrete lot or parcel, unless the lot or parcel
lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided,
as provided by law; and
(b) A dwelling or other residential use of the property
based on an authorization under section 6, 7 or 9 of this
2007 Act is a permitted use and may be established or
continued by the claimant or a subsequent owner,
except that once the claimant conveys the property to a
person other than the claimant’s spouse or the trustee
of a revocable trust in which the claimant is the settlor,
the subsequent owner must establish the dwellings or
other residential use authorized under section 6, 7 or 9
of this 2007 Act within 10 years of the conveyance.
(7) When relief has been claimed under sections 5 to
11 of this 2007 Act:
(a) Additional relief is not due; and
(b) An additional claim may not be filed,
compensation is not due and a waiver may not be
issued with regard to the property under sections 5 to
22 of this 2007 Act or ORS 197.352 as in effect
immediately before the effective date of this 2007 Act,
except with respect to a land use regulation enacted
after January 1, 2007.
(8) A person that is eligible to be a holder as defined
in ORS 271.715 may acquire the rights to carry out
a use of land authorized under sections 5 to 11 of this
2007 Act from a willing seller in the manner provided by
ORS 271.715 to 271.795. Metro, cities and counties may
enter into cooperative agreements under ORS chapter
195 to establish a system for the purchase and sale of
severable development interests as described in
ORS 94.531. A system established under this subsection
may provide for the transfer of severable development
interests between the jurisdictions of the public entities
that are parties to the agreement for the purpose of
allowing development to occur in a location that is
different from the location in which the development
interest arises.
(9) If a claimant is an individual, the entitlement to
prosecute the claim under section 6, 7 or 9 of this
2007 Act and an authorization to use the property
provided by a waiver under section 6, 7 or 9 of this
2007 Act:
(a) Is not affected by the death of the claimant if the
death occurs on or after the effective date of this
2007 Act; and
(b) Passes to the person that acquires the property by
devise or by operation of law.
BALLOT MEASURE 37 CLAIMS MADE
AFTER THE DATE OF ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
OF THE 2007 REGULAR SESSION OF THE
SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Generally)
SECTION 12.(1) A person may file a claim for just
compensation under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act
and ORS 197.352 after the date of adjournment sine die
of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly if:
(a) The person is an owner of the property and all
owners of the property have consented in writing to the
filing of the claim;
(b) The person’s desired use of the property is a
residential use or a farming or forest practice;
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
15 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(c) The person’s desired use of the property is
restricted by one or more land use regulations enacted
after January 1, 2007; and
(d) The enactment of one or more land use regulations
after January 1, 2007, other than land use regulations
described in ORS 197.352 (3), has reduced the fair
market value of the property.
(2) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the
reduction in the fair market value of the property
caused by the enactment of one or more land use
regulations that are the basis for the claim is equal to
the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the
property from the date that is one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is
one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim
is based on the enactment of more than one land use
regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in
the fair market value of the property caused by each
regulation shall be determined separately and the
values added together to calculate the total reduction in
fair market value. Interest shall be computed under this
subsection using the average interest rate for a one-year
United States Government Treasury Bill on December 31
of each year of the period between the date the land use
regulation was enacted and the date the claim was filed,
compounded annually on January 1 of each year of the
period. A claimant must provide an appraisal showing
the fair market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation and the fair
market value of the property one year after the
enactment. The actual and reasonable cost of preparing
the claim, including the cost of the appraisal, not to
exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation of the
reduction in fair market value under this subsection.
The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chap-
ter 674 or a person registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, as authorized by the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of
the property at the time the land use regulation was
enacted.
(3) Relief may not be granted under this section if the
highest and best use of the property at the time the land
use regulation was enacted was not the use that was
restricted by the land use regulation.
(4) If the claimant establishes that the requirements of
subsection (1) of this section are satisfied and the land
use regulation was enacted by Metro, a city or a county,
the public entity must either:
(a) Compensate the claimant for the reduction in the
fair market value of the property; or
(b) Authorize the claimant to use the property without
application of the land use regulation to the extent
necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market
value of the property.
(5) If the claimant establishes that the requirements
of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied and the
land use regulation was enacted by state government,
as defined in ORS 174.111, the state agency that is
responsible for administering the statute, statewide
land use planning goal or rule, or the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services if there is no
state agency responsible for administering the statute,
goal or rule, must:
(a) Compensate the claimant for the reduction in the
fair market value of the property; or
(b) Authorize the claimant to use the property without
application of the land use regulation to the extent
necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market
value of the property.
(6) A use authorized by this section has the legal
status of a lawful nonconforming use in the same
manner as provided by ORS 215.130. The claimant may
carry out a use authorized by a public entity under this
section except that a public entity may waive only land
use regulations that were enacted by the public entity.
When a use authorized by this section is lawfully
established, the use may be continued lawfully in the
same manner as provided by ORS 215.130.
(Procedures for Actions on New Claims)
SECTION 13.(1) A person filing a claim under
section 12 of this 2007 Act shall file the claim in the
manner provided by this section. If the property for
which the claim is filed has more than one owner, the
claim must be signed by all the owners or the claim
must include a signed statement of consent from each
owner. Only one claim for each property may be filed
for each land use regulation.
(2) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act
must be filed with the public entity that enacted the
land use regulation that is the basis for the claim.
(3) Metro, cities, counties and the Department of Land
Conservation and Development may impose a fee for
the review of a claim filed under section 12 of this
2007 Act in an amount not to exceed the actual and
reasonable cost of reviewing the claim.
(4) A person must file a claim under section 12 of this
2007 Act within five years after the date the land use
regulation was enacted.
(5) A public entity that receives a claim filed under
section 12 of this 2007 Act must issue a final determina-
tion on the claim within 180 days after the date the
claim is complete, as described in subsection (9) of this
section.
(6) If a claim under section 12 of this 2007 Act is filed
with state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, the
claim must be filed with the department. If the claim is
filed with Metro, a city or a county, the claim must be
filed with the chief administrative office of the public
entity, or with an individual designated by ordinance,
resolution or order of the public entity.
(7) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act
must be in writing and must include:
(a) The name and address of each owner;
(b) The address, if any, and tax lot number, township,
range and section of the property;
(c) Evidence of the acquisition date of the claimant,
including the instrument conveying the property to the
claimant and a report from a title company identifying
the person in which title is vested and the claimant’s
acquisition date and describing exceptions and
encumbrances to title that are of record;
(d) A citation to the land use regulation that the
claimant believes is restricting the claimant’s desired
use of the property that is adequate to allow the public
entity to identify the specific land use regulation that is
the basis for the claim;
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
16 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(e) A description of the specific use of the property
that the claimant desires to carry out but cannot
because of the land use regulation; and
(f) An appraisal of the property that complies with
section 12 (2) of this 2007 Act.
(8) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act
must include the fee, if any, imposed by the public
entity with which the claim is filed pursuant to
subsection (3) of this section.
(9) The public entity shall review a claim filed under
section 12 of this 2007 Act to determine whether the
claim complies with the requirements of sections 12 to
14 of this 2007 Act. If the claim is incomplete, the
public entity shall notify the claimant in writing of the
information or fee that is missing within 60 days after
receiving the claim and allow the claimant to submit
the missing information or fee. The claim is complete
when the public entity receives any fee required by
subsection (8) of this section and:
(a) The missing information;
(b) Part of the missing information and written notice
from the claimant that the remainder of the missing
information will not be provided; or
(c) Written notice from the claimant that none of the
missing information will be provided.
(10) If a public entity does not notify a claimant within
60 days after a claim is filed under section 12 of this
2007 Act that information or the fee is missing from the
claim, the claim is deemed complete when filed.
(11) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act is
deemed withdrawn if the public entity gives notice to
the claimant under subsection (9) of this section and the
claimant does not comply with the requirements of
subsection (9) of this section.
SECTION 14.(1) A public entity that receives a
complete claim as described in section 13 of this
2007 Act shall provide notice of the claim at least
30 days before a public hearing on the claim or, if there
will not be a public hearing, at least 30 days before the
deadline for submission of written comments, to:
(a) All owners identified in the claim;
(b) All persons described in ORS 197.763 (2);
(c) The Department of Land Conservation and
Development, unless the claim was filed with the
department;
(d) Metro, if the property is located within the urban
growth boundary of Metro;
(e) The county in which the property is located, unless
the claim was filed with the county; and
(f) The city, if the property is located within the urban
growth boundary or adopted urban planning area of the
city.
(2) The notice required under subsection (1) of this
section must describe the claim and state:
(a) Whether a public hearing will be held on the claim,
the date, time and location of the hearing, if any, and
the final date for submission of written evidence and
arguments relating to the claim;
(b) That judicial review of the final determination of
a public entity on the claim is limited to the written
evidence and arguments submitted to the public entity;
and
(c) That judicial review is available only for issues that
are raised with sufficient specificity to afford the public
entity an opportunity to respond.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this
section, written evidence and arguments in proceedings
on the claim must be submitted to the public entity not
later than:
(a) The close of the final public hearing on the claim;
or
(b) If a public hearing is not held, the date that is
specified by the public entity in the notice required
under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The claimant may request additional time to
submit written evidence and arguments in response to
testimony or submittals. The request must be made
before the close of testimony or the deadline for
submission of written evidence and arguments.
(5) A public entity shall make the record on review of
a claim, including any staff reports, available to the
public before the close of the record as described in
subsections (3) and (4) of this section.
(6) A public entity shall mail a copy of the final
determination to the claimant and to any person who
submitted written evidence or arguments before the
close of the record. The public entity shall forward to
the county, and the county shall record, a memorandum
of the final determination in the deed records of the
county in which the property is located.
SECTION 15.In addition to any other notice required
by law, a county must give notice of a Measure 37
permit for property located entirely outside an urban
growth boundary to:
(1) The county assessor for the county in which the
property is located;
(2) A district or municipality that supplies water for
domestic, municipal or irrigation uses and has a place of
use or well located within one-half mile of the property;
and
(3) The Department of Land Conservation and
Development, the State Department of Agriculture, the
Water Resources Department and the State Forestry
Department.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
SECTION 16.(1) A person that is adversely affected by
a final determination of a public entity under sections 5
to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act may obtain judicial
review of that determination under ORS 34.010 to
34.100, if the determination is made by Metro, a city or
a county, or under ORS 183.484, if the determination is
one of a state agency. Proceedings for review of a state
agency determination under sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14
of this 2007 Act must be commenced in the county in
which the affected property is located. Upon motion of
any party to the proceedings, the proceedings may be
transferred to any other county with jurisdiction under
ORS 183.484 in the manner provided by law for change
of venue. A determination by a public entity under
sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act is not a land
use decision.
(2) A person is adversely affected under subsection (1)
of this section if the person:
(a) Is an owner of the property that is the subject of
the final determination; or
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
17 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(b) Is a person who timely submitted written evidence,
arguments or comments to a public entity concerning
the determination.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section,
judicial review of a final determination under sections 5
to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act or ORS 197.352 is:
(a) Limited to the evidence in the record of the public
entity at the time of its final determination.
(b) Available only for issues that are raised before the
public entity with sufficient specificity to afford the
public entity an opportunity to respond.
OMBUDSMAN
SECTION 17.(1) The Governor shall appoint an
individual to serve, at the pleasure of the Governor, as
the Compensation and Conservation Ombudsman.
(2) The ombudsman must be an individual of
recognized judgment, objectivity and integrity who is
qualified by training and experience to:
(a) Analyze problems of land use planning, real
property law and real property valuation; and
(b) Facilitate resolution of complex disputes.
SECTION 18.(1) For the purpose of helping to ensure
that a claim is complete, as described in section 13 of
this 2007 Act, the Compensation and Conservation
Ombudsman may review a proposed claim if the review
is requested by a claimant that intends to file a
claim under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and
ORS 197.352.
(2) At the request of the claimant or the public entity
reviewing a claim, the ombudsman may facilitate
resolution of issues involving a claim under sections 5
to 22 of this 2007 Act.
MISCELLANEOUS
SECTION 19.(1) If an owner submits an application
for a comprehensive plan or zoning amendment, or
submits an application for an amendment to the Metro
urban growth boundary, and Metro, a city or a county
approves the amendment, the owner is not entitled to
relief under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act with
respect to a land use regulation enacted before the date
the application was filed.
(2) If an owner files a petition to initiate annexation to
a city and the city or boundary commission approves
the petition, the owner is not entitled to relief under
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act with respect to a land
use regulation enacted before the date the petition was
filed.
SECTION 20.An appraiser certified under
ORS 674.310 or a person registered under ORS chapter
308 may carry out the appraisals required by sections 5
to 22 of this 2007 Act. The Department of Land
Conservation and Development is authorized to retain
persons to review the appraisals.
SECTION 21.(1) Except as provided in this section, a
claimant’s acquisition date is the date the claimant
became the owner of the property as shown in the deed
records of the county in which the property is located.
If there is more than one claimant for the same property
under the same claim and the claimants have different
acquisition dates, the acquisition date is the earliest of
those dates.
(2) If the claimant is the surviving spouse of a person
who was an owner of the property in fee title, the
claimant’s acquisition date is the date the claimant was
married to the deceased spouse or the date the spouse
acquired the property, whichever is later. A claimant or
a surviving spouse may disclaim the relief provided
under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act by using the
procedure provided in ORS 105.623 to 105.649.
(3) If a claimant conveyed the property to another
person and reacquired the property, whether by
foreclosure or otherwise, the claimant’s acquisition
date is the date the claimant reacquired ownership of
the property.
(4) A default judgment entered after December 2,
2004, does not alter a claimant’s acquisition date unless
the claimant’s acquisition date is after December 2,
2004.
SECTION 21a.For the purposes of sections 5 to 22 of
this 2007 Act, a document is filed on the date the
document is received by the public entity.
SECTION 21b.For the purposes of sections 5 to 22 of
this 2007 Act, the fair market value of property is the
amount of money, in cash, that the property would bring
if the property was offered for sale by a person who
desires to sell the property but is not obligated to sell
the property, and if the property was bought by a person
who was willing to buy the property but not obligated to
buy the property. The fair market value is the actual
value of property, with all of the property’s adaptations
to general and special purposes. The fair market value
of property does not include any prospective value,
speculative value or possible value based upon future
expenditures and improvements.
SECTION 21c.If any part of sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise
invalid, all remaining parts of sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act shall not be affected by the holding and shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 22.(1) The Compensation and Conservation
Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate and
distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned on
moneys in the Compensation and Conservation Fund
shall be credited to the fund. The fund consists of
moneys received by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development under sections 5 to 22
of this 2007 Act and other moneys available to the
department for the purpose described in subsection (2)
of this section.
(2) Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated
to the department for the purpose of paying expenses
incurred to review claims under sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act and for the purpose of paying the expenses of
the Compensation and Conservation Ombudsman
appointed under section 17 of this 2007 Act.
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SECTION 23.ORS 93.040 is amended to read:
93.040. (1) The following statement shall be included in the
body of an instrument transferring or contracting to transfer fee
title to real property except for owner’s sale agreements or
earnest money receipts, or both, as provided in subsection (2)
of this section: ”BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE
SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON’S RIGHTS, IF ANY,
UNDER [ORS 197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF
THIS 2007 ACT. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE
OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN
VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED
USES, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
18 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930
AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER [ORS 197.352]
SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT.”
(2) In all owner’s sale agreements and earnest money
receipts, there shall be included in the body of the instrument
the following statement: ”THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS
INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS
SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT, IN
FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUC-
TION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND THAT LIMIT LAWSUITS
AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN
ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING
THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE
SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON’S RIGHTS, IF ANY,
UNDER [ORS 197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF
THIS 2007 ACT. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED
USES, THE EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR
STRUCTURES AND THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY
OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER [ORS 197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3
AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT.”
(3) In all owners’ sale agreements and earnest money
receipts subject to ORS 358.505, there shall be included in the
body of the instrument or by addendum the following
statement: ”THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS
INSTRUMENT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
UNDER ORS 358.505. ORS 358.515 REQUIRES NOTIFICATION
TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER OF SALE
OR TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY.”
(4) An action may not be maintained against the county
recording officer for recording an instrument that does not
contain the statement required in subsection (1) or (2) of this
section.
(5) An action may not be maintained against any person
for failure to include in the instrument the statement required
in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, or for recording an
instrument that does not contain the statement required in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section, unless the person acquiring
or agreeing to acquire fee title to the real property would not
have executed or accepted the instrument but for the absence
in the instrument of the statement required by subsection (1) or
(2) of this section. An action may not be maintained by the
person acquiring or agreeing to acquire fee title to the real
property against any person other than the person transferring
or contracting to transfer fee title to the real property.
SECTION 24.The unit captions used in this 2007 Act
are provided only for the convenience of the reader and
do not become part of the statutory law of this state or
express a legislative intent in the enactment of this
2007 Act.
SECTION 25.This 2007 Act shall be submitted to the
people for their approval or rejection at a special
election held throughout this state as provided in
chapter ______, Oregon Laws 2007 (Enrolled House Bill
2083).
NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 37 (2004) requires governments to pay
landowners or forgo enforcement when certain land use regu-
lations reduce their property values. This measure modifies
Measure 37 to give landowners who have filed Measure 37
claims the right to build homes as compensation for land use
regulations imposed after they acquired their properties.
Claimants may build up to three homes if allowed when they
acquired their properties.
Claimants may build up to 10 homes if allowed when they
acquired their properties and they have suffered reductions in
property values that justify the additional home sites.
This measure protects farmlands, forestlands and lands with
groundwater shortages in two ways.
First, subdivisions are not allowed on high-value farmlands,
forestlands and groundwater-restricted lands. Claimants may
not build more than three homes on such lands.
Second, claimants may not use this measure to override
current zoning laws that prohibit commercial and industrial
developments, such as strip malls and mines, on land reserved
for homes, farms, forests and other uses.
Also, this measure expands homebuilding rights under
Measure 37 in two ways.
First, it extends homebuilding rights to surviving spouses
whose claims are not eligible for compensation under
Measure 37.
Second, it allows claimants to transfer their homebuilding
rights to new owners, a right not clearly provided by
Measure 37. The new owners must exercise their homebuilding
rights within 10 years.
Claimants will be notified of their options to build homes
under this measure within 120 days after this measure takes
effect.
Claimants who have received land use waivers under
Measure 37 are entitled to complete developments under the
provisions of Measure 37 if they have established vested rights
to do so.
To streamline the approval process for small claims, this
measure provides that those who choose to apply for up to
three homes need only show they had the right to build the
homes they are requesting when they acquired their property.
To validate larger claims, this measure requires those who
choose to apply for four to 10 homes to show they had the right
to develop the homes they are requesting when they acquired
their property and that they have suffered a loss of value from
prior regulations that justifies the number of homes requested.
Appraisals are required to establish such reductions in value.
The costs of appraisals and other costs of preparing claims may
be added to the calculation of reduced values, up to $5,000 per
claim.
This measure establishes an ombudsman to help
landowners who request assistance with their claims.
This measure modifies Measure 37 for compensation claims
that arise from land use regulations in the future. It authorizes
such claims based on regulations that limit residential uses of
property or farm and forest practices, requires documentation
of reduced values and provides for proportionate compensa-
tion when such reductions in value occur. Property owners will
have five years to file claims over regulations enacted after
January 1, 2007.
This measure will be effective 30 days after approval by the
voters.
(This impartial statement explaining the measure was provided by the
2007 Legislative Assembly.)
Measure 49
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
19 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Legislative Argument in Support
The people of Oregon want Measure 37 to be fixed.
That was the clear message delivered to the Legislature this
year.
Hundreds of Oregonians from around the state traveled to
Salem for nine public hearings to describe the chaos and
confusion created by Measure 37.
Here’s what they told the Land Use Fairness Committee:
•Measure 37 is not working for farm families and small
land owners who wish to build homes on their property.
•Big developers have been exploiting Measure 37 to pave
the way for large subdivisions and strip malls on lands
now reserved for farming and forestry.
Those big developments diminish our most valuable
natural-resource lands, deplete scarce water supplies and
overwhelm local roads, schools and public safety services.
Even worse, Measure 37 has pitted neighbor against neighbor,
with more than 270 lawsuits pending in Oregon courts.
Most of the 369 Oregonians who traveled to Salem to share
their concerns asked us to fix Measure 37, suspend it or repeal it
outright. Many told us they had voted for Measure 37 but wish
now that they could change their vote or change the measure to
do what they had intended. Not one person told us they had
voted against the measure and now wish they had voted for it.
This input convinced us to come back to you, the voters, with a
proposal to address Measure 37’s flaws.
Our proposal – Measure 49 – does not repeal Measure 37.
Instead, it establishes a balance in our land use system to
protect the rights of landowners and their neighbors. It protects
the right of farm families and other landowners to build homes
on their property and protects the lands and resources that
make Oregon a special place to live, work and raise a family.
Measure 49 is now in your hands. We hope you agree that
Measure 49 offers a better way to protect and preserve the best
of Oregon for all of us.
Committee Members: Appointed by:
Senator Floyd Prozanski President of the Senate
Representative Brian Clem Speaker of the House
Representative Greg Macpherson Speaker of the House
(This Joint Legislative Committee was appointed to provide the
legislative argument in support of the ballot measure pursuant to
ORS 251.245.)
Argument in Favor
The Bowerman Family asks for your YES vote on
Measure 49.
Our family arrived by covered wagon in Oregon in 1845 with a
vision of raising future generations in the natural splendor of
this rich and beautiful land. Much has changed in the 160 years
since then, but one thing remains constant: our family’s deep
commitment to the care of Oregon.
We have worked as farmers, homemakers, teachers, shop-
keepers, woodworkers, and more. We have lived and continue
to live in all regions: the Willamette, Rogue and John Day
Valleys; Portland, Medford, Bend, Eugene, Fossil and other
towns. We know from family history that our grandparents and
great-grandparents treasured and nurtured their relationship
with the land. Our present generation carries on this family
tradition.
We are convinced that Measure 37 must be fixed or it will
wreak havoc on the productivity and beauty of our state;
will effectively dismantle Oregon’s commitment to growth
management; and will have severe detrimental consequences
for our children and grandchildren.
We have studied Measure 49 thoroughly. We are convinced it is
absolutely necessary to correct the unintended consequences
of Measure 37. All Oregonians must work together to preserve
our special quality of life for future generations.
Please join us, vote YES on Measure 49.
Signed:
Barbara Bowerman, Fossil
Jon Bowerman, Wheeler County
Jay Bowerman, Deschutes County
Tom Bowerman, Lane County
Kristine Bowerman, Lane County
Jayson Bowerman, Deschutes County
Tracy Bowerman, Bend
McKenzie Bowerman, Oakridge
Danielle Bowerman, Oakridge
Will Bowerman, Fossil
Elizabeth Bowerman, Redmond
(This information furnished by Tom R. Bowerman.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
A Message from Four Oregon Governors
Dear Fellow Oregonian:
We come from different political parties, different parts of
Oregon, different occupations, and we each had the privilege of
serving Oregon as Governor during very different times.
For all our differences, however, we share a love of Oregon.
We appreciate the legacy we have been given, and understand
the tremendous responsibility we have to protect that legacy
and pass it long.
Oregon is loveable – and livable – because Oregonians have
actively engaged in protecting that legacy. That’s why we have
the bounty that other states have lost:
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
20 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
deed since the beginning of ownership cannot proceed with a
Measure 37 claim.
Measure 49 allows transferability of development rights
for kids and surviving spouses.
Measure 49:
Makes the rules consistent for everybody.
Strengthens rights of small individual property owners.
Protects farmland, forests water and our quality of life
from the abuses of Measure 37.
Clean up the mess!
Vote YES on 49
(This information furnished by Elizabeth Kaufman, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
How does Measure 49 work?
It’s really pretty simple.
Measure 37 – passed in 2004 – has created chaos for Oregon’s
unique natural beauty and for landowners who thought they
could do what they want with their own property. There are
different rules for every property, different interpretations of its
vague language in every county, and the flaws of Measure 37
allow massive subdivisions, commercial and industrial
development in places they simply don’t belong.
Measure 49 takes this chaos and makes things
straightforward, consistent and balanced for
property owners and all of Oregon.
Here is how it works:
• Measure 49 protects the property rights of small
individual landowners by immediately allowing
them up to 3 houses on their property, if the law
allowed it when they bought their land.And it will
pass those rights on to a surviving spouse or to someone
who purchases the property from the current owner–
something that Measure 37 left out and needs to be fixed.
• Additionally, property owners can build up to
10 houses if they can document a decrease in
property value equal to the value of the additional
houses – just as Measure 37 originally promised.
(Three homesites – clustered on one portion of large
properties-- is the limit for high-value farmland, and
forests or places with limited water supplies.)
• Measure 49 limits large development – in order to
protect Oregon’s farmland, forests and water.
That means stopping the abuse of Measure to develop
huge housing subdivisions, strip malls, big-box stores,
and mining operations where they are not allowed by
zoning.
The development interests who stand to make huge profits
from Measure 37 are the ones opposing Measure 49. They will
try their best to confuse the issue, claiming that Measure 49 is
complicated. But as you can see, it is quite straightforward.
For more information, go to www.yeson49.com and read the
entire ballot measure.
Vote Yes on 49
(This information furnished by Emily Jackson, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
21 | State Measures
continued
•Majestic forests that offer beauty, recreation and a
livelihood for many communities.
•Irreplaceable farmland that supports a rich and varied
agricultural economy; and
•A balance that protects Oregon’s unique assets and the
property rights of Oregonians.
That is why we come together to ask you to vote Yes on
Measure 49.
Measure 49 will fix the flaws in Measure 37 – flaws that threaten
the Oregon we love. Measure 37, passed in 2004, has opened
the door to massive development that will destroy the
farmland, forestland and water resources we have today.
Measure 49 will deliver what Oregonians had in minds when
they voted on Measure 37: a balance that protects Oregon’s
farms, forests, and water and allows individual property
owners to build more than one home on their property.
Measure 49 will also deliver something bigger: a workable land
use policy that will allow us to keep our precious Oregon assets
– the things that make Oregon special – and be fair to property
owners.
Please join us in voting Yes on Measure 49.
Governor Vic Atiyeh (1979 – 1987)
Governor Barbara Roberts (1991 – 1995)
Governor John Kitzhaber MD (1995 – 2003)
Governor Ted Kulongoski (2003 – present)
(This information furnished by Theodore Kulongoski.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Measure 37 is a Mess.
Measure 49 Will Clean It Up.
Measure 37 was sold as a way to allow a landowner to build a
few homes to their property – for their kids or to fund their
retirement – if they could do so when they bought the land.
Since its passage, over 7,500 claims for development have
been filed covering about 730,000 acres of the state. Most of
the claims are for 10 or fewer houses. (Up to that amount is
allowed under Measure 49).
But most of the acreage covered by M37 claims is for
enormous development: huge housing subdivisions,
strip malls and big box stores. Almost all of this large-
scale development is on Oregon’s prime farmland, in
forests and along water – where it just doesn’t belong.
Measure 37 has also created incredible confusion and
unfairness in every corner of the state.
Rules should be the same for everyone.
But that’s not how Measure 37 is working.
Nobody has been able to figure out Measure 37’s flawed
language, so it is interpreted differently, county by county,
property by property.
Measure 49 clarifies the rules and makes them consistent
throughout the state.
Measure 37 also destroys the rights of some,
while giving a bonanza to others.
For example, M37 left out the right of “transferability.” That
means some people who want to build a few homes on their
land – for their kids or to fund their retirement – cannot transfer
the rights to own those homes to their children or a new owner.
Even a surviving spouse whose name doesn’t appear on the
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Measure 49: Fact vs. Fiction
Does Measure 49 Repeal Measure 37?
No.Measure 49 fixes the major flaws and loopholes of
Measure 37 that have both frustrated landowners with modest
claims and threatened our farmland, forest, and water supplies
with claims for large subdivisions, strip malls, billboards, and
gravel pits. Measure 37 remains law—Measure 49 simply
makes amendments to restore balance and deliver what
Measure 37 promised.
Will Measure 49 wipe out almost all current Measure 37
claims, and eliminate all protection from future
regulations?
Absolutely not.Measure 49 allows claimants to move
forward with development of up to 3-10 homesites and
guarantees the ability to file claims for future changes in
residential use of property, and farm and forest practices. The
claim that the government will come to take your home is
patently false.
Will people with valid Measure 37 claims have to start
over?
No.Within 120 days of passage of Measure 49, claimants will
receive a simple form from the state asking them to choose
between the ‘fast track’ up to three homesites or—if they can
prove property value loss, backed up with an appraisal—4 to 10
homesites. Then, the claimant may proceed with development.
Are Oregon businesses are specifically targeted by
Measure 49?
Oregon land use laws require that local governments provide
land for commercial and industrial development. That
requirement will continue.Measure 49 simply prohibits claims
for industrial and commercial development not allowed by
zoning.
Did the Legislature draft Measure 49 without holding
public hearings?
Measure 49 was the result of dozens of hours of public hearings
over several months, with testimony from hundreds of
individual Oregonians.
If Measure 37 is left unmodified, can more claims be
filed in the future for large subdivisions, strip malls,
billboards, and more?
If left unchanged, Measure 37 claims can continue to be filed
indefinitely for large development not allowed by current
zoning. Measure 49 closes this loophole.
(This information furnished by Laura S. Imeson, Yes on 49.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Yes on Measure 49 – Protect Our Home: Oregon
I live on a farm in Washington County, amidst some of the best
farmland on earth--where perennial tall fescue is grown for
grass seed, filberts for Christmas stockings, sweet corn for the
farmers market, and alfalfa to feed beef cows.
After Measure 37 passed, the first claims seemed reasonable:
One neighbor wanted to divide her property into thirds.
Another wanted to build one house on 10 acres.
But then the “other” claims came. Within just 3 miles of my
farm, there are 54 Measure 37 claims to build a potential 1761
homes – most in an area designated “ground water restricted.’
Imagine moving combines, trailer loads of nursery stock, and
large agricultural equipment over our narrow winding roads,
amidst the flood of more vehicles commuting to jobs and
school. Who will pay for road improvements? How will we
provide water to 1761 homes?
This kind of random, intense development will have a
devastating impact on highly productive farmland.
And who “benefits?” Not the small property owner. Within
Washington County, 88% of the Measure 37 home sites are
requested by just 20% of claimants.
Meanwhile, most farm families cannot file Measure 37
claims, though their land has been in the same family
for 50 years. Yet their economic livelihood will be
severely impacted, if not destroyed.
Nearby elderly widows try to file modest Measure 37 claims,
but are denied because they were never on the deed with their
husbands.
Other families can’t profit from their Measure 37 claims,
because development rights aren’t transferable.
Measure 49 re-balances Measure 37.
It provides relief to those who want to build a home or two on
their rural property.
It helps the elderly claimants wanting to provide for their
retirement or a place for their children.
And, by limiting the size of development, we keep the impact to
the community and reasonable and manageable.
Vote YES on Measure 49
David Papworth
(This information furnished by David Papworth.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Do you want to really protect Property Rights?
Then Vote Yes on Measure 49!
I am a retired forester, a former contributor to Oregonians In
Action and I strongly support private property rights.
But when the interests behind Measure 37 sold it to Oregon,
they talked about protecting the rights of small property
owners to build a few houses on their land, if it was permitted
by the law when they bought the property.
Well, the timber and development industries that have filed
claims to build massive subdivisions, commercial and
industrial projects on protected farmland and forestland are
doing great under Measure 37.
But Measure 37 left many small, individual landowners in the
cold.
The flawed language of Measure 37 didn’t spell out the ability
to transfer development rights from one person to another –
even to a surviving spouse! And it left the actual process for
securing property rights vague, confusing and different from
county to county, and city to city.
• Measure 49 guarantees “transferability” of rights
to a surviving spouse and if you sell your property to
someone else.
• Measure 49 provides an “express lane” for
individual owners,immediately allowing them up to
three houses on their property outside urban areas.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
22 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
• Measure 49 also provides a fair, simple process to
build up to 10 homes by documenting an equivalent
loss in value – as long as the extra houses are not on prime
farmland or forestland and don’t threaten limited water
supplies. (In those cases, property owners can still get up
to three homesites if that was allowed when they bought
their land.)
• And Measure 49 protects the property rights of
neighbors,by not allowing massive subdivisions,
industrial or commercial development where it just
doesn’t belong.
Measure 49:
Fair for Property Owners. Right for Oregon.
Ken Faulk, Benton County
(This information furnished by Ken Faulk.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Measure 49 Will Stops the Abuses of Measure 37
Measure 37 was supposed to help small landowners – not large
developers.
But the claims for development filed during the first two years
of Measure 37 tell a different story.
For every claim filed by small landowners seeking to
build one to three homes on their property, there have
been four claims filed for subdivisions, for commercial
and industrial projects, and for developments that
claimants have not yet specified what will be built.
These numbers come from a hard count of Measure 37 claims
by Portland State University’s Institute of Portland Metropolitan
Studies. The numbers show:
•Claims filed by landowners known to be seeking one to three
homes: 1,821 claims on 62,860 acres.
•Claims known to be seeking housing subdivisions: 2,753
claims on 319,322 acres.
•Claims on land now reserved for Oregon’s farms and forests:
4,580 claims on 487,898 acres.
•The ten largest subdivisions alone would carve out 34,850
home sites on 41,837 acres.
We shouldn’t allow developers and speculators to take
advantage of Measure 37 in this way.
We shouldn’t allow our prime farm and forest lands to
be paved over for massive subdivisions.
Measure 49 offers a better way:
•It offers fast track approvals for the over 1,821 land owners
who have filed claims to build one to three homes on their
property.
•It offers a reasonable compromise for thousands of land
owners who filed claims for larger developments. These
land owners can opt for three homes or seek up to ten
homes on land that is not reserved for high-value farming
or forestry and is not threatened with a shortage of
groundwater.
•It closes loopholes in Measure 37 that will otherwise
allow speculators and developers to destroy the most
productive lands in our state.
Give small landowners what they were promised by
Measure 37. Stop the abuses by developers and
speculators.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Brian Rae, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
A Message from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
Protect Oregon’s Future.
Respect Oregon’s Past.
Please Vote Yes on Measure 49
I’ve had the honor of representing Oregon in the United States
Senate for almost 12 years. Throughout my service, I have been
acutely aware that the decisions I make have an important
impact on the future of our state. And, I’ve tried to make sure
those decisions reflect the values of Oregon, and the legacy
that has been passed on to all of us.
This fall we face a state ballot measure crucial to our future.
And, I’m asking you to join me in voting Yes on Measure 49
because it is so important to protecting our priceless Oregon
heritage.
Measure 37 articulated a principle that Oregonians believed in:
respect for people’s private property rights. But the way it did
that had unintended consequences – and we now can see the
results. The level of development – and the kind of development
it has unleashed -- will destroy our farmland, forests and
special places in a way that the voters did not intend. That has
been demonstrated by the bipartisan outpouring of Oregonians
who have called for a fix.
Measure 49 does not repeal Measure 37 – it restores the
balance by allowing small individual property owners greater
freedom to build, if the law allowed it when they bought their
property. But it does that in a way that also protects our future
by respecting our past: the legacy that is our Oregon.
There are very few decisions that will have a greater impact on
our state, our children and our grandchildren. My decision is to
vote Yes on Measure 49. I hope yours will be too.
(This information furnished by Senator Ron Wyden.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Polk County Farm Bureau
for Measure 49
If you want the “little guy” to get a fair shake, vote
“Yes” on Measure 49.
Over 42% of claims for development under Measure 37 seek
1-3 homesites.
Measure 49 gives these claims a green light and transferability.
That is what Oregon voters had in mind in 2004 when they
approved Measure 37.
Measure 49’s limits are needed.Nearly 58% of Measure 37
development claims are for large housing subdivisions, nearly
3,800 of them right on farm and forest land.
The proposed subdivisions average 134 acres each; and over
60% are in the Willamette Valley.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
23 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
These subdivisions threaten farms. How? Go to Oregon
Department of Agriculture’s website,
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/m37.shtml, and see for
yourself. ODA’s maps show 969 Measure 37 subdivision claims
scattered throughout the heart of vibrant farm areas of Marion,
Clackamas, and Washington counties alone -- Oregon’s TOP
THREE producing farm counties.
These subdivisions would be an economic and
environmental disaster for the Willamette Valley.
Measure 49 gives Oregon voters a chance to say, “Wait a
minute! I didn’t intend Measure 37 to undermine Willamette
Valley agriculture, or to ruin the Valley’s beauty.”
Measure 49 allows what Oregon voters intended --some
development for the little guy, but preserving our
farmland:
•3 homesites if the claim is on high value farm or forest
land, or in a restricted groundwater area. These homesites
must be clustered at one end of the property and can only
be 5 acres each, so they have the least impact on large
swaths of farmland;
•4-10 lots if a claim is on any other type of land, based on
proof of loss of property value - backed up by an appraisal.
Under Measure 49, every Measure 37 claim goes forward.
But Measure 49 sets limits that we can live with.
Measure 49 fixes the wrongs of Measure 37. Vote “YES” on
Measure 49.
Thank you, from the heart of the Willamette Valley.
(This information furnished by Paul Thorp, Polk County Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
The League of Women Voters of Oregon
Urges YOU to
VOTE YES
On Measure 49
The League of Women Voters believes that Measure 49 is a
fair and balanced solution to the problems created by
Measure 37.
The League of Women Voters believes our 35-year-old land use
planning system has provided good homes and good jobs
while protecting our agricultural industry. We also believe in
protection of private property rights balanced by consideration
of public health and environmental protection. Measure 49
supports these values.
We should protect agricultural jobs by protecting agricultural
land. We should protect tourism jobs by protecting Oregon’s
special places. We should protect our communities and limited
tax dollars from expensive urban sprawl.
Measure 49 allows valid claimants and their spouses to
build up to 3 homesites on their long-owned property or
to transfer these rights to their kids or others, something
Measure 37 does not do. Claimants may build up to ten
homesites if they can prove lost value.
Measure 49 protects the rights of neighbors by stopping
large subdivisions and industrial or commercial
developments where they don’t belong.
Measure 49 balances people’s rights: Vote YES on
Measure 49!
Join the
The League of Women Voters of Oregon
In Voting
YES
On Measure 49!
The League of Women Voters is a grassroots nonpartisan,
political organization that encourages informed and
active participation in government.
(This information furnished by Marge Easley, President, League of
Women Voters of Oregon.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Frontline Fire Fighters say:
Help Us Protect Your Life and your Property.
Vote YES on Measure 49.
Our job comes down to one word: protection.
•We are here to protect your life and the life of your family if
there is a fire.
•We also protect you in the case of a medical emergency,
motor vehicle accident, natural or manmade disaster, and
many other emergency situations that may exist.
•And once we make sure you are safe, we protect your
home, your business and your property.
The kind of development that Measure 37 will allow will
make it more difficult to do our job. That is why
Oregon’s Professional Fire Fighters support Measure 49,
and hope you will too.
As it stands right now, Measure 37 is poised to build large
swaths of housing far away from services like fire and police
protections. And dealing with that isn’t as simple as saying
“Well, just put a fire house there!”
•Many Measure 37 developments are in places without
enough water.
•Sometimes they are in places where it would be very
expensive to extend fire protection – more than local
property taxpayers could handle.
•And many of these developments are in places at high risk
for wildfires and forest fires – dangerous for residents, and
dangerous for fire fighters.
Measure 49 will let people build, but with a little common sense
attached. And we can tell you from personal experience,
common sense is one of the best fire prevention tools there is.
Join Oregon’s Professional Fire Fighters
in Voting Yes on 49!
Endorsed by Oregon State Fire Fighters Council
(This information furnished by Kelly Bach, President, Oregon State Fire
Fighters Council.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
24 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Measure 37 in Southern Oregon:
Subdivisions and Riverside Gravel Pits
In Jackson, Josephine and Klamath Counties – claims for
Measure 37 development include proposals for enormous
subdivisions on farmland, in forests and in areas with severe
water problems.
Here are just some proposed Measure 37 developments in
southern Oregon. For more information, call your County
Planning Department.
Location: Old Stage Road, Gold Hill
# of acres: 346
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision 340 into one-acre lots
[Contains mapped wetland]
Location: Pompadour Dr, Ashland, Jackson County
# of acres: 958
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into 958 one-acre lots for residential
development
Claimant: Krouse Ranch, Inc.
Location: Along Applegate River, North Applegate Rd,
Grants Pass
# of acres: 195
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Aggregate excavation and removal
Claimant: Hill
Location: Along Applegate River, Hwy 238, Jackson County
# of acres: 102
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Aggregate excavation and removal
From Jackson County staff reports: “The property is within a
mapped sensitive wildlife habitat area, a wildfire hazard area,
affected by the Applegate River 100-year floodplain, and
activities will be visible from a designated outstanding scenic
roadway” -- conditional use permit filed through Copeland
Sand and Gravel, Inc.
Location: Pinecrest Drive, Josephine County
# of acres: 183
Current zoning: forest use, rural residential
Intent: Subdivision into 1-acre parcels; commercial uses
Location: Lower Klamath Lake Road, Klamath Falls,
Klamath County
# of acres: 4,100
Current zoning: exclusive farm use, farm-forest mixed use
Intent: Subdivision into 17,859 parcels.
Location: Gerber Road, Bonanza, Klamath County
# of acres: 6,611.28
Current zoning: exclusive farm use, farm-forest mixed use,
forest use
Intent: Subdivision into 1-acre lots.
Location: Paygr Road, Merrill, Klamath County
# of acres: 837
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 800 one-acre lot subdivision.
These three proposed Measure 37 subdivisions alone in
Klamath County would total 25,270 new homesites.
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Liz Kaufman, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes on Measure 49
Save Our Beautiful Applegate River Valley from Mining
We are residents of the scenic Applegate Valley in Southern
Oregon. Recently, we joined together to form SAVE (Save
Applegate Valley Environment) to fight three proposed
aggregate/gravel mines along and in the middle of the
Applegate River.
The owners of the properties had tried to develop these mines
before, but Oregon laws protected the river from these
dangerous proposals. Now the owners have filed Measure 37
claims for special rights to get these land use laws waived.
That’s why we desperately need Measure 49.
These industrial aggregate (gravel) mines will have a
devastating impact on our valley and community. Their
application states there will be 12 inbound and 12 outbound
trucks every hour. That’s 220 truck trips per day for up to
10 years from just one mine!
220 truck trips per day for 10 years on our narrow,
winding North Applegate Road.
There are many more problems:
Emergency vehicle access and response times – what will
happen when emergency vehicles encounter huge haul trucks
on our narrow winding road?
Our kids and school bus routes – what about the safety of
school buses and our kids’ who walk and bike along the
roadway.
Property values – our property values will be in jeopardy if
these mines operate. Who will be next?
Healthy River Systems – The Applegate is designated
Essential Salmon Habitat for the Endangered Coho
Salmon
Problems like these are why we have rules to protect
communities and families – rules that Measure 37 eliminates
in every part of Oregon.
Oregon voters never intended Measure 37 to destroy natural
areas like the Applegate Valley with mining operations.
That’s why we need Measure 49 to clarify and fix Measure 37.
Measure 49 provides fairness to small property owners and
prevents commercial and industrial development such as
aggregate mining.
Please help us save our beautiful Applegate Valley.
Vote Yes on Measure 49!
(This information furnished by Sean Jeans-Gail, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
THE WILLAMETTE VALLEY: LAND OF FARMS
OR SUBDIVISIONS?
Measure 37 was sold as a way for a property owner to build a
few homes on their land for their kids or their retirement – if
they could do so when they bought it.
But Measure 37 has also brought claims for development for
enormous subdivisions destroying high-value farmland.
For example, while Marion County was the top agricultural
county in Oregon in 2006, Measure 37 claims could bring in
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
25 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
more than 251 new subdivisions. Once we lose this farmland,
we never get it back.
Here are just a few of the 2,259 Measure 37 claims filed
across the entire Willamette Valley:
Location: Groundwater limited area, Liberty Road South, Salem
# of acres: 215
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into 80 lots, each with individual
groundwater well
Location: Quinaby Road NE, Salem
# of acres: 156
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Residential subdivision and commercial uses
Location: 3500 Buena Vista Rd S, Salem
# of acres: 136
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: subdivide into 1 acre to 5 acre lots
Claimant: Ankeny Gun Club
Location: Cadle Road, Rickreall
# of acres: 462
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Commercial retail use – shopping mall
Location: Highway 22, Yamhill County
# of acres: 7,647
Intent: Subdivisions
Location: Highway 99W, Newberg
# of acres: 69
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into one-acre or smaller lots for residential
and commercial lots
Location: Niederberger Road, Dundee
# of acres: 15
Current zoning: rural-residential
Intent: 5-acre retail shopping center, residential subdivision
Location: Salmon River Highway, Polk County
# of acres: 219
Current zoning: farm-forest mixed use
Intent: Highway-oriented commercial, light-industrial, and
residential subdivisions
Location: Dallas, Polk County
# of acres: 82
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: gas station, grocery, 1-acre residential dwellings,
church, retirement home
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Jamie Hogue, Yes on 49.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
ANOTHER FAMILY FARMER URGES YOU TO
VOTE YES ON 49
Our family lives near Dayton on a family farm established in
1923. Our family…my husband and I, our two children, and my
husband’s parents farms over 1,000 acres. We grow
Marionberries, filberts, table beets, grass seed, and radish
seed.
We had friends and even family who voted for Measure 37
having been mislead into believing that it simply would
allow elderly landowners to add a home or two to their land.
What they found is that Measure 37 really benefited real estate
developers, not small property owners.
We worry about the loss of valuable farmland if
Measure 37 isn’t fixed. If farmers have to compete with
developers, farmers will lose.
There are Measure 37 claims for 25 new housing subdivisions
within seven miles of our farm. All those new houses are a
threat to our ability to farm.
We’ve got a few neighbors now and have to be very cautious.
We try to be quiet and when we’re out early or late, we try to
stay away from their houses. But it’s just not practical to farm
next to housing subdivisions. Farming is noisy, dirty and
sometimes smells. We get used to it as farmers, but others find
it offensive. If enough people move out to farmland and object,
our right to farm laws will disappear.
Development like this hurts all of us: we’re already too
dependent on imported oil. Are we also going to have to
depend on imported food because we run out of farmland?
It just doesn’t make sense.
Measure 49 is a reasonable compromise that will protect
farmland. We won’t have to worry about massive development
putting farmers out of business.
Measure 49 will preserve our future and provide an opportunity
for our kids to continue on the family farm.
PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON MEASURE 49
Pieper & Tom Sweeney
Nancy & Sam Sweeney
Dayton, Oregon
(This information furnished by Pieper Sweeney.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
The family farmers and ranchers of Oregon Farm Bureau
ask you to vote yes on Measure 49
Oregon’s family farm organization is Farm Bureau
Anyone can use the phrase “family farm.” Many do because it
evokes good feelings, as it should. Oregon’s heritage and future
are both inextricably linked with family agriculture. From
serving as a pillar of the state’s economy, to providing one of
the most diverse varieties of fruits and vegetables and grains
and livestock in the world, to providing beauty and wildlife
habitat and countless environmental benefits, Oregon family
farmers and ranchers remain a vital thread in the fabric of
Oregon.. With membership that includes over 8,000 farm and
ranch families across all 36 Oregon counties and with roots
dating to 1919, Oregon Farm Bureau represents farm families
in Oregon like no other organization does or could.
When Oregon Farm Bureau arrives at a policy position, such
as our strong support for Measure 49, it is because family
farmers and ranchers across the state have come together and
discussed the issue in an open and democratic process and
decided this is what is needed for the overall well-being of
family agriculture.
It is not a coin flip, or a couple people sitting in a room, or
knee-jerk ideological reaction. Oregon Farm Bureau is known
for its open and deliberative decision-making process, and
that’s what gives our lawmakers and you the voter confidence
that when you see our name it means something. It means
farmers from all 36 counties have had input into the resulting
stance.
Family agriculture’s survival rests on a foundation made up of
land, water, and labor available for agriculture and a regulatory
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
26 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
environment that encourages family agriculture. Measure 49
helps us maintain a fair, balanced approach to being caretakers
of the first and foremost of these needs: Our irreplaceable
farmland.
Please join the family farmers and ranchers of Oregon
Farm Bureau in supporting Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Dave Dillon, executive vice president,
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Oregon Farm Bureau Young farmers & Ranchers
Support Measure 49
We are young farmers and ranchers who work Oregon’s
farmland. We grow crops and livestock to produce a
sustainable source of food, fiber and energy.
Many of our parents and grand parents farmed our land and
we hope to see future generations have the opportunity to
continue to work Oregon’s wonderful farmland.
For farming and ranching to be sustainable a land base must be
preserved. Development from Measure 37 claims threatens to
damage Oregon’s farming industry forever by taking thousands
of acres of farmland permanently out of production by paving
them over for subdivisions.
Much of our farmland is in water-limited areas. We work hard to
conserve water to allow enough water for crops, livestock and
wildlife. Large housing subdivisions don’t belong in areas
where there is already not enough water.
Agriculture and housing subdivisions don’t go well together.
Our work can be dirty and noisy. We often work all night during
the harvest season. It just makes sense to keep rural land for
agriculture.
There is a better way: Measure 49 allows a few homes to be
built on land if owners could do so when they bought it.
Measure 49 limits large developments so that housing sub-
divisions aren’t replacing our precious farmland. We support
this balance between private property rights and the need to
protect our farmland.
Help protect farming in Oregon.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Troy Hadley, Chair, Oregon Farm Bureau
Young Farmer & Rancher Committee, Oregon Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
RECOMMENDS YES ON 49
The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization
working in Oregon and around the world to protect ecologically
important lands and waters for nature and people. We’re
working to pass Measure 49 because the health and vitality of
communities and natural areas in Oregon is at stake.
BALANCED AND RESPONSIBLE
Oregon families love our state’s natural beauty. It’s essential to
our quality of life. Measure 49 will preserve what’s special
about Oregon.
Measure 49 restores a balance to Oregon. It enables private
landowners to use their property for their families. It also
prevents huge housing projects, malls and other big
developments where they don’t belong.
HEALTHY FISH AND WILDLIFE
Oregonians know that healthy habitats are essential for wild
animals and plants to thrive.
Measure 49 restores our ability to protect our streams, lakes,
woods, grasslands and beaches – and to ensure the
investments we make in critical habitats will produce lasting
benefits for fish and wildlife.
CLEAN AND PLENTIFUL WATER
Throughout Oregon, water for drinking, irrigation and wildlife
is a precious resource. A major flaw in Measure 37 allows new
developments to drill wells and deplete groundwater where
water supplies are already limited.
Measure 49 will prevent such developments from diminishing
clean water sources that are essential for Oregon families,
farmers, fish and wildlife.
OUR NATURAL LEGACY
Forests, farmland and natural areas are disappearing
throughout the world. In Oregon we take pride in protecting
these assets. Will we preserve our natural resources for
future generations, or will we let inappropriate development
encroach on nature? That’s the fundamental question you will
decide November 6.
The Nature Conservancy urges you to vote
YES for Measure 49.
Russell Hoeflich, Oregon Director
Will Neuhauser, Chair, Oregon Board of Trustees
Robert S. Ball, Vice Chair
Robert Gootee, Chair Emeritus
Tom Imeson, former Chair
D. Carter MacNichol, former Chair
Liz Cawood, Executive Committee
Peter McDonald, Executive Committee
E. Randolph Labbe, Executive Committee
(This information furnished by Russell Hoeflich, The Nature
Conservancy.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
The Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates
(AORTA)urges a YES vote on Measure 49.
Measure 49 helps fix problems with Measure 37.
In 2004 voters were told Measure 37 was meant to allow
individual property owners to build a few houses on their land.
Most voters did not realize they were also allowing “timber”
companies and developers to create huge subdivisions and
commercial developments on prime farm and forest lands far
beyond our urban growth boundaries.
Measure 37 requires local governments to either pay for
claimed loss of value or waive current land use regulations on
the property. Measure 37 provides no money for strapped
local governments to compensate these massive claims. Cut
services or raise taxes to pay claims? Not likely! Without the
changes proposed in Measure 49, there is nothing to stop these
developments and this will produce the kind of sprawl that
Oregonians have consistently opposed.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
27 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Washington County alone has 902 claims totaling over
$750 million. 700+ claims involve 55,206 acres, most for urban
density subdivisions well outside the Urban Growth Boundary!
For scattered, massive subdivisions, far from existing develop-
ment, the only practical way to travel is by car. Sprawl increases
the costs of nearly all services: police, fire, roads, water, sewers,
social services, transit, etc. Because development fees will
never cover all these costs, this increases your taxes.Sprawl
forces more people to drive longer distances, creating more
traffic.
AORTA is a citizen organization founded in 1976 to encourage
balanced, environmentally sound, fiscally responsible,
safe transportation. We recognize that our economy and
environment suffer from a poorly functioning transportation
system. How we manage our growth and land use can
positively or negatively affect the travel options we can afford
our citizens. Information at: www.aortarail.org.
Fix Measure 37: Fairness without costly sprawl.
YES on Measure 49
(This information furnished by Robert Krebs, president, Association of
Oregon Rail & Transit Advocates (AORTA).)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Measure 49 will protect farmland and forests across Oregon.
BUT IT’S IMPORTANT FOR PORTLAND TOO!
If you live in Portland, you should care about Measure 49. Why?
Because the abuses of Measure 37 aren’t just a threat to rural
Oregon: they threaten what makes Portland a great place to
live.
In Portland and Multnomah County, there are currently 187
claims covering 4,024 acres, including:
•A Wal-Mart in Sellwood
The claim is for commercial development, and the owner
has said he wants to put in a Wal-Mart- over neighborhood
objections.
• Subdivisions on Sauvie Island
Multiple developments would destroy productive
farmland for housing subdivisions and a boat moorage on
one of our true local treasures.
• Housing Subdivisions on Environmentally Protect
Land
Measure 37 exempts property owners who develop their
land from dozens of laws that protect our neighborhoods,
including noise reduction and limits on stormwater
pollution. Many Measure 37 claims are in Portland’s most
environmentally sensitive areas- like along Johnson Creek
in SE Portland.
• Billboards, Billboards, Billboards!
There are over 54 Measure 37 claims that would put bill-
boards in every conceivable spot in Portland. “Measure 37
has opened the door to the uglification of Oregon. Voters
can help to close that door by voting for Measure 49.”
The Oregonian,8/16/07
And do you like your local Farmers Market?
Then you definitely want to vote Yes on 49!
One of the greatest threats of Measure 37 is overdevelopment
of otherwise protected farmland near urban areas – the very
places that provide the local produce and agricultural products
that are sold at our local Farmers Markets.
WE MUST ACT NOW: The abusive Measure 37 development
around Portland will change forever our ability to drive a
few minutes and experience the wilderness, quiet rivers and
landscapes that define our special quality of life.
If Measure 49 doesn’t pass this November, this
development cannot be stopped.
Keep Portland a Great Place to Live.
VOTE YES ON 49
(This information furnished by Benjamin Unger.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Support Locally-Owned Businesses
Please vote “YES” on Measure 49
Dear Fellow Oregonian,
We own a small business in the Sellwood neighborhood of
Portland, near Milwaukie. Our business is just one of dozens in
the area that benefit from local patrons and, in turn, support the
community. If big-box retailers came to Sellwood, they would
put independently-owned businesses like ours out of business.
Not too long ago, a property owner in the area tried to develop
a Wal-Mart in Sellwood/Milwaukie—he even announced a
99-year lease with the company. Fortunately, local residents
worked to turn back the development because it didn’t meet
local zoning standards.
Now the property owner has filed a Measure 37 claim for a
Wal-Mart big-box store so that he doesn’t have to play by the
zoning rules.
Abusing Measure 37 to break zoning rules, subsidize the
world’s largest corporation and put local stores out of
business simply isn’t right.Is this the kind of impact we
want to allow on our communities?
Measure 37 was promoted as a way to help an elderly widow
build a couple houses for her kids. What Measure 37 has
unleashed is a slew of claims for billboards all over Portland,
more strip malls and big-box stores, and housing subdivisions
on the best farmland in the Willamette Valley.
Measure 49 will fix the flaws and loopholes of
Measure 37 to prevent claims for strip malls and large
subdivisions where they don’t belong.
We need to pass Measure 49 this November, before it’s too late
and developers go forward with big-box stores, like Wal-Mart,
where they simply don’t belong.
Please protect neighborhoods and independent
businesses—vote “YES” on 49.
CJ Hackett, co-owner Christopher Nakayama, co-owner
Video Lair, Portland, Oregon
(This information furnished by Christopher Nakayama, Video Lair.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
28 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Clackamas County:
The most number of Measure 37 claims.
And the most claims that don’t even tell us what kind of
development we would be getting.
Clackamas County has the highest total number of Measure 37
claims for development filed – about 1,052 total on about
37,000 acres
According to Clackamas County, if fully developed and
incorporated:
•This land area is equivalent to the size of the second
largest city in the metro region.
•Assuming just one household per acre, Clackamas County
would grow by more than 25%.
•This would add almost 400,000 vehicle trips per day.
55% of the claims are on Exclusive Farm Use land, which would
eliminate 20,000 acres from agriculture production.
Clackamas County has the highest number of claims with
‘unspecified’ development intent. These seek to waive all or
many zoning and environmental restrictions, allowing the
property to be used for any industrial or commercial purpose,
even mines, landfills, or retail stores, if held long enough by the
current property owner.
Examples of claims for development requested in Clackamas
County include:
Location: South Herman Road, Molalla
187 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Strip mine.
Location: South Steiner Road/Beaver Creek, Clackamas County
281 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision
Location: South Elisha Road, Canby
286 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into approximately one-acre lots
Location: Colton, Clackamas County
20 acres
Current zoning: forest use
Intent: Residential subdivision, RV park, rock quarry, logging
Location: Northeast of Molalla, Clackamas County
931 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use, forest use, farm-forest use
Intent: 305-lot subdivision
Location: South Springwater Road, Oregon City
146 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 185+ lot (or maximum density) subdivision
Claimant: Emmert
Information provided according to most recent data available
from public agencies.
We can still limit large development –
protect farmland, forests and water.
Vote yes on 49. Before it’s too late.
(This information furnished by Elizabeth Kaufman.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM
CONGRESSMAN EARL BLUMENAUER
CONGRESSMAN PETER A. DEFAZIO
CONGRESSWOMAN DARLENE HOOLEY
CONGRESSMAN DAVID WU
Dear Fellow Oregonian,
We are asking you to join us in voting YES on Measure 49.
Serving in the United States Congress offers an interesting
perspective on our home, Oregon. We get to see our state both
through our eyes as proud Oregonians, and through the eyes
of our colleagues from other parts of the country. Through both
sets of eyes, we treasure enormously what makes Oregon
unique.
It is all too easy to take our special quality of life for granted.
But we are constantly reminded of it as people from other
states look at our farms, our forests and our clean water and
see what they have lost. In Oregon, we have protected our
natural heritage, and can hope to pass it on to our children and
grandchildren.
Measure 49 is essential to protecting that legacy – and
we must act now.It will prevent the rampant development
that has been unleashed by Measure 37, which threatens the
things that make Oregon the place we treasure – and which
goes forward if we don’t stop it this November.
But it is important to note that while Measure 49 fixes the flaws
of Measure 37, it does not repeal it. As elected officials, we also
work hard to hear the voices of our fellow citizens. Voters said
quite clearly that they wanted to help the individual property
owners that the original Measure 37 campaign talked about –
folks who wanted to build a few houses on their land if the law
would have permitted it when they bought it.
Measure 49 not only protects property owners’ rights
to do that, it strengthens them at the same time that it
protects our farmland, forests and water. It brings
balance back to the system, and does the right thing for
Oregon’s future.
Please join us in voting YES on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Earl Blumenauer, Member of Congress.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Marion County Farm Bureau urges you to vote YES on
Measure 49. Marion County Farm Bureau is dedicated to
promoting and protecting our diverse agricultural interests in
our county and state.
At $585,255,000 Marion County has the highest annual
agricultural commodity sales of any county in Oregon.
Under Measure 37 much of Oregon’s prime farmland is
threatened with over development. Measure 49 will allow us
to protect prime farmland from sprawl development that
threatens our state’s quality of life.
Moreover, Measure 49 balances the needs of families who wish
to build a reasonable number of homes in a way that minimizes
conflicts. Measure 49 focuses on the needs of Oregon families
while protecting our best farmland.
Measure 49 helps sustain our best farmland, which is necessary
to provide safe, fresh and local food for today and the future.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
29 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Marion County Farm Bureau urges you to vote YES on
Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Larry Wells, Marion County Farm
Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
SAVE OUR WATER – YOURS COULD BE NEXT
VOTE “YES” ON MEASURE 49
Measure 37 threatens local water supplies.
Property owners in our area already have water problems.
Wells often must be deepened or replaced. Marion County has
designated much of the area as a “Sensitive Groundwater
Overlay” zone. Water-restricted areas are not suitable for large
developments.
But that’s exactly what Measure 37 is opening the door to.
In our community, a subdivision for forty-two home sites has
been proposed and is moving forward on groundwater limited
farmland in the south Salem hills.
Because we are groundwater-limited, the Measure 37 claimant
(Leroy Laack) was required to prepare a Hydro Review of
groundwater adequacy – to prove that the subdivision’s
42 wells wouldn’t harm existing wells.
And even though the Hydro Review was failed by an
independent water expert hired by Marion County, the
subdivision development is allowed to go forward.
This is why we need Measure 49. Measure 49 only
allows up to three home sites in areas with limited
groundwater.
Even then, neighboring wells might be harmed. But three is
a lot better than the 42 wells the Measure 37 claimant wants to
drill. And if we don’t act now, by passing Measure 49 this
November – it will be too late – the subdivision will be
developed.
We represent more than thirty homeowners who support the
Keep Our Water Safe Committee. They’ve contributed much
time and effort to fight this serious threat to our groundwater.
Many of our neighbors voted for Measure 37. Now they
regret that decision and strongly support Measure 49.
They’ve seen how Measure 37 takes away the rights of existing
property owners.
(This information furnished by Brian Hines, Keep Our Water Safe
Committee.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
DO YOU EVER DRIVE TO THE OREGON COAST?
One of the great pleasures in Oregon is driving to the Coast,
through the rolling fields, the coast range and the natural
wonder that is Oregon.
It’s not just the destination – it’s the journey.
But unless we fix Measure 37 now,that journey will be
changed forever, with peaceful hills and fields replaced
by massive housing subdivisions and strip malls developed
through Measure 37 claims. See for yourself at
www.yeson49.com/maps.
Here’s a small sampling of the hundreds of Measure 37
development projects from timber companies, developers
and others …along the road to the Coast.
…ALONG HIGHWAY 26
West of Highway 26, Manning
331 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Subdivision into five-acre lots
Highway 26, Buxton
1,163 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Subdivision into five-acre lots
South of Highway 26, Banks
89 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: 100-lot subdivision
…ALONG HIGHWAY 18
Highway 18, southwest of McMinnville
349 acres zoned exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision for residential and commercial uses
Northwest of Highway 18, Willamina
117 acres zoned farm-forest use
Intent: Subdivision into 23 five-acre lots
Otis, Lincoln County
182 acres zoned forest use, exclusive farm use, other
Intent: Unspecified development
Southwest Yamhill County
445 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Unspecified development
South of Highway 18, east of Lincoln City
1,175 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Subdivision into 40 to 80 acre residential lots
…ALONG HIGHWAY 20
East of Highway 20, Philomath
417 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Subdivide into 83 residential lots
Eastside of Highway 20, Toledo
61 acres zoned for forest use
Intent: Subdivide into 19 lots
Highway 20, east of Toledo
190 acres zoned for forest use and exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision
Highway 20, east of Toledo
37 acres zoned for exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into 16 lots
Remember, if Measure 49 doesn’t pass now,
there will be nothing to stop this
and other disfiguring development!
(This information furnished by Shannon Mills.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
OUR SOUTH WILLAMETTE VALLEY:
LAND OF FARMS OR SUBDIVISIONS?
There is wonder in every part of Oregon.
But there is no part of Oregon that offers a better example of
the great tradition that makes this state special - The southern
part of the Willamette Valley has it all: incredible diverse
agriculture and forestland. Spectacular wilderness, wild rivers,
and a sportsmen’s paradise.
Every one of these things is under direct threat from the
uncontrolled development that has been unleashed by the
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
30 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
abuses of Measure 37. It’s yet another example of why
Measure 49 is so important.
And we’re just in the nick of time – Unless we pass
Measure 49 this November, it will be too late and this
development, and more, will go forward. We won’t be
able to stop it.
Here are just a few examples:
Location: Creswell, Lane County
546 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 157-lot subdivision
Location: Highway 20, Corvallis
135 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 220-lot subdivision
Location: Dimple Hill, Corvallis
160 acres
Current zoning: forest use
Intent: 74-lot subdivision
Location: North end of Dimple Hill Road, Corvallis
100 acres
Current zoning: forest use
Intent: 50-lot subdivision
Location: Ingram Island Road, Benton County
803 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision
Location: Gap Road, Harrisburg
656 acres
Intent: 250+ lot subdivision
Location: Diamond Hill Drive, Harrisburg
1,102 acres
Intent: 1,102-lot subdivision
Location: Marcola Road, Springfield
900 acres
Current use: farm and ranchland
Intent: 180-lot subdivision
Location: along Willamette River in Eugene
1400 acres
Intent: 300 unit subdivision, commercial use
Location: Lorane Highway, Eugene
315 acres
Intent: 65-lot subdivision
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Ashley Miller.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Measure 49 stops the nightmare for neighbors –
like me and you.
I am not against my neighbors in the rural farming portion of
Lane County using their land to build a few homes.
Which is why I didn’t think Measure 37 was such a big deal
when it passed in 2004. I assumed that it would allow limited
and reasonable alternatives for the state’s property owners.
So imagine my surprise when I found out that a Measure 37
claim would be used to put 157 new homes on 515 acres just
beyond my backyard, with no consideration for water sources,
transportation infrastructure, pollution or the neighbor’s
property rights
I was shocked again when I found out that the owner of the
property got the green light to move ahead, optioned the
property to out-of-town developers and moved away to a new
home in Eastern Oregon.
We never thought this would happen here. People around the
state need to know that, unless we pass Measure 49, our
nightmare could become theirs.
Measure 49 means that developers like this would only be able
to build three homesites unless they prove that zoning actually
devalued their property – in which case they could get up to ten.
Without the modifications that Measure 49 provides,
Measure 37 is an invitation for development where it doesn’t
belong….next time it could happen next to your home.
And for those who say they want a different solution? We don’t
have time. If we don’t fix Measure 37 now – at this November’s
election, this kind of massive development of subdivisions will
go forward all across rural Oregon. We won’t be able to stop it.
Support measured growth—Join me in voting
“YES” on 49!
Kristi Holaas, Creswell
(This information furnished by Kristi Holaas.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Benton and Linn County Farmers and Ranchers
ask you to vote
Yes on Measure 49.
In order to Save Our Farmland please vote yes on
Measure 49.
Measure 49 restores balance to the quality of life and helps
protect our farm family’s way of life.
Your “Yes” vote on Measure 49 would undo the disastrous
consequences of Measure 37, which represents a grave threat
to our farm- and forest-land economy. Measure 49 will limit
waivers to residential use — no commercial or industrial.
A surprising amount of farm and forest land in Benton and
Linn Counties is threatened by measure 37 claims. Land that is
uniquely productive and growing diverse products for our
farm families. The prime forest land in the Coast Range and
The Cascades worth billions to our economy and employment
for thousands.
Measure 49 does not repeal Measure 37. But it does fix
the flaws of 37:delivering on the promises made to small
individual property owners while preventing the most
egregious abuses of huge housing subdivisions, commercial
and industrial development, destruction of prime farmland and
forests, and threats to water supplies that families depend on.
Measure 49; our chance to protect what is special about
Benton and Linn Counties.
Up to three houses will be allowed on high-value farm and
forestland and in groundwater-limited areas. Claimants must
follow existing land-use regulations. Every Measure 37
claimant could build one house, regardless of location. Waivers
would be transferable under Measure 49.
The 2007 Legislature, after numerous public hearings
statewide, worked hard to address the concerns of Oregonians.
Measure 49 is the result of their efforts and deserves a “Yes”
vote from everyone who values the land that supports us all.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
31 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Protecting the rights of Benton and
Linn County farm families.
(This information furnished by Paul Korash, Benton County Farm
Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
My Vote for Measure 37 was a Mistake
In 2004, I voted for Measure 37 because I thought it was a vote
for the little guy. But now I know that I made a terrible mistake.
I voted for Measure 37 because I understood it was for families
to provide for immediate family members. I didn’t know it was
going to allow big timber corporations to turn forestland that
doesn’t even have a home on it into large subdivisions.
That’s NOT what I voted for. And now I’m experiencing
it first hand.
My husband and I live on 44 acres of productive farmland in
Linn County. We grow grass seed and hay and raise goats.
We also grow a variety of vegetables that we sell to local
restaurants. Our house has been on this special spot of land
since the 1880’s.
Our land is bordered by one of the thirty-one Measure 37 claims
filed by Timber Services Inc. This large timber company wants
to take 4000 acres of Linn County forest land and turn it into
large housing subdivisions.
Subdivisions are not good neighbors for farms. We’re very
concerned about the impact on our groundwater. Increased
traffic around animals and farm equipment is a public safety
concern. Productive timberland should remain as a natural
resource, not converted to subdivisions just because a timber
company can make more money as a developer.
Measure 37 goes too far. It has opened the door to massive
development on some of our most valuable land.
And if we don’t fix it this November, it will be too late –
development will begin and we won’t be able to stop it.
Measure 49 will fix Measure 37, protecting rights of small
property owners while preserving valuable farm and forestland
for future generations.
Please join us in voting YES on Measure 49!
Jan & Pete Boucot
(This information furnished by Jan Boucot.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Like Oregon Cherries and Pears?
Measure 37’s attack on the Hood River Valley
Measure 37 was sold as a way for a property owner to build a
few homes on their land for their kids or their retirement – if
they could do so when they bought it.
Measure 37 has brought so much more – claims for
development for enormous subdivisions destroying
high-value farmland. Of course, once we lose farmland to
development – we never get it back.
Here are just some of the over 7,500 Measure 37 claims filed –
threatening the viability some of our state’s most productive
farmland – our cherry and pear orchards.
23.5% of all land zoned exclusive farm use in Hood River
County is under a Measure 37 claim.(source: Hood River
County Planning Department “Hood River County Summary of
Measure 37 claims”)
Location: Redwood Road, Hood River
# of acres: 137
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 338-lot subdivision
Location: Webster Road, Hood River
# of acres: 52
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 212-lot subdivision
Location: Eastside Road, Hood River
# of acres: 273
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 360-lot subdivision, other residential and commercial
development, a golf course
Location: Billings Road, Parkdale
# of acres: 250
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 648 quarter-acre lot subdivision, four 20-acre lots
Location: Baseline Drive, Parkdale
# of acres: 171
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 286-lot subdivision
Location: Punch Bowl Road, Dee
# of acres: 152
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 347-lot subdivision
Location: Ackerman Road, Odell
# of acres: 30
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 128-lot subdivision
Location: Lacy Drive, Pine Grove
# of acres: 188
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 216 quarter-acre lot subdivision, 30 1-acre lots, 16
5-acre lots
Location: Wells Drive, Van Horn
# of acres: 39
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 126-lot subdivision
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Bryan Shanafelt.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
This voter made a mistake, urges “YES” on 49
I moved to the Hood River Valley three years ago because
of its vibrant agricultural character and natural beauty.
As a New Jersey transplant, I appreciate how Oregon has
intentionally preserved local farming and agriculture.
States like New Jersey cannot compare to Oregon— they lost
most farmland long ago.
But I also recognize that families should have certain land
rights, including transferring property to family members and
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
32 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
the ability to sell a reasonable portion for investment. Thus, I
voted for Measure 37 in 2004.
But now I see how I was mistaken.
Just look at the vast amounts of farmland and forests specified
for subdivisions and other inappropriate development
demanded in the more than 7,500 claims filed under
Measure 37.
Farmland and forests in Oregon are the major target for this
development – nearly 600,000 acres of it.
Timber companies who want to become land speculators, and
other large-scale developers seeking commercial gain—not
the families I thought I was helping—stand to gain from much
of this proposed development.
Measure 49 lets us achieve what people intended —to
help families.
It allows up to three homesites to be built on land if the owners
could do so when they bought it. It enables these types of
claims to proceed immediately to the regular development
process.
Interests of big business and land speculators who
simply want to make a fast buck should not undo what
makes the Hood River Valley, and Oregon, unique and
economically viable.
Let’s not lose the beauty of this region and our way of life to
profiteering.
Join me in voting “YES” on 49. Let’s get it right!
Michelle Rabin, Hood River County
(This information furnished by Michelle Rabin.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
And under the category of
“You’ve got to be kidding me…”
There are thousands of Measure 37 claims that threaten our
farmland, forests, water and neighborhoods. But some are
even more outrageous than others. Just some examples:
Location: Falls City, Polk County, 62 acres
Current zoning: farm-forest mixed use
Intent: Go-cart track, motorcycle track, mud bog, “defensive
driving education”
Location: French Prairie Road NE, St. Paul, Marion County
293 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Operation of a gun-club/rifle range/paintball park,
residential subdivision
Location: SW Vandermost Rd., Beaverton, Washington County
132 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Landfill expansion, transfer station addition
Location: Wilson River Highway, Washington County
Current character of area – residential
Intent: Storage of cargo containers and tractor trailers, outdoor
parking of five or more vehicles
Location: South Nowlens Bridge Road, Molalla, Clackamas
County, 25 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Private Paintball Park, playgrounds, and campgrounds
Location: Directly adjacent to a Girl Scouts camp,
Wallace Creek Rd, Springfield, 158 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into 31 lots
Compensation demanded: $2.45 million
Location: Deschutes and Crook counties
# of acres: N/A
Intent: Installation of electricity transmission towers up to
80 feet tall
Compensation demanded: Crook: $74,906,000.00; Deschutes:
$168 million
ROCK BLASTING
At least 25 M37 claims were filed statewide asking for quarries
or mining operations, including:(source: PSU/IMS database)
Location: NW Bacona Road, Washington County, 305 acres
Current zoning: forest use
Intent: rock quarries/rock pit
Location: Lava Bed Drive, Parkdale, Hood River County
51 acres
current zoning: Forest use
intent: mineral extraction
Location: Jacksonville Reservoir Road, Medford, Jackson
County, 157 acres
current zoning: Forest use
intent: Mine sand, rock, shale, gold from property
Location: North Widow Creek Road, Otis, 113 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Crush, screen, process rock
(Information provided according to most recent public data
available.)
(This information furnished by Terri Steenbergen.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
PROTECT OREGON’S HUNTING HERITAGE
VOTE YES ON 49
In Oregon we are blessed with wildlife habitat that sustains big
game like elk, deer, cougar, black bear, and big horn sheep.
Unfortunately, poorly-planned development allowed by
Measure 37 threatens to destroy and hamper access to
much of the critical winter range that this wildlife needs
to survive.
Measure 37 claims span 750,000 acres across Oregon—on
mostly forest and farmland. Over 4,000 subdivisions could
result from these claims, permanently destroying the habitat
that big game needs to survive.
If we don’t act to fix the flaws of Measure 37, we’ll
lose much of the big game that make Oregon’s outdoors
so unique.Here are just a few of the claims that Measure 37
loopholes have unleashed:
•A highway rest area, public tourism center, and RV camp-
ground with gift shop, convenience store and restaurant
on open space conservation in Southern Oregon;
•Subdivisions and commercial development on open space
conservation land in Jefferson County;
•Commercial development and subdivisions on over
6,000 acres in Jackson County;
• Loss of protected big game habitat to residential
development on over 800 acres in Union County;
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
33 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
•142 condos, town homes, and houses on open space
conservation land in Douglas County.
The Oregon Division of the Izaak Walton League of
America supports Measure 49 because it provides the
responsible conservation necessary to sustain healthy
wildlife populations for future generations.Measure 49
will protect the habitat that sustains our big game and other
wildlife from development into housing tracts, strip malls, and
big box stores, while protecting Oregon families’ rights to build
a few homes on their land.
Please Protect Oregon’s Hunting Heritage by Voting
“YES” on Measure 49
(This information furnished by Dawn A. Olson, Oregon Division, Izaak
Walton League of America.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Union County Farm Bureau asks you to vote yes on
Measure 49
Union County Farm Bureau is made up of over 180 farming and
ranching families. We are part of Oregon Farm Bureau which
has roots back to 1919 and which represents over 8,000 farm
and ranch families across Oregon. We’re an organization that
works to find positive solutions to the challenges facing family
agriculture in Oregon.
Measure 49 is a road map to get us past the current conflict.
Right now there is conflict and confusion, and seemingly
endless court cases over competing interpretations of the law.
This kind of uncertainty undermines communities, families,
and certainly small businesses as we all plan our futures.
Measure 49 brings back some much-needed balance and
certainty. The questions under the current situation are as
endless as the lawsuits. Measure 49 answers those questions
and it resolves other issues that otherwise will likely be battled
out in the courts. Measure 49 will help us move past these
conflicts and get on with our lives and businesses.
Maintaining Oregon’s family farm land is key to the quality of
life of all Oregonians. The ground being worked by farm and
ranch families across our great state is a major economic driver
for our local communities. Family agriculture also fuels jobs in
transportation, at our ports, in processing, marketing, and
retailing in every corner of Oregon both urban and rural.
Family farming provides social benefits and environmental
advantages including wildlife habitat. We’re proud of the many
contributions we make to the quality of life in Oregon. But
ultimately, family agriculture can’t exist without land to farm.
Measure 49 helps move us past the conflicts. Please join
us in voting yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Matt Insko, president, Union County
Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
NORTHEAST OREGON –ANOTHER COLORADO?
Measure 37 was sold as a way for a property owner to build a
few homes on their land for their kids or their retirement – if
they could do so when they bought it.
But Measure 37 has also brought claims for development for
enormous housing subdivisions, strip malls and even big-box
stores - destroying high-value farm and ranchland, as well as
forests, and in areas with severe water problems.
Here are a sample of the hundreds of Measure 37 claims
for massive development across northeastern Oregon.
You can help stop this inappropriate development before it’s
too late – by voting YES on Measure 49.
Location: Meachum, Umatilla County
# of Acres: 14,265
Intent: Subdivision into one-third-acre lots for residential and
commercial development
Location: Milton-Freewater, Umatilla County
# of acres: 18
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Commercial use by “large retailer”
Location: Highway 11, Milton-Freewater, Umatilla County
# of acres: 19
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: “Big-box” retail
Location: North Powder River Lane, Union County
# of acres: 2,482
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 450-lot subdivision
Location: Clear Creek Road, Baker County
# of acres: 16,078
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Unspecified development
Location: Lakeshore Drive, Joseph, Wallowa County
# of acres: 586
Current zoning: Rural Residential
Development Intent: Higher density residential development
Location: Wallowa Lake Highway, Joseph, Wallowa County
# of acres: 1,600
Intent: Subdivision
Claimant: RY Timber Company
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Christine Lewis.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Protect Eastern Oregon – Vote Yes on 49
My name is Gary Rhinhart and I live in Pendleton Oregon.
I am a fourth generation dryland wheat farmer on lands
homesteaded in 1860 by my family.
In my service to the Umatilla Basin Watershed Council and
Umatilla County Planning Commission, I have listened
carefully to many citizens. Many are concerned that Measure 37
was not intended to provide for large developments. I believe
the true intension was to permit long time landowners to
construct a single-family home on their property.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
34 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
There are multiple claims for large development filed on
exclusive farm use lands that adjoin my farm. Many others are
in the same situation.
We must consider the impact to all property owners and their
right to preserve an existing way of life.
The consequences of Measure 37 raise numerous concerns for
the citizens of Oregon. I understand that the people want the
right to do as they wish with their own property. It is just not
that simple.
Development belongs inside urban growth areas –
which will continue to happen if we fix Measure 37 by
passing Measure 49.Large-scale development outside urban
areas requires infrastructure expansion – like roads, fire and
police protection, and schools – that will create tremendous
cost burdens for our cities and counties.
In addition, there are environmental impact and safety threats
from development to already fragile systems:
•Large-scale developments may be proximate to salmon
and steelhead bearing water quality limited streams.
•Adequate groundwater is not always available to support
additional wells.
And, underdeveloped rural roads are intended for limited
use and are not suitable for increased demand without
compromising public safety standards.
Thirty years ago, Oregon was a courageous leader. We
promised to protect it precious land resources for future
generations. It is our responsibility to ensure that the
legacy continues.
I urge you to join me in voting YES on Measure 49 and
restore balance and fairness.
(This information furnished by Gary W. Rhinhart.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
WHAT ARE TIMBER COMPANIES UP TO?
Who really benefits from Measure 37?
8 of the top 14 contributors to the 2004 Measure 37
Campaign were timber companies that then filed M37
claims ((Money in Politics Research Action Project
report, 4/19/2007) to eliminate existing forests and
replace them with:
A sample includes:
Stimson Lumber Company
Location: Lincoln, Tillamook, Clatsop, Columbia, Washington
counties, 50,552 acres zoned forest use
Intent: Residential subdivisions
Powers Ranch Company
Location: Curry and Coos counties
11,629 acres zoned forest use, exclusive farm use, other
Intent: Residential subdivisions
Timber Service Company
Location: Linn County, 7,006 acres
Intent: Residential subdivisions, lodging, recreational
South Coast Lumber Company
Location: Curry County, 2,000 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
RY Timber Company
Location: Joseph and Wallowa counties, 1,600 acres
Intent: 160-lot subdivision
Morgan & Engel Inc.
Location: Douglas County, 1,328 acres
Intent: 173-lot residential subdivision
Davidson Industries
Location: Lane County, 1280 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
Avison Lumber Co.
Location: Clackamas County
1,166 acres zoned forest use, mixed use, exclusive farm use
Intent: 385-lot residential subdivision
Menasha Corporation
Location: Coos and Douglas counties, 942 acres
Intent: Residential subdivisions
Rosboro Lumber Company
Location: Lane County, 894 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
Miami Corp.
Location: Lincoln County, 689 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
L & H Lumber Co.
Location: Douglas County, 404 acres
Intent: 200-lot residential subdivision
Aaron U. Jones (owner of Seneca Jones Timber Co.)
Location: Deschutes Co., 400 acres zoned exclusive farm use
Intent: 121-lot subdivision
Indian Hill, LLC
Location: Josephine County, Jackson County
318 acres zoned forest use
Intent: Unspecified development
Zip O Log Mills
Location: Lane County, 314 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
(This information furnished by Michael Dennis.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
YES ON 49
MEASURE 49: PROPERTY RIGHTS WE CAN ALL SUPPORT
MEASURE 49:
•ALLOWS ANY PERSON WHO QUALIFIED FOR A
MEASURE 37 CLAIM TO DEVELOP UP TO THREE
HOMESITES;
•ALLOWS UP TO TEN HOMESITES IF JUSTIFIED BY THE
PROVEN LOSS IN VALUE CAUSED BY REGULATIONS
WHICH PREVENTED DEVELOPMENT;
•DOES NOT PERMIT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT;
•PROTECTS EXISTING FARMLAND BY ENCOURAGING
CLUSTERING OF HOMESITES.
Measure 49 corrects the problems in Measure 37.
Measure 37 currently:
•Allows people who bought property in the 1970’s to now
build anything they want, anywhere they want, regardless
of current zoning laws;
•Gives no rights to the neighbors who are harmed by the
unexpected development;
•Removes any predictability regarding what kind of land
use can end up right next to you.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
35 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
In Marion County alone, over 473 Measure 37 claims filed could
eat up over 26,000 acres. Many of these claims are for large
housing subdivisions. Some of these claims are for gravel
mines and industrial use.
PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR MEASURE 37 DID NOT EXPECT:
•Their wells to be threatened;
•The entire landscape in which they live or farm to be
changed dramatically;
•To discover they have no say in the matter and be told by
County Commissioners their concerns have no merit;
•Their taxes would be raised to pay for the roads, schools,
etc., needed for these new developments.
Statewide, 7,500 claims have been filed involving 750,000
acres. This includes the demolition of the pear orchards in the
Hood River Valley, billboards on state highways, and
destination resorts next to national scenic monuments.
FRIENDS OF MARION COUNTY urge a “Yes” vote
on M 49.
Friends of Marion County
P.O. Box 3274
Salem, OR 97302
http://www.FriendsOfMarion.org
(This information furnished by Roger Kaye, Friends of Marion County.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Sauvie Island - Yes on Measure 49
Just downriver from Portland, 24,000-acre Sauvie Island is a
unique rural area and community. The northern half is a wildlife
area managed by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife.
The southern half includes thousands of acres of beautiful
prime farmland -- a vital resource -- adjacent to an urban area.
Sauvie Island is famous for its wildlife and year-round outdoor
recreation. Its woodlands, waterways, beaches, and vegetable
markets have so much to offer. It is a favorite place for
birdwatchers and waterfowlers, runners and dog walkers,
bicyclists, boaters and kayakers, photographers and painters,
nature lovers, hikers, runners, boaters and anglers, U-pick
enthusiasts, and, of course, family pumpkin picking outings.
Sauvie Island nourishes body and soul, people and wildlife. It’s
an amazing place, one of Oregon’s treasures -- worth saving
from over-development.
Measure 49 -- Remedy for an Emergency
Measure 37 development claims have already been filed on
more than 750 acres of Sauvie Island – and more will follow if
Measure 37’s mistakes aren’t corrected.
Sauvie Island, as you know and enjoy it, could become a fond
memory as subdivisions take the place of farms and open
spaces, and large houseboat developments change the face of
our waterways.
Measure 37 harms communities and needs to be fixed - now.
Measure 49 offers the smart compromise. Farmlands may have
a few additional houses but will not become subdivisions.
A YES vote on Measure 49 will help remedy the enormously
expensive impacts of Measure 37 on Sauvie Island and
throughout Oregon.
Protect your property and community from over-development -
VOTE YES on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Gary Kish; Donna Matrazzo, Sauvie Island
Conservancy.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Jefferson County Farm Bureau Supports a Yes on 49
Jefferson County is the home of specialty seed crops.
We raise 80% of the “baby carrot” seed for the US and
40% of the world seed crop. We are also home to 80% of
the mint tea leaf production in the US and 25% of the
world production.
• Farming is an industry and our farm ground is our
store front.
• We have long term farm plans for our crops.
• We don’t turn on a switch everyday and say it is
time to farm.
• They aren’t making anymore farm ground…once a
farm is gone it will never be back.
We can deal with Mother Nature, farm prices and
practices…but we must have farm ground to stay in
business.A critical mass is necessary. In Oregon there are
seven recognized farm areas for high value crops: Willamette
Valley, Gorge, Southern Oregon, Union, Malheur, Klamath
and Jefferson County’s North Unit area in Central Oregon.
These are precious areas that raise different crops and
over time have adapted to what crops they raise and will
continue to adapt as long as there is farm ground.
Do you want sprawling subdivision as the new crop in
the country or do you want to protect the farm ground
and keep agriculture viable for another 150 years?
Oregon was founded on it agriculture and timber so now is the
time for Oregonians to make a choice to keep Oregon viable for
farming, ranching and forestry and reap the benefits of the
vistas and views when driving throughout Oregon as well as
enjoying the seasonal local crops from your own farmers.
The impacts of M37 are real and if M49 isn’t passed to
fix the fatal flaws the 7,500 claims will just be the
start…farmers that didn’t file claims will be able to as
the critical mass disappears to keep farming viable.
(This information furnished by Mickey Killingsworth, Secretary-
Treasure, Jefferson County Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 represents over 23,000 working
people across Oregon. We have members in both state and
local government and the private sector and care deeply about
the nature and fate of Oregon. We represent the city and county
planners across the state and the folks that protect citizens from
ill-planned and short-sighted development.
AFSCME —the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees—supports the middle ground solution
that Measure 49 represents. It continues to protect the property
rights of individual landowners but stops the “get-rich-quick”
schemes of large-scale development with no regard for the
communities they exploit.
Measure 49 is a solution to the problems caused by the
unintended consequence of 2004’s Measure 37. Local
governments are overwhelmed with the daunting problems
caused by Measure 37. There have been over 7,500 claims
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
36 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
under Measure 37 across the state, which affects more than
750,000 acres of Oregon and could cost Oregonians $15 billion
if all those claims are paid out. Measure 37 has become about
timber companies creating condominiums instead of
replanting our natural resources and rock blasting operations
too close to homeowners. These were never mentioned
when we voted for Measure 37. Let’s protect the rights of
individuals—but not give a windfall of profits to timber
companies and land speculators.
Measure 49 protects Oregon’s farmers and farmland. While it
allows farmers to construct homes on their property, it controls
development that would endanger limited water supplies and
the livelihood of those farmers.
Measure 49 does NOT allow big box stores and large housing
subdivisions to exploit a law meant to protect the small
individual landowner.
Measure 49 DOES allow small individual landowners the right
to build three houses on their property if it was allowed at the
time they purchased the property.
Please vote YES on Measure 49 and protect Oregon.
(This information furnished by Joe Baessler, Oregon AFSCME
Council 75.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
YES ON 49!
DON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN BY MEASURE 37 ADVOCATES!
IF MEASURE 49 PASSES, TAXPAYERS AVOID…
•Billions in demands for payment
•Massive tax debt for street and water system improvements
•Huge subdivisions, industrial and commercial development
in inappropriate locations
•Damage to sensitive lands and watersheds
•Destruction of irreplaceable farm and forest land.
SUPPORT OF MEASURE 49…
•Allows for compatible land uses and fast-track approval of
small developments
•Protects water availability
•Protects neighbors of claimants from harmful development
•Honors voter’s intent to give development rights to family
members
•Protects working farms and families
•Protects forest land from destruction
•Prevents the loss of millions of dollars in vital farm and forest
income
•Preserves property values through stable zoning and
regulation
•Provides method for determining loss of land value for
purposes of compensation
•Brings land use fairness back to all Oregonians.
REMEMBER…
IF MEASURE 49 FAILS, MEASURE 37 AUTOMATICALLY WILL
GO INTO EFFECT…
•Creating unfair land classes and special privileges for a few
•Creating huge financial burden on taxpayers
•Requiring payment of billions or permitting the destruction
of our environmental assets
•Allowing return to Wild West days of NO land use protection
•Causing the loss of property values and incomes.
MEASURE 37 HOLDS ALL OREGONIANS HOSTAGE!
Measure 37 forces the public to either pay up or put up with
harmful development.
Measure 49 is the antidote.
We can’t afford to let greed destroy the Oregon we are proud to
call home!
Preserve Oregon - The Land of Eden!
Paid for by CityWatch of Salem, a land-use watchdog
organization since 1994.
P O Box 3602
Salem, Oregon 97302
(This information furnished by Mary L. Kamppi, CityWatch of Salem.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes for Measure 49
Measure 49 will be fair to everyone,
and still protect Oregon’s farm land,
forest lands and natural areas for
future generations.
WE ARE YOUR
LINN & BENTON
COUNTY
NEIGHBORS
Kathy Butler
Mary D. Deems
T. R. Deems
Bodie Dickerson
Dale Dickerson
Janet Doerfler
Al Dorgan, President Local 7150 USW
Glenda Fleming
V. Roger Gaither
Julia May Garland
Sharon Gisler
Loyd Henion
Peter Kenagy, Kenagy Family Farm, Inc.
Gordon L. Kirbey, Jr
Wendy Kirbey
Sharon Konopa, Albany City Councilor
Steve Konopa
Cory Koos
James Lawrence
Linda J. Lawrence
Dick Olsen, Albany City Councilor
Gloria M. Olson
Marilyn Peterson
John Puma
Donald W. Rea
Elizabeth N. Rea
Dan Thackaberry, Farmer
(This information furnished by Sharon Konopa, Linn-Benton Yes on 49,
PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
37 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
NORPAC FOODS SUPPORTS BALLOT MEASURE 49
As a food processor in Oregon, NORPAC has a long tradition
of land stewardship and support of sustainable management
of farm land. We believe in and support a strong statewide
land use planning system. The direction of Ballot Measure 49 is
consistent with these long held principles. Measure 49 is a
better choice for Oregon’s agricultural economy because it will
help restore our commitment to protection of world class
productive farm lands that are important to our future
productivity.
•It will keep more farm land available to grow the most
prolific diversity of high-quality fruits and vegetables
anywhere in the world.
•It will provide more stability for farmers and neighbors
whose future plans were suspended pending
development decisions on nearby lands.
•Passage allows Oregon to focus on new ways to maintain
farm land and to help family farmers meet the challenges
of producing safe and wholesome food of the highest
quality.
•Measure 49 respects Oregonians’ sense of fairness about
the lost use of property while reducing conflicts with rural
farm land.
•It will also limit the most egregious development schemes.
Though it does not fix all the predictable ills of Measure 37,
it is a much better choice for Oregon than living with a
poorly conceived law that breaks our commitment to
being good stewards of our natural resource heritage.
George Smith, President & CEO
NORPAC Foods, Inc.
(This information furnished by George Smith, CEO, NORPAC Foods Inc.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
You Can’t Pave it Over Every Generation.
Vote Yes on Measure 49 and help drag Oregon out of the
morass caused by the misleading promises and failed policy
behind Measure 37.
Since its passage three years ago, Oregon has been besieged
by over $15 billion dollars in demands to develop over 750,000
acres of forest and farmland throughout the state. Out-of-state
developers and large timber companies have subverted the will
of the people and are using Measure 37 to coerce the state into
caving to their unreasonable demands. Under Measure 37, the
state would go bankrupt using your tax dollars to pay these
unreasonable demands. Instead, it has waived the laws that
protect the property values of all Oregonians.
As a wise elder once said “you cannot pave it over every
generation.” Our clean water, forests, and high-yield farmland
are legacy for future generations. These land speculators see
$$$$ where most Oregonians see a legacy that we are known
for nationwide.
Measure 37 was intended to help small landowners build
a house or two on their land and pass these homes on to their
family members. Instead, greed has plagued the system and
the pride of this state: rich agricultural lands, working forests,
and pristine coastline are being exploited. Developers are
seeking to do so on-the-cheap while everyone else suffers.
There is light at the end of the tunnel – Measure 49. Many
people who voted for Measure 37 have seen this light. The
property owners who just wanted to build a home for their
family will get that and the true hardships will be cured. Help
set us on the right course to fix this mess. Help protect your
property rights and the legacy of forests, farmlands, and
groundwater for the future. Vote YES on Measure 49.
Endorsed by Pat Wheeler (Friends of Polk County) and
Mitzi Wheeler (Friends of the Molalla River).
(This information furnished by Jonathan Graca, Hood River Valley
Residents Committee.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Protect the Public Treasury & Ensure Just
Compensation
Using the Constitution, the biggest Measure 37 backers
encouraged voters to provide just compensation to landowners
when government enacts land use regulation. What does it
mean to be justly compensated? And how do we determine a
reduction in value when community-based laws benefit and
burden us all?
Claimants have demanded huge sums of money based on
inconsistent and unfair calculation methods. In turn, the state
has failed to confirm whether these demands accurately reflect
the loss in value and has been providing claimants exactly what
they have demanded!
The voters’ intended to provide for true hardships. Instead,
Oregon faces demands for billions of dollars without proof of
loss. Many Measure 37 claimants have chosen to exploit the
new law by demanding subdivisions, strip malls, gravel pits
and unsustainable development on farm and forest land. These
demands threaten to overtax water supplies, pave valuable
farm land and increase fire risk.
Time and again, the highest courts of this nation have
rejected the notion that land use laws have reduced property
values. As top economists have shown, the public collectively
bears the burdens and enjoys the benefits of a community-
created land use system. In many cases, we actually enjoy an
increase in value. The problem with Measure 37 is that it
allows compensation for a select few at the expense of many
and fails to preserve your right to a livable community. This
harms our constitutional right to ensure that government does
not giveaway all our resources from the public treasury by
waiving laws that protect Oregon as a whole.
Measure 49 provides a uniform and accountable system for
calculating compensation and a relief valve for true hardships
and stops those who seek to abuse Measure 37. Vote yes to
set Oregon back on track towards livability, just compensation
and fairness for all!
Endorsed by Pat Wheeler (Friends of Polk County) and
Mitzi Wheeler (Friends of the Molalla River).
(This information furnished by Jonathan Graca, Hood River Valley
Residents Committee.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
38 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Mayors and city leaders from throughout Oregon, urban and
rural, Democrat and Republican, support Measure 49.
Measure 49 helps protects cities from massive developments
outside of city limits.
Measure 49 fixes “unanticipated consequences” of
Measure 37, allowing individuals to build homes, but limiting
huge developments.
Measure 49 restores balance by helping small property
owners.
Measure 49 is right for Oregon
Create certainty. Protect your city
Vote YES on Measure 49
A list of Mayors who support Measure 49:
Harold L. White, Mayor of Aumsville
Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton
Charles C. Tomlinson, Mayor of Corvallis
Jim Fairchild, Mayor of Dallas
Kitty Piercy, Mayor of Eugene
Richard G. Kidd, Mayor of Forest Grove, Oregon
John McArdle, Mayor of Independence
Dale De Long, Mayor of Island City
James W. Lewis, Mayor of the City of Jacksonville
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor of Lake Oswego
Lori Hollingsworth, Mayor of Lincoln City
James Bernard, Mayor of Milwaukie
Thomas C. Bauman, Mayor of Mt. Angel
Alice Norris, Mayor of Oregon City
Virginia Carnes, Mayor of Pilot Rock
Craig Dirksen, Mayor of Tigard
Brad Boyd, Mayor of Sisters
Charlotte Lehan, Mayor of Wilsonville
(This information furnished by John McArdle, City Leaders of Oregon
PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
The Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Architects
represents individuals from throughout the state who depend
on development and construction. We believe Measure 37 has
been an attack on the orderly development that is important for
the quality of life enjoyed by Oregonians. Measure 49 restores
balance between the rights of individual property owners and
the broader welfare of the community.
MEASURE 49 RESTORES STABILITY OF PROPERTY VALUES
Would you buy a home if you knew that someone could build
anything they wanted next door? Many Oregonians now face
the shadow of uncertainty created by potential uncontrolled
large developments adjacent to their homes and
neighborhoods. Property owners who are now exempt from
any regulations can impact the value of your home and entire
neighborhood. Before Measure 37, land use regulations
provided stability for our property values. Measure 49 will
restore reasonable controls on inappropriate large commercial
and residential development.
MEASURE 49 IS FAIR TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS
Measure 49 grants special rights to longtime property owners
while halting the land rush into Oregon’s farmlands and natural
areas. Most large Measure 37 claims have been from large
timber, mining, and development interests who are interested
in large scale development without environmental regulation.
These large companies are poised to reap huge rewards while
taxpayers foot the bill for roads and infrastructure to support
uncontrolled development.
RESTORE THE VISION THAT HAS MADE OREGON SPECIAL
Oregon architects strive every day to create vibrant urban areas,
liveable communities, and sustainably designed buildings.
We owe much to an earlier generation of leaders from across
the political spectrum who created Oregon’s visionary land use
planning laws. Measure 37 has been a wrecking ball to that
vision. Measure 49 creates fairness to property owners while
preserving Oregon’s system of land use planning that has
become a model for the nation.
PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON MEASURE 49
American Institute of Architects Oregon Chapter
(This information furnished by Tom Pene, AIA, President, American
Institute of Architects Oregon Chapter.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
American Heart Association/
American Stroke Association
Urges You to Vote “YES” on 49
Protect Public Health
How and where Oregon communities grow has an obvious
impact on our future. It also has a significant impact on our
health.
Poorly-planned growth caused by Measure 37 forces
people to drive everywhere—even for simple errands.
Clackamas County alone estimates an increase of at least
400,000 vehicle trips a day from the far-flung development
proposed through Measure 37 claims.
Poorly-planned sprawl development due to Measure 37 means
more driving and less walking and biking, which correlates to
higher rates of obesity and heart disease.The American Heart
Association/American Stroke Association supports well-
planned communities because it knows that residents will be
healthier as a result.
Unchecked development unleashed by the
flaws of Measure 37 undermines zoning laws
that protect our health.
Protecting public health is an important consideration of the
rules that govern how we plan for growth.Reducing the need
for automobile trips means a healthier future for us, our
children and grandchildren.
Measure 49 will help promote active healthy
communities and prevents development that could
hurt public health.
Protect Oregonians’ Health
Vote Yes on Measure 49
(This information furnished by John Valley, American Heart Association/
American Stroke Association.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
39 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Washington County Farmers and Foresters Urge a
YES Vote on Measure 49
As farmers and foresters, we treasure Oregon’s scenic forests,
wildlife habitats and open green spaces. We take pride in the
diversity of crops grown throughout Oregon and we are proud
to provide Oregonians with locally grown agricultural products.
But all that could change if the fatal flaws of Measure 37 are not
fixed. Instead of growing crops and timber, our resource lands
are destined to become massive subdivisions.
Here are the facts we are facing in Washington County:
•902 Measure 37 claims have been filed.
•73,899 acres are covered by these claims (115 square
miles).
•Claims on 56,287 acres are for housing subdivisions (the
equivalent of 5 Beavertons).
•Claims for development cover 70,370 acres of existing
farmland and forests.
•Stimson Lumber Co. has submitted claims for
subdivisions that would be larger than the city of
Forest Grove.
These facts show us that Measure 37 allows much more
large-scale development than we were told as voters in 2004.
This is destructive to commercial agriculture not only in
Washington County, but throughout the state as well. Other
Willamette Valley counties particularly hard hit by Measure 37
are Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, Polk and Yamhill. These six
counties face claims on 167,000 acres (nearly the size of two
Portlands). Across the state, Measure 37 claims will take
hundreds of thousands of acres of farm and forest land
permanently out of production.
Measure 49 is our last chance to protect Oregon’s farms and
forests from the large-scale commercial and residential
development allowed under Measure 37.
Please join us in protecting Oregon’s quality of life and natural
resources by voting YES on Measure 49.
Keith Fishback, farmer
Eric T. Sahnow, farmer
David A. Vanasche, farmer
Marie P. Finegan, farmer
Larry Duyck, farmer
Edmund Duyck, farmer
Terry Peters, farmer
Tad VanderZanden, President, Washington County Farm Bureau
(This information furnished by Tad VanderZanden, President,
Washington County Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Measure 37 and the Oregon Coast:
Ouch!
Here are just a few claims for development that would change
the Coast– forever.
HIGHWAY 101 – NORTH/CENTRAL COAST
Astoria, Clatsop County, 203 acres zoned exclusive farm use
Intent: Single-family/multi-family residential and industrial
development
Gearhart, Clatsop County, 25 acres zoned residential
Intent: Residential development onto beach, in violation of the
Public Beach Law
Hallstrom Road, Tillamook, 137 acres zoned exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision in 100 residential lots
Otis (all of it) Lincoln County
182 acres zoned forest use, exclusive farm use, etc.
Intent: Unspecified development
North Widow Creek Road, Otis, 113 acres
Intent: Rock crushing operation along Widow Creek
less than 1 mile from Salmon River
Bayview Road, Waldport, 862 acres
Intent: Residential subdivision
HIGHWAY 101 - SOUTH COAST
These are among the largest development claims. Numerous
small claims will likely make as large an impact or greater:
building large homes or condos blocking scenic vistas or
disrupting the character of local communities.
Cape Blanco, Port Orford
722 acres zoned beaches and dunes conservation, forestry
grazing, shoreland protection
Intent: 150-lot subdivision, hotel, parking lots, two golf courses,
equestrian park
Hwy 101, Gold Beach, 1,610 acres zoned forestry, grazing etc.
Intent: Residential subdivision, hotels, hospitals, commercial
retail, destination resort
Sixes, Curry County, 3081 acres
Intent: Residential subdivision
Powers, Coos County
8604 acres zoned exclusive farm use, forest use
Intent: Subdivide into 864 lots
Along South Slough of Coos Bay, Cape Arago Highway,
Charleston, 236 acres zoned forest use, farm-forest use
Intent: Residential development, retail, hotel
Coquille, Coos County
1231 acres zoned forest use, exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivide into 10-acre residential lots
Sea Lion Caves, Florence
119 acres zoned park and recreation, natural shorelands
Intent: Residential and commercial development
Florence, including land along Siuslaw River and South Inlet
Slough, 1,040 acres zoned forest use
Intent: Residential subdivision
Claimant: Davidson Industries (timber company)
Stop the paving over of the Oregon Coast
before it’s too late.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Elizabeth Carey.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes on 49 – Protect Oregon
Oregon is facing what will go down as its biggest
challenge in history—that of the random and unplanned
development invited by Measure 37.That’s why I, a fifth
generation Oregonian, and my wife are supporting Measure 49.
Measure 49 doesn’t repeal Measure 37 but we think it is the best
compromise that can be expected. Without the modifications
Measure 49 brings to Measure 37, it is just a matter of time
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
40 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
before wide swaths of Oregon’s forests, farmlands and
watersheds are ruined.
We, along with our neighbors, face a typical scenario for people
living next to Measure 37 claims.
A timber company that owns land adjacent to us is demanding
to convert more than 300 acres of timberland—about a square
half a square mile—into a subdivision. This development,
which we have no reason to doubt will proceed as laid
out in the claim, will help destroy the rural Siltcoos
watershed that also provides drinking water for the
area.
Timber companies decades ago encouraged counties to
implement the forest use zonings that they now are seeking to
have waived via Measure 37.The companies have benefited
from both the ability to cut and sell timber, as well as from a
reduced property tax rate associated with lands zoned for forest
use.
Changing the rules of the game in this way is not what
Measure 37 was supposed to be about. Measure 37 was
advertised simply as a way to help individuals who wanted to
build a few homes on their land—NOT AS A GREEN LIGHT
FOR LARGE BUSINESS INTERESTS TO EXPLOIT OUR LANDS,
OUR OREGON!
I urge you to consider the consequences of Measure 37.
Please join us in voting “YES” on Measure 49.It restores
a land use system that ensures balanced growth.
Rand and Kathryn Dawson, Westlake, Oregon
(This information furnished by Rand Dawson.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Association of Northwest Steelheaders,
Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited, and
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
VOTING “YES” ON 49 WILL SAVE SALMON AND STEELHEAD
Measure 37 threatens to degrade salmon and steelhead
habitat throughout Oregon with poorly-planned
development along our spectacular rivers, streams,
and coastal estuaries.
Most of the 7,500 claims for development on 750,000 acres in
Oregon are on forest and farmlands.
Measure 37 threatens the estuaries and streams that support
salmon and steelhead fishing as part of Oregon’s heritage.
The flaws of Measure 37 have unleashed claims for:
•150 housing units, a 250-room hotel, parking lots, and
two golf courses at the mouth of the wild Sixes River—
threatening one of the greatest natural estuaries
remaining on the Oregon Coast, adjacent to two
state parks;
•Development along the Nehalem River, Nestucca River,
Sand Creek, the Little South Fork of the Kilches River, the
Salmon River watershed, and the Siletz River;
•1,040 acres—including development along the
Siuslaw River or South Inlet Slough—by timber
company Davidson Industries;
•5,500 acres of unspecified development at the
confluence of the Deschutes and Crooked rivers
with Lake Billy Chinook.
•Just two claims for 20,000 housing units in the rural
Klamath Basin—exacerbating demand for water in a
region already dealing with shortages.
Development of streamsides makes fish more vulnerable
toxins, parasites and disease by increasing water temperatures
and reducing water oxygen levels.
Habitat destruction caused by Measure 37 threatens
fish runs that sustain commercial and sport fishing economies
and that are at the heart of what makes Oregon special.
We can’t let our salmon and steelhead fall prey to
large subdivisions, and commercial and industrial
development of our natural resource lands.
Protect our forests and water supplies that
sustain our salmon and steelhead
VOTE “YES” on MEASURE 49
(This information furnished by Phil Donovan, Association of Northwest
Steelheaders.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
1000 Friends of Oregon Supports Measure 49
For over 30 years, 1000 Friends of Oregon has joined with
citizens across the state to enhance the quality of life we all
enjoy as Oregonians. We work to protect family farms and
forests, conserve our natural resources and scenic areas, and
build livable urban and rural communities.
Oregon has seen many changes over the years, but one thing
remains constant: what unites us as Oregonians is far
stronger than what divides us.Ranchers in eastern Oregon
are as concerned about clean and adequate water supplies as
residents of the Oregon coast. Those who live in central Oregon
are just as worried about the effects of sprawl and unmanaged
growth as are Portland-area residents.
That’s why Measure 49 is so crucial to Oregon’s future.
Measure 49 fixes the flaws of Measure 37. Measure 37 has
given large timber companies special rights to turn thousands
of acres of forestland into huge housing subdivisions.
Measure 37 has given developers special rights to dig up
precious farmland for strip malls, gravel pits and billboards.
Increased sprawl, traffic congestion, and loss of valuable
farmland are NOT what voters had in mind when Measure 37
passed. That’s not how Measure 37 was sold to voters.
That’s why we need Measure 49. A YES vote on
Measure 49 will fix the Measure 37 mess.
A YES vote on Measure 49 gives Oregon a responsible,
common sense approach to planning. It balances the interests
of small landowners with those of their neighbors and the local
community. Measure 49 will ensure the fairness Oregonians
want.
As Oregonians, we are proud of our history of responsible
land use planning. A YES vote on Measure 49 continues the
Oregon legacy for our children and grandchildren.
Please join 1000 Friends of Oregon in voting YES on
Measure 49!
(This information furnished by Bob Stacey, 1000 Friends of Oregon.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
41 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Douglas County’s family farmers ask you to vote yes on
Measure 49
Real family farmers say yes on 49
The phrase “family farm” is being used a lot in the debate
over preserving Oregon’s farms, forests, and water. Only one
organization represents the breadth and depth of Oregon’s
family farms, and that’s Farm Bureau. With Oregon roots back
to 1919, Farm Bureau is a true grassroots organization
representing nearly 328 farm families in Douglas County and
over 8,000 farm families statewide.
Measure 49 fixes flaws
Measure 49 takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the
major issues that Measure 37 left unaddressed. These include
transferability, clarifying that a spouse at the time of purchase
of the land in question has rights even if he or she was not
named on the deed, and it allows a reasonable number of
homes to be built. Without Measure 49, simple questions like
these will clog the courts and go unanswered for years to come.
Measure 49 protects our Oregon home
We are a state where the family farm remains the rule.
Measure 49 protects that heritage by allowing reasonable
numbers of homes to be built but not big-box stores or strip
malls. Oregon’s family farmers are able to provide economic
benefits like tens of thousands of jobs, quality of life benefits
such as open space and ready availability of a wide variety
of fresh fruits and vegetables close to town, and environmental
benefits such as wildlife habitat. The key ingredients that
allow farmers to continue providing these benefits include
land, water, labor and reasonable regulatory and marketplace
conditions. The first ingredient is land.
Restore balance by voting yes on Measure 49
Measure 49 answers questions left by flawed initiative petitions
of the past. It answers those questions in a way that balances
the need for land in agriculture with the needs of families who
wish to build homes on their land.
(This information furnished by Rick Epp, president, Douglas County
Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Religious Leaders Support Measure 49
Oregon’s farmlands, forests and natural areas are central to our
state’s livability, prosperity, and uniqueness. Measure 49 is
a much-needed corrective to the flaws of Measure 37,
so that Oregon’s lands may continue to be a blessing to
future generations.As people of faith, we believe that the
land is a gift from God, entrusted to our care and stewardship
for the benefit of the common good.
The principles of many great faith traditions call us to love
our neighbors as ourselves and to care for the Earth. Therefore,
the actions of an individual landowner should not jeopardize
the health and well-being of neighbors and communities.
In Oregon, land use planning has evolved as a system to ensure
fairness while protecting the values that bring us together.
If left unmodified, Measure 37 will cause scattered islands of
incompatible uses in prime farm, forest and natural areas,
making it difficult for many family farmers to stay in business,
as well as threatening water supplies and wildlife habitats.
Measure 49 keeps the intent of Measure 37 by clarifying
and streamlining the process for small-scale residential
development, and closing the loopholes in Measure 37
that allow unchecked large-scale development.Without
Measure 49, widespread development within exclusive farm,
forest, and natural areas will establish the conditions and
precedent for more development, thereby further undermining
our land use planning system.
The quality of life in Oregon has never been more in the
balance. We urge a “YES” vote on Measure 49.
David A. Leslie, Executive Director, Ecumenical Ministries of
Oregon
The Rev. Kent Harrop, President of the Board, Ecumenical
Ministries of Oregon, McMinnville
The Oregon Center for Christian Values
(This information furnished by Jenny Holmes, Ecumenical Ministries of
Oregon.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITIES
VOTE “YES” ON 49
Dear Oregon Voters,
We join in the support of Measure 49 because it is our
responsibility to uphold the mission of the Architecture
Foundation of Oregon. That mission states that we
“advocate the enhancement of our built environment,
the livability of our communities, and preservation of our
rich architectural heritage.”
Support of Measure 49 is one of the clearest and most
expedient ways we can uphold this mission.
Measure 49 will enhance our built environment by
clarifying the right of families to build homes on their
property.
Measure 49 will sustain the livability of our
communities by protecting the forests, farmlands
and rivers that surround our large and small cities,
making Oregon the unique and special place that
we all cherish.
Measure 49 will preserve our rich architectural heritage
by protecting the settings in which many of Oregon’s
architectural treasures exist.
Please vote Yes on Measure 49.
Sincerely,
ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION OF OREGON
Arthur W. Johnson, President Jonah Cohen, AIA
Carol Mayer-Reed, FASLA Omid Nabipoor
G. Jane Jarrett, Executive Director
Board of Directors:
Martha Peck Andrews, FAIA Gaafar Gaafar
Linda Barnes, FAIA Jacklyn L. Hallock
Kathy Shaloo Berg, AIA Patrick C. Harrington
Philip Beyl, AIA Neal Huston, AIA
Tom Braden Kevin Johnson, AIA
Tom Cody Nawzad Othman
Linda Czopek Steve Poland, AIA
Kent Duffy, FAIA Bart Ricketts
Bart Eberwein Kurt Schultz, AIA
Susan Stevens Emmons Richard Spies, AIA
www.lookaroundoregon.com
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
42 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(This information furnished by Arthur W. Johnson and Gloria Jane
Jarrett, Architecture Foundation of Oregon.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Please join Lane County farm and ranch families and
vote yes on Measure 49
At the base of the Willamette Valley, Lane County farms
produce many of Oregon’s most treasured products: hazelnuts,
berries, dairy, grass seed, tree fruit, wine and many more.
What makes these products possible is the same thing that
contributes greatly to Oregon’s quality of life: Minimizing
conflicts over land uses. With clear ground rules and a fair
process, we can avoid creating conflict. That approach is part
of our heritage.
Unfortunately, the unanswered questions created by
Measure 37 are sparking more and more conflicts. More court
challenges. More disputes between neighbors. More
uncertainty. The rules are not at all clear, and there are so many
unanswered questions that many more conflicts are certain
to arise. Without a fix, these conflicts will plug the courts for
years to come. Without a fix, countless Oregonians won’t have
the certainty they need to make plans for their families, their
homes, and their small businesses.
Luckily, we have Measure 49. Measure 49 addresses these
unanswered questions. It clarifies the ground rules and the
qualifications. Also important, it allows a reasonable number
of homes to be built in agricultural areas without destroying the
land base that farm and ranch families depend on.We could
wait years for the courts to sort through all these disputes, but
we don’t have to wait. Measure 49 puts the power to fix these
problems in your hands. You have the power to vote yes and fix
what’s wrong.
Over 400 farm and ranch families make up Lane County Farm
Bureau. Our purpose is to ensure that family agriculture
continues to be a vital part of Oregon life. That vitality depends
on the availability of farm ground, and minimizing conflict in
and around farm zones. Measure 49 helps us accomplish all of
these.
Please join us in voting yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Donna Corwin, president, Lane County
Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Oregon’s Conservation and Environmental Community
Urge a “YES” Vote on 49
Oregonians share a steadfast commitment to the responsible
stewardship of Oregon’s natural legacy. After all, we only
have one Oregon, one home, to defend.
To defend our home,please join us in voting “YES” on 49.
Measure 49 protects Oregon’s farms, forests, and water
supplies, as well as the rights of families to build a few homes
on their own property.
It fixes flaws in Measure 37 that allow large housing
subdivisions, big-box stores and strip malls where they don’t
belong.
For example, a Measure 37 claim has been filed at the mouth
of the wild Sixes River—perhaps the greatest natural estuary
remaining on the Oregon Coast. The claim threatens wild
salmon and steelhead habitat with 150 housing units, a
250-room hotel, golf courses, and parking lots on land in a
beach and dune conservation area.
Other examples include the claim to place a pumice mine
inside the Newberry National Monument, as well as claims for
massive development on Steens Mountain, Mt. Hood, along
many rivers and streams and up and down the Oregon Coast.
Go to www.yeson49.com and see the literally hundreds of
examples like these, across the state, in which Measure 37 is
being abused by speculative developers and timber
companies in ways that will permanently rob our
children of their natural legacy.
While most areas of our country have lost farmland, forests and
natural areas to development, Oregon has preserved the places
that make our state special. Measure 49 is a critical chance to
restore balance to Oregon and our last chance to save many of
these areas for future generations.
Yes on Measure 49. Protect Our Home – Oregon.
Audubon Society of Portland
Environment Oregon
Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society
Oregon Conservation Network
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon Sierra Club
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition
WaterWatch of Oregon
(This information furnished by Sybil Ackerman, Oregon Conservation
Network.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Central Oregon: How would you like to grow?
That’s the question on this November’s ballot.
Measure 37 has generated claims for large subdivisions and
commercial development across swaths of Central Oregon
where they are currently not allowed.
Measure 49 amends Measure 37 by limiting this large
development: It allows landowners who want to add a few
homesites to do so, if they could when they bought their land.
And in an area with water shortages, it’s just common sense
to grow more gradually.
Measure 49 also prohibits using a Measure 37 claim to site an
industrial or retail commercial development.
Subdivisions and strip malls? Or farmland, forest and deserts?
You decide
Here are just a few of the claims for development
Measure 37 would bring to Central Oregon:
Location: Knott Road, Bend, Deschutes County, 223 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Resort with horse ranches, golf course, 60 to 80-lot
residential subdivision
Location: West Evergreen Avenue, Redmond, 815 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Destination resort, including residential units, lodging,
commercial development, sewage treatment facilities.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
43 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Location: French Road, Prineville, 1,741 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 2,640 half-acre lot subdivision
Location: Newsome Creek Road, Post, Deschutes County
15,464 acres
Intent: 3,092-lot subdivision
Location: 1200 Bull Boulevard, Prineville, 4,404 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivide into 1,003 residential lots
Location: Ashwood, Jefferson County, 6,240 acres
Intent: Destination resort, including residential subdivision and
commercial development.
Location: Lake Billy Chinook, Jefferson County, 5,512 acres
Intent: Unspecified development
Location: Belmont Lane, Madras, Jefferson County, 752 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: 244-lot subdivision
Location: Maupin, Wasco County, 1,051 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Surface mining, “dude ranches,” hunting and fishing
lodges, conference areas, residential subdivision, etc.
Location: Dufur Valley Road, The Dalles, Wasco County
4,074 acres
Current zoning: exclusive farm use
Intent: Subdivision into 200 20-acre “ranchettes”
(Information provided according to most recent data available
as of Aug 20, 2007.)
(This information furnished by Lynn Greenwood.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Help Protect Our River.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
As retirees, my husband and I live in Oregon’s beautiful Illinois
River Valley where we enjoy the quiet and rural character of the
area. We live along the Illinois River, and we cherish its clean
waters and friendly community. Here, people can still swim,
and salmon and steelhead still spawn.
We live here because unlike many parts of the country,
Oregon has preserved its forests, farmland and land
along rivers and water. That’s important to us and to
future generations. We never imagined that Oregon
would lose this. But now a proposed development
through Measure 37 on the Illinois River will forever
undo this special place.
And if we don’t fix it now – this November – it will be
too late.
A local resident is proposing to build a commercial enterprise
with a store, parking lot, and arena on his property by the river.
The state has approved the claim because of Measure 37.
This project threatens to generate fecal pollution and fertilizer
directly into the Illinois River, threatening the recreational
opportunities families enjoy and the wildlife habitat native fish
need to survive.
And public drinking water may be threatened as well; our city’s
public water intake is directly downstream from this proposed
development.
Our story is not unusual. Many Oregonians like us support the
rights of families to build a home or two on their land – and that
is protected with Measure 49. But we oppose the excesses and
abuses of Measure 37 that allow commercial business uses
where they don’t belong.
Help keep our rivers and drinking water clean! Please
support Measure 49.
Thank you,
D. Hover-Kramer
(This information furnished by Dorothea Hover-Kramer.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Developers make the profits –
and taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Measure 49 will keep large developers from
shifting their costs to taxpayers.
We all value public services in our communities – from reliable
police and fire protection to safe roads, sanitation and water
supplies.
And we all pay for those services through local property taxes
and user fees. We are willing to pay our fair share. But we
expect others to pay their fair share as well.
Under Measure 37, that’s not going to happen.
Our cities and counties can barely afford to keep our police
and fire departments properly equipped, our bridges and roads
in good repair, and our water and sewer systems up to basic
standards for health and safety.
New subdivisions and sprawling developments will make
things worse.
If we continue to allow large developers to use
Measure 37 like a bulldozer over our rural lands, they’ll
make a quick profit, but we’ll end up footing the bill –
either in higher taxes or fewer services.
•Think of the costs of building safe new roads to far-flung
housing developments on what is now farm and forest
land.
•Think of who pays when our cities and counties have to
add police and fire coverage to reach distant housing
tracts.
•Think of who loses if we have to extend water and sewer
lines to new developments and can’t maintain the systems
we have now.
Balance growth is important: We want to enjoy livable
communities. But we want to make sure that all of us can afford
to pay for the services that our communities require.
Measure 49 will rein in developers who are pushing for
massive subdivisions on hundreds of thousands or acres
of what is now rural land.
Measure 49 will discourage expensive, large
developments that shift costs to us taxpayers.
Measure 49 will keep our communities livable and
affordable – before it’s too late.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Rachel Grant.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
44 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
To produce and publish sound evidence on the question of
whether land-use regulations in general cause economic loss in
land value, the Gray Family Fund at Oregon Community
Foundation funded two independent studies
The first was the June 2007 report by two OSU professors,
Jaeger and Plantinga, How Have Land-use Regulations
Affected Property Values in Oregon concludes: “Our analysis of
Oregon land value data finds no evidence of a generalized
reduction in value caused by Oregon’s land use regulations, a
result that is consistent with economic theory and with
research in the economics field”. Other excerpts are:
“Land values (adjusted for inflation) have generally risen
since the introduction of Oregon’s land use planning system in
1973, both for rural lands zoned for farm use and forest use
and for developable lands both inside and outside the urban
growth boundaries”. --- “The data presented here do not,
therefore, support the belief that Oregon’s land-use system has
systematically reduced the value of restricted properties…
Oregon’s land-use planning system is not intended to limit the
amount of development that occurs, but rather it is intended
to influence the location of development in ways that are
consistent with various land-use planning goals”.
The second study published in June 2007 by the Georgetown
University Environmental Law and Policy Institute,
Washington, D.C. – Property Values and Oregon’s Measure 37 –
reached similar conclusions:
“A comparison of statewide agricultural land values in Oregon
and (California and Idaho) shows that Oregon experienced
comparable, and generally somewhat higher, rate of
appreciation as its neighbors, again despite Oregon’s stricter
regulation of rural development”.
These research studies have convinced me to urge a Yes vote
for M-49 to help preserve our state’s nature and health. Please
vote Yes and thank you.
John D. Gray
Retired Chairman, Omark Industries; Developer of
Salishan, Sunriver, Skamania Lodge and Johns Landing
(This information furnished by John D. Gray.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
The Gray Family Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation
funded work by the Institute of Metropolitan Studies,
Portland State University, to compile, analyze and publish
information about the number, type, and county of
7,462 Measure 37 claims filed between December 2004 and
March 12, 2007. This information may be reviewed at
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/m37/index.php.
All claims show the number of acres affected and the county.
The vast majority of claims also show how the land is zoned,
and the kind of land division the claimant demands. Estimates
of what all the 7,462 claims will do, based on the proportion of
claims which do specify zoning and division type, shows the
following:
3,153 claims (42%) seek 1-3 home sites.
4,309 claims (58%) seek subdivisions on farm and forest land
averaging between 128-154 acres.
61% of the farmland subdivision claims are in Willamette
Valley, mostly on “high value” land.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
45 | State Measures
continued
Measure 49 fixes Measure 37 in at least two ways. First, M-49
helps the “little guy” by approving 1-3 lot claims without proof
of loss, and by giving transferability which M-37 did not.
Second, M-49 limits subdivisions on high value land and in
groundwater restricted areas to 3 lots. On other lands M-49
limits subdivisions to 4-10 lots, based on proof of loss which
must be shown by an appraisal.
These and other facts have convinced me to support M-49. If
you want to modify M-37 to help the little guy and to limit big
subdivisions on Oregon’s best farm and timber land. I urge you
to vote Yes on M-49.
John D. Gray
Retired Chairman, Omark Industries
Developer – Salishan, Skamania Lodge,
Sunriver and Johns Landing
(This information furnished by John D. Gray.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
When our forests are gone, we’ll never get them back.
Protect our forests.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
Forests have always been a special part of Oregon’s natural
heritage, and they can continue to be a special part of Oregon’s
future – if we vote Yes on Measure 49.
When properly managed, forests provide habitat for fish
and game, year-round recreation and jobs that sustain local
communities.
But claims filed under Measure 37 threaten to turn tens of
thousands of prime forest land into housing subdivisions and
commercial projects, each of which will require roads, water
lines and utilities that will magnify their impacts on the land.
Once our forests are gone, we will never get them back.
We have seen that happen in other parts of the country.
We don’t want to see it happen here.
Measure 49 will protect private forest lands for both
recreation and forestry.
Forest land owners are given new protections under
Measure 49 to protect their investments far into the future.
When we are fair to forest owners, we provide greater
incentives to manage our forests for sustainable yields and
maximum benefits for all Oregonians.
That’s the reason we provide special designations for forest
land.
Measure 49 will keep those designations in place and protect
our forests for generations to come.
Protect our forests. Protect our future.
Vote Yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Carly Jean Birkey.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Favor
Farm families in Clackamas County ask you to vote yes
on Measure 49
Sandwiched between a thriving metropolis on the valley floor
and the forested slopes of the Cascades, Clackamas County
agriculture is a great example of why Oregon needs
Measure 49.
Clackamas County is an integral part of the Portland metro
area and home to about 375,000 Oregonians. Complementing
that urban character is a thriving family farm economy. Farm
families in our county produce nearly $400 million in sales each
year, not including off-farm businesses like transportation,
processing, marketing, restaurants, and retail. Blessed with
some great soils, Clackamas County is the second most
productive agricultural county in Oregon.
Clackamas County is a virtual who’s who of beloved Oregon
products. Strawberries, Christmas trees, blueberries and
blackberries, ornamentals and shade trees, fresh vegetables,
hazelnuts, wine, and many more Oregon farm favorites are
grown here. Clackamas County is also home to tulip-filled
fields, a sea of colors that so beautifully represents Oregon in
calendars, posters, and cards.
How can Clackamas County be such a family farm success
story? The farm answer is that we have the quality land, water,
labor, and know-how to be successful. The public policy answer
is balance. Oregon needs laws that emphasize balance among
different kinds of uses for our irreplaceable land. With balance,
family farming can continue to thrive for decades to come, in
harmony with flourishing urban areas.
Measure 49 brings balance to the heart of our public policy. It
allows a reasonable number of homes to be built in farming
areas while protecting these areas from runaway development.
A lack of balance breeds conflict. Conflict undermines the
quality of life enjoyed by all who call this wonderful place
home. By bringing balance, Measure 49 will reduce conflicts.
We all benefit from that.
Clackamas County Farm Bureau has more than 650 farm
families working together toward positive solutions. We ask
you to join us in voting yes on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Joe Casale, Jr., Clackamas County Farm
Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Favor
Oregon’s Fire Chiefs Urge You
to Vote Yes on Measure 49
It may seem unusual that Oregon Fire Chiefs would weigh in on
an issue like Measure 49. After all, what does firefighting have
to do with who gets to build what buildings, and where?
The answer is: it matters a lot.
Our job is to protect the structures, and the people who live and
work inside them. That job can be made much more difficult if
those structures are not built with fire protection in mind. And
even if those homes and businesses are well-built, they can be
at risk if they are built in the wrong places.
That is what is happening with Measure 37. And Measure 49
will help fix it.
Many Measure 37 claims are for massive housing subdivisions
on remote farm and forestland that are not appropriate from a
fire protection standpoint.
•They are isolated from fire stations and other services.
•They are often in places at risk for wildfires.
•These areas have limited water supplies, and housing
developments could drain them even further. It’s very hard
to put out a fire without enough water.
It would be very difficult, and in some cases perhaps
impossible, to provide adequate fire protection for the
kinds of large development Measure 37’s loopholes are
now allowing.And to the extent that we can, it will be very
expensive – an expense that will be born by local property
taxpayers.
Measure 49 will protect the rights of landowners to build a few
houses on their land, if the law allowed them to when they
bought it. But it will also help us protect you, by preventing the
wrong kind of development in the wrong kinds of places.
Roy Hari
Fire Chief - retired, Marion County Fire District 1
Larry D. Eckhardt
Retired Fire Chief, Sheridan Oregon
(This information furnished by Liz Kaufman, Yes on 49 Campaign.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
46 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
We urge you to read Measure 49 very carefully before voting.
Measure 49 is not what it appears to be.
Measure 49 passed by a single vote in the Oregon Legislature. It
is poorly drafted and will lead to years of litigation and political
infighting in Salem.
The Ballot Title Is Intentionally Misleading:
What you read on your ballot for Measure 49 was not written by
the Attorney General or Secretary of State. It was not reviewed
by the Oregon Supreme Court for neutrality and objectivity.
The legislature used a rare political trick to draft the language
using public opinion polls -- to find the most deceptive
“political” language. Why? Because special interest groups
don’t want you to know what is really in Measure 49.
They Had To Mislead Voters To Hide The True Intent Of
Measure 49
Measure 49 will allow state and local government to take your
home and property without compensation, wiping out laws
that require government to pay fair value for what it takes.
Measure 49 Repeals Your Vote On Measure 37
Section 4 of Measure 49 repeals your vote on Measure 37 and
replaces it with a complex process for property owners, which
experts say will not work, and opens property owners up
lawsuits, fees, and years of frustration. The most offensive part
is that Measure 49 was forced through the Legislature without
a single public hearing!
Implementing Measure 37
Our job this session was to implement your overwhelming
votes supporting Measure 7 and Measure 37 to protect
property owners. The Legislature ignored your votes, invented
a crisis, and sent you Measure 49 – forcing you to vote a third
time!
Measure 37 can be fairly implemented without stealing your
property – but Measure 49 is not the answer. Please join us in
voting No on 49.
Senator Larry George Representative Bill Garrard
(This information furnished by Senator Larry George and
Representative Bill Garrard.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 HURTS FAMILY FARMERS – PLEASE VOTE NO
The Oregon Family Farm Association PAC asks you to vote
NO on Measure 49.
Current Oregon law requires government to pay you fair value
when it reduces the value or takes away your right to use your
property -- a core protection for property owners. Measure 49
guts these basic protections for our property and life-savings.
Measure 49 is a radical change to state law that allows the
government to take your property without any compensation.
We rely on our property for our livelihood, and unlike large
corporate farms, every new regulation makes it harder to stay
in business.
Corporate farmers and their lobbyists got loopholes for
themselves in Measure 49 – but small farmers and ranchers
got left out and now face lawsuits and years of frustration if
Measure 49 passes.
Voters asked the Legislature to implement Measure 37,
instead they manufactured a fake crisis and crafted
Measure 49.
There is no problem in Measure 37 that cannot be addressed
by proper implementation by the Legislature. Oregon voters
passed Measure 37 in 2004, and the Legislature refused to
implement it in both the 2005 and 2007 Legislative Sessions.
The politicians refused to implement Measure 37 in order to
create a false crisis – so they could justify Measure 49’s radical
changes.
Measure 49 will have a detrimental affect on family
farmers:
Today, property owners have protection in state law. If
Measure 49 passes, those protections will be gone. In addition:
- We will have to pay the government’s attorneys and
appraisers to get our property back;
- Those of us who have permits to build a house or two on
our property will have those permits wiped out, and be
forced to start all over;
- We will have to prove that we made $80,000 per year in
order to build a farmhouse to live in on our property.
MEASURE 49 HURTS FAMILY FARMERS – PLEASE VOTE NO
(This information furnished by Matt Cyrus, Oregon Family Farm
Association PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 IS BAD FOR OREGON’S ECONOMY
I am a professional economist. In my career, I have served as an
advisor for central banks, businesses, governments, and devel-
oping countries. It is my job to know how to balance economic
growth with concerns about the natural environment.
Economists know that protection of property rights is central to
the health of the economy and the environment.
Anyone who wants to take your property—whether a private
party or a government—should compensate you at the market
value of the property taken. Otherwise, uses of known value
will be lost to uses of unknown, and untested value.
I have examined Measure 49 in detail. Under Measure 49, if
your home or property is taken by a new government
regulation, you will not receive fair compensation for the lost
opportunities. Thus, there is no guarantee that the public use of
your property has sufficient value to the Oregon economy to
offset the uses that have been lost.
If government takes $50,000 of your property for, say, open
space or views, under Measure 49 you may receive far less than
$50,000, if you receive anything at all. If a private party wanted
to buy your property for open space or views, it would have to
pay fair market value for the land. Government should have to
play by the same rules.
Measure 49 uses an arbitrary scheme to determine how much,
if anything, you will receive in compensation for taken property.
That scheme has almost nothing to do with the impact a new
government action has on the value of your property. It does
not employ accepted, valuation principles.
First year economics students learn that the economies of
many countries around the world suffer because of poorly-
protected rights to private property. Measure 49 contains policy
errors in this regard that a first year economics undergraduate
would not make.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
47 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
We should expect more from our elected leaders. Vote NO
on 49.
(This information furnished by Randall Pozdena, Ph. D, Quantecon
Incorporated.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Sportsmen, Hunters, and Fishermen
Urge A No Vote On Measure 49
Dear Friends:
Measure 49 could cost Oregonians their whole life-savings
when government takes their property without compensation.
Measure 49 is unfair and terrible public policy.
Oregon sportsmen work closely with Oregon property owners
to make sure we protect and promote wildlife and the
protection of the environment – Measure 49 would completely
undermine those collaborative efforts.
Furthermore, Measure 49 would open up our property owner
partners to lawsuits from anybody in the entire United States…
a disastrous (and expensive) provision in Measure 49.
Measure 49 is so poorly drafted that it would tie-up property
owners in court for years.
Please vote against this extreme change in state law – Please
vote no on Measure 49.
Sincerely,
Glenn Cloyd
President, Oregon Sportsmen Assn.
(This information furnished by Glenn Cloyd, President, Oregon
Sportsmen Association.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
We are land use attorneys in Oregon. Combined, we have over
325 years of experience representing Oregonians.
We have each read Measure 49 and we all agree –
Measure 49 is a dangerous proposal that will wipe out
the property rights of those Oregon families who can
least afford it.
In our careers, we have represented government, corporations,
small businesses, environmental groups, farmers, ranchers,
industries, developers, neighborhood groups, rural residents,
urban residents, etc.
Measure 49 was drafted by legislators who know little about
land use law or who have a special interest agenda. The
Measure adds new provisions to Oregon law that fundamen-
tally change the relationship between private citizens and state
government, and weakens the rights of property owners in
ways that are so unique and unfair that they seem
unimaginable.
If Measure 49 passes:
- State and local government will be able to pass new land
use regulations that destroy the value of your home and
property without compensation;
- Property owners who have followed all of the land use
rules and have received government approval to use their
property will have their approval wiped out;
- Property owners in cities will have fewer rights than
property owners in rural areas;
- If your property is taken and you demand compensation,
you will have to pay your attorney, your appraiser, the
government’s attorney, and the government’s appraiser,
even if you win.
As the professionals who will have to make this new law work,
we can only tell you that Measure 49 is not what it appears to
be, will not work, and will do far more harm to Oregon property
owners than good.
Please vote NO on Measure 49.
Mark Bartholomew - Medford
William Cox - Portland
James Dole - Grants Pass
Mark O’Donnell - Portland
John Pinkstaff – Portland
John Rankin - Sherwood
Michael Spencer - Klamath Falls
Robert Swift - Newberg
Meredith VanValkenburgh - The Dalles
Joe Willis – Bend
Jeffrey Wilson - Prineville
(This information furnished by Mark S. Bartholomew; William C. Cox;
James R. Dole; Mark O’Donnell, O’Donnell & Clark LLP; John C. Pinkstaff;
John A. Rankin; Michael L. Spencer; Robert E. Swift; Meredith D.
VanValkenburgh, VanValkenburgh & Associates PC; D. Joe Willis,
Attorney at Law; Jeffrey M. Wilson.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
Asks You To Vote No On Measure 49
Measure 49 is about one simple issue: Should government be
able to take your property without paying for it?
Measure 49 would allow Oregon’s state, regional, and local
governments to take your private property - and take your
property with zero compensation for your loss. And if you
demand your property back, you will have to pay the
government’s lawyers and appraisers to get it back – even if
you win!
We believe that if government wants your property, then they
must pay you for it. If you agree with us, please join us in voting
No on Measure 49.
You will read rather unbelievable statements that
Measure 49 will protect farmland, forestland, and
groundwater – those statements are used to fool you.
Politicians and special interests groups used polling to find
out what words to use to best manipulate Oregon voters.
Measure 49 is not about protecting those resources, it is about
changing the law to allow government to take your property
without compensation.
Nobody relies more on the protection of land and water
than Oregon’s ranchers and cattlemen. We are committed to
conserve these resources and ensure that they last for
generations – many of us are fourth and fifth generation
ranchers.
Measure 49 undermines those efforts – if our property is not
safe from government takings, then we cannot make long-term
plans for future generations and we wipe out generations of
ranchers. Measure 49 is a direct assault on Oregon’s family
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
48 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
farmers and ranchers and traditional agriculture.
Those that support Measure 49 may think that we can be
replaced with mega-corporate farms, but we believe that
small-scale, family-based agriculture is best for our state, our
natural resources, and our environment.
Please reject the misleading campaign and help us protect
Oregon agriculture for future generations. Vote No on
Measure 49.
www.orcattle.com
(This information furnished by Kay Teisl, Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Hood River Agriculture, Forestry, and Landowner’s
Association Asks You to Vote NO on Measure 49
We are all long time agricultural and forest property owners.
Together we represent the vast majority of EFU land in Hood
River County. We own orchards, vineyards, hay fields, and
forest acreage. We raise kids and pears and apples and grapes
and cherries and fir trees and cows. We are all farmers with
“family farms.” The next time you read in the newspaper about
agriculture in the Hood River Valley, they are talking about us.
We are also unanimously opposed to Measure 49.Why?
Because Measure 49 strips us of our most valuable commodity
– the right to control how we operate our farms and use our
land.
Today, foreign competition along with state and federal laws
are slowly combining to put us out of business. In order for us
to compete, we must be able to make changes to the way we
use our land based on economics, not how pretty the view is or
the soil type.
But Oregon’s statewide, centralized land use laws, the only
ones of their kind in the nation, prevent us from making
changes based on economics.
To them, it is all about protecting “farmland.” But no one cares
about protecting the “farmer.”
Measure 49 strips us of our property rights. It is a cruel blow to
an industry that is already struggling to stay alive. If Measure 49
passes, we will be unable to diversify our operations, and to
use our unproductive areas for higher economic uses, which
allow us to keep farming on the productive parts of our farms.
We are proud to be Americans working in the natural resource
industry. It is our hope that our children and grandchildren will
continue our heritage. But Measure 49 and Oregon’s ridiculous
land use laws make that unlikely.
Please vote NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by John M. Benton, Sr., Hood River
Agriculture, Forestry and Landowner’s Association.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Legislators ignored Oregon Voters too long and Measure 37
passed. A hidden agenda begins. First a “head fake” saying its
finally past time to rework our land use laws and SB 82 in the
2005 session authorizes a volunteer task force of 10, “The Big
Look Task Force”. With questionable support by the state, the
hard working task force appears wandering. In the process
Department of Land Use Conservation, (DLCD) Governor’s
Office, Metro, and the Task Force are receiving facts indicating
that the planning function is far more suspect than ever
imagined. Extreme errors were cited in Metro Government
Planning. Metro which governs 40% of Oregon’s Population
had apparently frivolously extended the Urban Growth
Boundaries (UBG) especially along Mt. Hood Highway east of
Gresham also Damascus to be important sources of tens of
thousand of industrial and high technology jobs. (Metro’s Title 4
map of Significant Industrial Lands). Then Oregon’s DLCD
“acknowledges” their plans to officially meet state goals.
ODOT even jumps in and starts spending Federal Funding to
pursue transportation studies for Metro’s exuberance. This sets
the stage for damage control. Promptly at the legislature Metro
gets the legislature to delay its 5 year cycle requirement to
review the urban growth boundary by adding another 2 years.
I say no wonder they are clueless on how to fix their last
mistakes let alone update the UGB. Then curiously the potential
‘whistle blowing’ Big Look Committee gets the axe. The weak
excuse is that Oregon voters are not “sophisticated enough”
to think about more than just M-37 (i.e. Task Force puts our
intelligence on overload). Lastly, damage control makes sure
that the land use committees in the House and Senate avoid
even the routine land use problems normally addressed. Then,
finally, in the late hours with problems swept under the rug,
and under false pretenses of “clarifying”, M-37 gets a ‘hatchet’
job renamed M-49.
Robert Butler, President, Butler Brokers Inc., Commercial
Realtors
(This information furnished by Robert Butler, Butler Brokers Inc.,
Commercial Realtors.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Measure 49 has never had a public hearing.
Measure 49 is so bad, legislatures would only vote for it if it
was referred back to the voters.
Measure 49 is 24 pages of tricks and errors, including:
-If you are inside the UGB, you are guaranteed 0 lots
(Section 9(2) “… may not exceed the lessor of…”)
(Section 9(6) “The reduction in fair market value..”)
(see financial formula!)
-If you are outside the UGB, you are guaranteed 1 lot
(per application, not lots owned!) Section 6(2)(c)
-If your “highest and best use” is not residential, you will
get 0 lots; for residential or otherwise. Section 7(8)
-If you try to use the financial formula, you will fail- it was
designed that way! A CPA firm was hired to run many
examples; highest value was 1 lot, usually 0 lots.
Section 7(6) Out UGB Section 9(6) In UGB
-You can’t use the financial formula if you are in “high
value” farm or forest (90% of buildable Clackamas,
Washington, Yamhill, etc) - OR if you are:
Section 2(c)(A) “….water irrigation”
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
49 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Section 2(c)(D) “…five acres planted in wine grapes”
Section 2(e) “Land that is exclusive farm use zone and is at
an elevation between 200 and 1000 feet above mean
sea level, with an aspect between 67.5 and 292.5 degrees
and a slope between zero and 15 percent, and located
within….”) (5 million acres of viticulture areas!)
-Appraisal is required for financial formula. Few firms are
willing, data is scarce, and you will be sued! Section 9(7)
-This Measure beefs up lawsuits against you; eliminates your
right to collect legal costs- even if you win!
-see our website for other examples of disqualification!
www.fix49.com
Darrin Black
Matthew L. Green-Hite, CPA
(This information furnished by Matthew Green-Hite, Fix Measure 49.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
FAMILY OWNED TIMBER COMPANY
OPPOSES MEASURE 49
Stimson Lumber is a family owned, Oregon based company,
committed to protecting Oregon and the beauty of our state.
Our company has roots dating back to the 1850’s. We are one of
the oldest, continuously operating forest products companies
in the United States. We are proud of our Oregon legacy.
Now, our company and our thousands of employees are being
attacked for our opposition to Measure 49. Consider what
Measure 49 will do:
• Measure 49 takes away property rights from hard
working Oregonians.
• Measure 49 allows government to reduce your land
value.It gives them unbridled authority to lower property
values. That’s just not fair.
• Measure 49 is too extreme.Not only does it take
away rights recently given back to property owners, it
takes away all future protection you might have from
government taking the value of your land.
• Measure 49 treats property owners different.If you
own farm or forestland, or if you live in an urban area,
you have no rights under Measure 49.
• Measure 49 had no public input in the Legislature.
Perhaps that’s why it treats property owners unfairly.
Stimson has donated millions of dollars to charities, supports
high school apprenticeship programs where we are located
and operates a sustainable timber program, with the goal of
protecting the environment. We would not be able to operate
five Oregon mills, providing family wage jobs, unless we were
stewards of Oregon’s valuable timber resource land.
Measure 49 is complicated, it is cumbersome, and all it will do
is create more bureaucracy, less protections of private
property and more confusion about land use regulations
in our state.
Please, join me and vote NO on Measure 49.
Andrew Miller, President
Stimson Lumber
Portland
(This information furnished by Andrew Miller, Stimson Lumber
Company.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Oregon Association of REALTORS® asks you to
please vote NO on Measure 49.
The Oregon Association of REALTORS® is the trade association
for Oregon’s REALTORS®, real estate professionals who help
Oregonians achieve the American Dream of homeownership.
We believe that property ownership is the cornerstone of our
democratic society. Property ownership allows people from all
walks of life to build economic security for themselves and their
families.
We believe that one of the primary responsibilities of the
government is to ensure that property owners are treated fairly.
Measure 49 is very unfair to many property owners.
Therefore, we are asking you to please vote NO.
Measure 49 replaces Measure 37, the land use compensation
measure that was passed by Oregon voters in 2004, and ruled
to be constitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court. We did not
support Measure 37, but we recognize the issues that led to its
passage.
Measure 49 would eliminate most Measure 37 claims, even
claims that have already received approval. Measure 49 ignores
the many Oregonians who relied on the existing law and spent
tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars merely following the
law. This is not fair.
The Oregon Association of REALTORS® proposed a balanced
five-point plan to the Legislature for dealing with Measure 37
that would have reduced its impact, while still being fair.
Unfortunately, this balanced plan was rejected.
Even worse, the Legislature cut funding for the Big Look
Committee, the non-partisan, non-political committee created
to recommend improvements to Oregon’s land use system.
If Measure 49 passes, it is unlikely that there will be any
improvements to Oregon’s land use system for many years to
come.
Please vote NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Art Kegler, President, Oregon Association
of REALTORS.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 WILL SHUT DOWN OUR
WASHINGTON COUNTY U-PICK FRUIT FARM
Jossy Farms is a family run u-pick apple, peach and pear farm
in Washington County. Every year we open our farm to
thousands of customers who seek quality local produce.
Our 67 acre farm is zoned AF-5. This zoning allows for 5-acre
parcels, with homesites on each parcel. Under current zoning,
we can create 13 home sites, but we’d have to eliminate our
u-pick farm.
When voters passed Measure 37, we were thrilled. Measure 37
allowed us to create smaller rural parcels that we could cluster
together. By clustering our parcels, we could use a smaller
portion of our property and leave the orchards in place for the
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
50 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
next generation of Jossy’s to offer fruit to the public.
But if Measure 49 passes, our claim will be wiped out,
and our orchard will shut down.
Measure 49 is just the latest in a series of blunt instruments
that show what is wrong with Oregon’s land use planning laws.
The current planning laws force us to tear out our orchards in
order to divide our property. If we had more control over our
property, like Measure 37 provided for us, we could create the
lots for our family and keep the orchards intact as well.
It’s a win-win for everyone, except for Measure 49 supporters.
Small farmers like us, and every other farm family who want
some control over their farm operations, are called “greedy
developers” and “speculators” by the Measure 49 supporters
who don’t have the first clue about our business. It is totally
unfair, and makes us mad.
We’ve been here for generations. We want to be here for
generations to come. But Measure 49 and ill-conceived land
use laws force us out of business. What a shame.
Please vote NO on 49.
(This information furnished by Robert Jossy and April Jossy, Jossy
Farms.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Oregon State Grange, Rural Oregonians, and
Oregon Farmers Ask You To
Please vote No on Measure 49.
Tell the Politicians and Special Interests NO! – we have
already voted to protect our homes and property 3 times
on statewide ballot measures since 2000.How many
more times do we have to say it - Stop Trying To Take Our
Homes and Property!
Measure 49 is a deceptive Measure that makes dramatic
changes to Oregon law.
Not only will Measure 49 allow government to take your home
and property without compensation, if approved Measure 49
will:
- allow government to change the rules after you buy your
property to take away rights that you paid for.
- allow you to be sued by anyone in the United States if you
try and defend your property from government taking.
- force you to pay lawyers and appraisers to defend
your property, and you will also have to pay the
government’s lawyers and appraisers who are trying
to take your property from you, even if you win!
- change the rules for people who have already received
approval to build a home or two on their property. Despite
what Measure 49 supporters claim, Measure 49 will not let
these people build a home or two on their property.
- require property owners in rural areas to make $80,000
from farming for at least two years before they can build a
farmhouse on their property.
- expose property owners in urban areas to huge financial
danger – for example, if your non-conforming home or
business is destroyed by fire, Measure 49 allows cities to
stop you from rebuilding without compensation.
This is a short list of what is hidden inside Measure 49’s
complicated language. Measure 49 simply will not work for
anyone. We deserve better.
Vote NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Phyllis A. Wilson, President/Master,
Oregon State Grange.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Josephine County Farm Bureau
Asks All Oregonians to Vote NO on Measure 49!
We are farmers and ranchers in rural Oregon. Oregon’s land
use laws affect everything we do with our land. A radical
change like Measure 49 will only cause more grief, stress, and
problems as farmers and ranchers in Oregon continue to work
to make ends meet.
Measure 49 will make it nearly impossible for farm families to
continue. Under Measure 49, a farmer who wants to build a
home or two on his property for his kids is going to be faced
with:
- New requirements just to build two or three homes on
his property;
- Paying exorbitant fees to the government just to get
permission for his kids to live on the family farm
- Lawsuits from people as far away from him as possible,
who simply don’t want family farms to continue in Oregon.
- Uncertainty and confusion as the courts try to make sense
of 21 pages of legalese, mistakes and confusion
Family farms face enough uncertainty in this day and age.
Measure 49 will only result in more heartache and frustration
for farm families trying to make a living off the land. Current
law makes it easier for family farms to be passed down through
the generations. Measure 49’s burdensome and confusing
language will result in years of litigation – years that family
farms simply do not have.
That is why the Josephine County Farm Bureau opposes
Measure 49. Measure 49 is another attack on rural Oregon by
extremists who do not approve of our way of life.
Please join the Josephine County Farm Bureau in voting
NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Bud Combe, Vice President, Josephine
County Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ATTENTION ALL FARMERS AND RANCHERS
The Jackson County Stockmen’s Association
Asks You to Vote NO on Measure 49!
Some farming groups think that Measure 49 won’t hurt
agriculture. Some farming groups don’t know how to read.
Measure 49 is full of tricks and traps for everyone in Oregon,
but there is a giant trap in Measure 49 waiting for Oregon’s
farmers and ranchers.
Section 12.(6) of Measure 49 says that any use of land as a
result of a Measure 49 claim made after June 28th, 2007 is a
non-conforming use.
This is a HUGE wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
51 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Imagine the Legislature passes a 50-foot streamside setback in
2009 for all agricultural uses. If that happened, farmers and
ranchers would all file claims under Measure 49, seeking a
“waiver” from the 50-foot setback rule. The state would grant
the “waiver”, which would then make the farmer or rancher’s
use of the property a “non-conforming” use.
In Oregon, a non-conforming use must be used continuously,
otherwise you lose that use of your property. In the context of
farming and ranching, this means that the property you
received a waiver for must be farmed or grazed continuously.
That means no crop or livestock rotation, otherwise you will
lose the non-conforming use that Measure 49 established on
your property.
And what happens if you lose the non-conforming use? That’s
right, you would have to abide by the 50-foot setback rule.
And under Measure 49, there is nothing you can do about it
because under Measure 49, property owners can only make
one claim. Ever.
Remember the attempt to “Fence In Oregon”, and how much
time and effort Oregon agriculture had to put in to defeat that
awful idea.
The same people who backed that measure are backing
Measure 49.
Do you have to guess why?
Please join the Jackson County Stockmen’s Association and
vote NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Mike Daunehauer, Jackson County
Stockmen’s Association.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
WHY DID THE LEGISLATURE STOP
THE OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
THE OREGON SUPREME COURT FROM REVIEWING
THE “OFFICIAL” BALLOT TITLE?
Be very careful when you read the “official” ballot title for
Measure 49. Our colleagues are trying to fool you.
When you read the voters’ pamphlet or look at your ballot, you
see a ballot title for each ballot measure. The purpose of the
ballot title is to give you accurate and unbiased information
about the measure, so that you can make an informed choice
with your vote.
The ballot title is normally prepared by the Oregon Attorney
General. The public is then given an opportunity to comment
on that ballot title.
At the request of a member of the public, the Oregon Supreme
Court will then review the Oregon Attorney General’s ballot
title to make sure it is fair and accurate. If it is not, then the Court
will ask the Attorney General to rewrite the ballot title.
This process has been in place for decades. It ensures that
voters are not misled by politicized or inaccurate ballot titles.
With Measure 49, the legislature has completely
ignored our tried and tested ballot title process.Instead
of allowing the Oregon Attorney General, the public, and
the Oregon Supreme Court to perform their normal roles, the
legislature created its own ballot title for Measure 49.
The legislature then barred the Oregon Supreme Court and
Attorney General from reviewing its ballot title, and it barred
the public from challenging the ballot title.
Why did the legislature do this? Because legislative leaders
were taking polls to determine what language would be most
likely to convince voters to vote for Measure 49, not what was
unbiased and accurate.
This is shameful. That’s not what the ballot title is supposed to
do. Before you vote, please study Measure 49 and don’t rely
on the politicized ballot title.
Representative Patti Smith
Senator Roger Beyer
(This information furnished by Senator Roger Beyer and
Representative Patti Smith.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TELL THE
LEGISLATURE THAT OUR PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE
TAKEN WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION?
How many times do we have to vote to protect our home and
property? How many times until the legislature gets the
message?
As ranchers, we face all kinds of threats to our livelihood. The
one threat that we fear the most is the legislature.
After all, most legislators know absolutely nothing about our
industry and the hard work we do to provide the best product
we can to American consumers. But they make the laws that
make the difference between whether we stay in business or
lose our ranches.
In the last decade, Oregon voters have voted twice to protect
private property from being taken by government without just
compensation. These laws are very important to ranchers, as
they guarantee that our rights to farm and ranch will continue
on, provided our ranching operations comply with all health
and safety regulations.
But now, a group of politicians want to overturn our votes once
again. Measure 49 is their latest effort.
The worst part is, these same politicians refused to allow the
public to testify on Measure 49. I guess they don’t care about
what we think.
We’re really tired of being told that we don’t know what we’re
voting for. Measure 49 is a bad law. Please vote no.
Grant County Stock Growers Association
(This information furnished by James Welsh, Grant County Stock
Growers.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
As a law professor and former law school dean,I believe
that property rights are an essential part of American society.
The ability to purchase and use property in pursuit of a
multitude of purposes drives our economy and provides
Americans with the most freedom and the best standard of
living in the world. Property rights provide for homes, places
of employment and recreation, and for personal privacy.
Private property is also the tax base which funds many public
services.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
52 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
This does not mean that property rights are absolute. There
must be a balance between the rights of private citizens to own
and use their property and the rights of the public to be free
from property uses that endanger health and safety. The public
must also have the authority to purchase private property for
public uses.
That balance currently exists in Oregon.Oregon law
(ORS 197.352) protects property owners’ rights to use their
property in the way it could be used when it was acquired, but
does not allow property owners to use their property in ways
that would create a nuisance or endanger the public’s health
and safety.
Measure 49 destroys that balance.Under Measure 49, state and
local governments will be able to enact land use regulations
that take the property rights of every private property owner in
Oregon without just compensation.
That means that your backyard can be declared “open space,”
your business property can be declared “wildlife habitat,” and
your farm can be declared a “scenic view.”
There is nothing wrong with these choices if they are what the
people of Oregon want. But it is wrong to demand that the
property owner bear the entire cost to provide these choices.
Under Measure 49, that is exactly what will happen.
Measure 49 is a significant change in Oregon law that
will fundamentally weaken the property rights of every Oregon
property owner.
Jim Huffman
(This information furnished by James L. Huffman.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
OREGON EMPLOYERS OPPOSE MEASURE 49
As some of Oregon’s largest employers, we oppose
Ballot Measure 49.
Our companies employ thousands of Oregonians throughout
the state at family wages. Each of us has been in business for
decades in Oregon.
Our employees serve on the local school board. They coach
little league baseball. They sit by you at church. They shop in
local stores. Their children go to public schools. They pay taxes.
In short, we are part of your community. Many Oregon
communities were formed around our industries.
We believe that a fundamental key to a healthy economy is a
respect for the ability of every citizen to own and use property.
Without this ability, our companies would not be successful,
we would not have jobs for our employees, and we would be
unable to serve our communities.
Measure 49 strikes at the heart of your ability to own and use
your property. That is why we vigorously oppose it.
If Measure 49 is approved, the investments we make in our
companies and our property are in jeopardy. Measure 49
allows government to take our property and businesses
without compensation. If our property is taken, so are
the jobs we provide.
What Measure 49 supporters fail to realize is that in a
competitive global market, one regulation can wipe out an
industry. Measure 49 makes it far more likely that such a
regulation will be adopted.
So while Measure 49 supporters call us names and ridicule us
for standing up for free enterprise and the right to use our
property in the manner we could when we purchased it, we’ll
continue to do what we can to defend every Oregonian’s right
to own and use their property.
Please vote No on Measure 49.
Aaron Jones, President, Seneca Sawmill Co.
Michael Fahey, President, Columbia Helicopters
Robert Freres Jr., Freres Lumber Co.
Joan Austin, Executive Vice President, A-dec
Steven Swanson, Swanson Group
(This information furnished by Aaron Jones, President, Seneca Sawmill
Co.; Michael Fahey, President, Columbia Helicopters; Robert Freres, Jr.,
Freres Lumber Co.; Joan Austin, Executive Vice President, A-dec;
Steven Swanson, Swanson Group.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ATTENTION SENIORS - MEASURE 49 WILL
RAISE PROPERTY TAXES
One of the hidden dangers of Measure 49 is the impact it will
have on your property tax bill.
Measure 49 allows government to pass new land use
regulations that destroy the value of private property.
For example, in 2004, Metro proposed to designate nearly
80,000 acres of private land in the Portland Metropolitan area
as “wildlife habitat.” If Metro would have forced cities and
counties in the region to adopt these designations, the property
value of the thousands of private property owners who were
affected would have been drastically reduced.
For the owners of the property, the impacts would have been
devastating. Their property would have been taken with no
compensation.
But you would have paid too. Your property taxes would
have been raised to make up the difference!
That’s what Measure 49 will do – allow government to take your
neighbor’s property without just compensation and force you
to pay higher property taxes at the same time!
Measure 49 is a bad idea! For more information, go to
www.oregonwatchdog.com.
(This information furnished by Jason Williams, Taxpayers Association of
Oregon PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
If there’s only one thing that you remember about Measure 49,
remember this: If Measure 49 passes, state and local
government can and will take your home and property
without just compensation.
Senator Ted Ferrioli, Senate Minority Leader
Representative Wayne Scott, House Minority Leader
(This information furnished by Senator Ted Ferrioli, Senate Republican
Leader; Representative Wayne Scott, House Republican Leader.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
53 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
In 1973, I voted for Senate Bill 100, the bill that created our
statewide, centralized land use system.
I knew that SB 100 could allow state and local governments to
take people’s homes and property. I hoped that would not
happen, but was persuaded to vote yes because of Section 24
in SB 100. This section directed the legislature to find a way
to compensate property owners for any property that could be
taken.
If you want to see for yourself, look at Section 24(4) of
Senate Bill 100 (1973). Without that section, I would never
have voted for Senate Bill 100.
In short, the legislature made a promise to Oregonians.
If Measure 49 passes, that promise will be broken.
Measure 49 is an extreme response to your vote on
Measure 37. If Measure 49 is approved, what we tried to
prevent in Senate Bill 100 will occur – homes and property
will be taken by state and local governments without just
compensation.
Measure 49 supporters will tell you that Measure 49 will
restore Oregon’s land use planning laws. But these people
weren’t in the legislature in 1973, and apparently have never
read Senate Bill 100, or choose to ignore what it says.
If Measure 49 passes, we are destroying the very balance that
we tried to make when we created Senate Bill 100. That would
be a terrible shame.
Vote NO on Measure 49.
Roger Martin
Former State Representative
(This information furnished by Roger Martin.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 HURTS NEIGHBORHOODS
Between 2000-2025, one million new people are expected to
come to Oregon. In some parts of the state, we’re already
noticing the impacts:
- Long established residential neighborhoods are being
dramatically changed, with skinny houses, condos, and
rowhouses stacked into places that used to be open
spaces or backyards;
- Traffic congestion on main roads is becoming unbearable,
and parking spaces near home are impossible to find;
- New subdivisions are being built with big homes on small
lots with no yards for kids and no privacy;
- Urban streets, water, and sewer infrastructure, designed
for fewer residents, is being torn up and replaced (at
taxpayer expense) to handle the new apartments placed
in existing neighborhoods;
- Neighborhoods are being gentrified, as people on modest
incomes can no longer afford the costs of living in areas
where they grew up;
- Schools in suburbs are becoming overcrowded, as people
look desperately for places where home prices are lower,
there’s a little more space, and traffic isn’t as bad.
These impacts are partly the result of our existing land use
system. If Measure 49 passes, you can expect that these
problems will only get worse.
Measure 49 allows Metro, state government, and cities to
take your home and property without just compensation.
If Measure 49 passes, it will be nearly impossible to find a new
home with a large yard, a home in the country, or something
affordable for the working family.
If you live in town, look at the new developments being built.
Do you see any that have a yard, or a place to play? Are you
really being given a choice? Is there any balance? The people
that brought you the current system that forces these
developments are trying to get you to support Measure 49.
Don’t be fooled.
Protect your neighborhood, your property, and your choices.
Vote No on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by James Karlock.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Please vote NO on Measure 49
Here we go again
I live in Medford, in your typical suburban neighborhood. I am
now retired, but for decades I served as a city and county
employee. There are several property owners in my area whose
property rights have been restored by Measure 37.
I am asking that you join me in voting NO on Measure 49
for several reasons. First, Measure 49 is a radical change from
the current law. My neighbors simply ask that their property
rights be restored, and I don’t think that is asking too much.
Measure 49 will take away those rights, which just isn’t fair.
Second, Measure 49 is completely unworkable. It was written
behind closed doors, without any public input. I am concerned
that Oregon’s dedicated public servants will not be able to
apply Measure 49 because the measure is so poorly written.
When that happens, city, county and state employees often
bear the brunt of the public’s frustration for the mistakes of
politicians. Given how poorly written Measure 49 is, I am afraid
there will be many frustrated Oregonians.
Third, Oregon has a proud tradition of open and transparent
government. But the process used to draft Measure 49 was
anything but open or transparent. In fact, the public was never
allowed to testify on Measure 49! If Measure 49 passes, I can
guarantee that in the future the public will be excluded from the
process. Oregonians cannot let that happen.
Finally, Oregonians have already spoken with one loud and
clear voice on this issue. How many times are the politicians
going to try to override the will of the people, and how many
times are we – the people – going to have to reaffirm our vote
before the politicians finally get the message?
Please join me in voting NO on Measure 49.
Ken Marshall, Medford
(This information furnished by Ken Marshall.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
54 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
PLEASE, treat others the way you would like to be treated!
In 1921, President Harding, using the Homestead Act, created
our private land. For over 35 years, this beautiful and pristine
land, brimming with wildlife, has been home.
We are conservationists, having protected over 170 acres
of this spectacular habitat. Our dream is to develop a small
Eco Retreat Center for others to experience God’s beauty,
refreshment, solitude, and inspiration.
We join 7,000+ families, filing M#37, who have dreams for
their land. We have invested our lives and thousands of dollars,
expecting fair treatment, jumping every “hoop”. Now, M#49
threatens to sweep it all away. Below are 3 reasons why we
believe you should consider voting No.
1) In 1973, the State of Oregon made a promise to its citizens:
When property rights are taken away, those experiencing loss
will be fairly compensated. This never happened, until M#37.
Now, M#49 further dishonors and buries those promises. When
our Government does not honor its’ word with any one group,
we are all threatened.
2) M#49 supporters throw around the number of acres for
proposed development, trying to create shock value. The truth
is that Government owns and controls over one-half of all
Oregon land. The truth is that the 7,000+ claims represent less
than 1.25% of Oregon’s land. Not mentioning this is like selling
a car at so much a month, with no mention of the number of
months or total price. Private landowners have a conscience:
we care about a healthy, balanced, beautiful Oregon
environment, without heaping more M#49 government
restrictions.
3) We all need good development: Homes, food production,
sanitation, medical/dental, clean water, etc. In our free society,
there are always a few folks with low morals: people in
development being no different. We all take off our shoes at
the airport because of the few: we don’t close the airports.
M#49 is a destroyer of integrity, incentive, and fairness.
Thank you for caring!
(This information furnished by Jesse and Elaine Pattison.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
The Holtan Family Asks You to
Vote “NO”on Ballot Measure 49
My name is Eric Holtan. Our family farm is located in rural
Yamhill County. Our farm has been in the Holtan family for
three generations.
In 2003, my father became very sick, and my mother needed
help taking care of my father and the family farm. My wife and
I wanted to move to the farm to help my mother and father,
but land use laws would not allow it.
My father passed away just after the November 2004 elections,
that’s when Oregonians changed the law to make is possible for
families like mine to move back to the family farm. Measure 37
made it possible for us to build a home on the farm, and be
there for my mother.
Measure 49 will change all of that, by making radical changes
to the law. Measure 49 would make it nearly impossible for
young families like mine to ever be able to move back to the
family farm because of Measure 49’s hidden costs:
- Measure 49 allows government to charge families any
amount just to build one home.
- Second, Measure 49 allows anyone in the entire state of
Oregon to file a lawsuit to stop family farms from passing
on to future generations, forcing young families like mine
to bear the cost of expensive attorneys, just because they
want to preserve their family’s farm!
- Finally, Measure 49’s filing requirements are so
burdensome that the cost of complying with Measure 49
would make it impossible for young families living on the
family farm.
Measure 49 is a bad idea, and will change the law so
dramatically that young families will never be able to move
out to the family farm.
Please join my family in voting NO on Measure 49
(This information furnished by Eric Holtan.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
As a former Mayor and land use hearings officer I understand
the frustration many citizens have with overbearing land use
regulations and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
I did not vote for Measure 37 but represent some Measure 37
claimants. In doing so, I have been appalled at how poorly
citizens have been treated by the State (DLCD). I believe DLCD
has deliberately violated the law and put elderly ordinary
citizens, in a position where they have to sue the State in court
for relief. Last May, DLCD, in collusion with a small number of
legislators, concocted Measure 49 behind closed doors. They
are now asking the voters to pass a measure that is flawed and
will not work.
Measure 49 designates as high value farmland most properties
in Central Oregon even though there are no water rights on
the land or soils to support agricultural activity. Sagebrush and
juniper as high value farmland? Nonsense!
Measure 49 penalizes innocent citizens who, in reliance on
Measure 37 waivers, spent their hard earned resources to file
land use applications. Measure 49 does not grandfather those
persons in as has been done in the past. Instead, your fellow
citizens will lose not only their rights but also their hard earned
savings.
There is a better approach. The State can reform our land use
system by allowing a certain level of rural development on
lands that do not have high value for agricultural or forest uses
or are in sensitive environmental areas. The State has rejected
innovative measures and believes that the overbearing
regulations that were the cause of Measure 7 and Measure 37
must stand. Do not be deceived. If Measure 49 passes, there
will be no incentive for the State to initiate reform. Vote No on
Measure 49 and force the State to initiate meaningful reform in
our land use system.
Ed Fitch, Attorney at Law, Redmond
(This information furnished by Edward Fitch, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
55 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
The Jackson County Farm Bureau Asks Oregonians to
Please Vote NO on Measure 49
Please Do Not Hurt Oregon Agriculture!
Ballot Measure 49 is a radical departure from the current law in
Oregon. Under current law, farm families can easily hand down
the family farm through the generations.
But Measure 49 changes all of that. If Measure 49 passes, the
ability of farms to stay in the family will be put in jeopardy.
And all of Oregon agriculture will be seriously hurt.
Under Ballot Measure 49, if a farmer wants to pass his farm
down to his children or grandchildren, anyone in the state of
Oregon can sue the farmer to stop him! That means a farmer in
Jackson County can be sued by someone all the way up in
Portland, just because the farmer wants to build a home for his
daughter or son on the family farm!
Farming is hard, honorable work. Do Oregonians really want to
repay farmers with the threat of years of endless lawsuits?
When will the attack on rural Oregon ever stop?
Oregon’s land use system is seriously broken. Measure 49 only
makes things worse for those of us who make our living off of
the land.
Many in Oregon’s farming industry tried to tell the Legislature
that Measure 49 would seriously hurt farming and farm families
in Oregon, but the Legislature wouldn’t allow ANY public
comment on Measure 49 during the committee process.
Don’t fall for the trickery behind Measure 49. If you take the
time to read all 21 pages of the Measure, you will find out
Measure 49 isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
Please join President Ron Bjork and the Jackson County
Farm Bureau and vote NO on Measure 49!
(This information furnished by Ron Bjork, Jackson County Farm Bureau.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 MAKES PARENTS AND
GRANDPARENTS CHOOSE
Vote NO on Measure 49
As parents and grandparents, we are asking that you vote NO
on Measure 49.
We are the proud parents of five children, and grandparents of
five grandchildren. We have owned our property in Clackamas
County since 1960. Recently we received permission under the
current law to allow us to divide up our property so that we
could give each child and grandchild a piece of our property to
call their own.
More importantly, the current law allows us to keep our
property in the family.
Measure 49 will not allow us to pass our property on to our
children and grandchildren. Measure 49 is a drastic departure
from current law. Under Measure 49, we may only be able to
divide our property into two parcels – in addition to the parcel
our home currently sits upon.
Measure 49 is so poorly written, no one can say with any
certainty that Measure 49 would help us at all.
That means that we are going to have choose which of our
children and grandchildren will get one of the two parcels that
Measure 49 might allow.
We have already invested our life’s savings into our property.
Measure 49 will force us to re-file with the government, with no
promise that we will get any relief whatsoever. Measure 49
allows the government to regulate virtually all the value of your
property without providing any compensation. The only thing
we are guaranteed is that under Measure 49, we stand to lose
everything we have invested.
Measure 49 is a very bad idea. Measure 49 will force families
like ours to make choices that the current law does not. There is
no reason why the current law should be changed so radically
and in such a way that penalizes families like yours and ours.
Please join us in voting NO on Measure 49.
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Curry
Estacada
(This information furnished by Gerald Curry and Roberta Curry.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Dear Oregonians:
Many constituents claim Legislator’s don’t think of the long
term consequences of votes in the House of Representatives.
Now it is your turn.
Think before voting. Measure 49 repeals the intent of Measure 7
struck down by an activist Supreme Court thwarting the will of
the people. Measure 37’s implementation was partially blocked
by the Attorney General’s February 24, 2005 legal opinion
thwarting the will of the people. Our Democrat Governor talks
about flawed language in his letter to your home but helped
block fixes in the Legislature.
Think before voting. The ballot title, measure text, and explana-
tion statement are not neutral or bipartisan in any manner as
normally required by the law. The Democrat controlled House
inserted this Measure into the Voters’ Pamphlet based on a
party line vote. Every House Republican opposed stacking the
deck against the public. The Democrat controlled Joint
Committee on Land Use Fairness amended what you read
without a public hearing, with only three hours public notice,
and on a pure Democratic party line vote. Check the public
record at www.leg.state.or.us.
Think before voting. Rhetoric reigns. Chicken little claims the
sky is falling as irreplaceable agriculture and forest lands
are decimated. Fact or fiction? The public record shows the
forest industry opposed the House bill creating this Measure.
Farm organizations are on the public record as opposing the
same. Federal records show Oregon farmers were subsidized
$74 million dollars in 2006. Farmers were paid not to plant
crops on Oregon lands. State records show 500,000 acres in
conservation reserves. Another 2.1 million acres sit fallow
according to official State documents.
Think before voting. Do you own your home? Do you really
own your land? Should citizens have property rights? Can a
father allow his son to build a home for his children on the
family farm? The governing elite and bureaucracy have said no.
You should say No to Measure 49.
Respectfully,
Brian J. Boquist
State Representative
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
56 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(This information furnished by Brian J. Boquist, State Representative.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Americans for Prosperity – Oregon Urges a
“No” Vote on Measure 49
Measure 49 would allow the government to take your property
without paying you for it.
The U.S. and Oregon Constitutions guarantee that you will
be compensated if government takes your property.
For almost 40 years, Oregon’s land use system has refused to
recognize this simple Constitutional guarantee.
Under current law, if government takes an action that reduces
your property value, they have to pay you.
Measure 49 would undercut our own Constitution.
Measure 49 would allow government to take your
property for the benefit of private companies –
including out-of-state companies.
Please join us in voting “No” on Measure 49
Americans for Prosperity – Oregon
www.americansforprosperity.org
Oregon_AFP@yahoo.com
(This information furnished by Jeff Kropf and Matt Evans, Americans for
Prosperity - Oregon.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Laws that affect important public issues, like Measure 49,
deserve the full protection of the legislative process. The
people of Oregon may disagree as to whether Measure 49 is
good or bad public policy, but public testimony before the
Legislature assures the integrity of the process. In refusing to
allow a single substantive public hearing on Measure 49, the
Legislature violated a fundamental principle: the people’s
business requires the input of the people.
Equally disturbing is the Legislature’s actions to prevent
judicial review of the Measure 49 ballot title. The people of
Oregon may contest a ballot title if, in a citizen’s judgment, the
title is unfair (ORS 250.085). For Measure 49, the Legislature
used a separate bill (HB 2640) to FORBID a challenge to the
ballot title. Specifically, the Legislature stripped the Oregon
Supreme Court of the power to review. This intentionally
negates the people’s ability to contest a ballot title that, by any
objective measure, does not fairly describe Measure 49.
All Oregonians should be concerned about the “jurisdiction
stripping” provisions attached to Measure 49. It is
fundamentally bad policy for the Legislature to strip away
Court jurisdiction over a specific matter and prohibit Court
review of a ballot title. It takes little imagination to see how
the Legislature’s abuse of “jurisdiction stripping” provisions
can lead to fundamental breaches in the rights we all enjoy
as Oregonians.
Measure 49 has pros and cons depending on one’s
perspective. However, the Legislature’s refusal to allow a
discussion of the pros and cons and its prohibition of Court
review for the ballot title is not consistent with what we must
demand of our elected officials. The people’s business is too
important to be held captive to partisan politics in Salem.
Vote NO on Measure 49 and send the Legislature a message
that the integrity of the legislative process and judicial review
must always be preserved for the people.
(This information furnished by Paul Hribernick.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
OREGON ORCHARDISTS ASK YOU TO
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 49
We raise a diverse range of crops including pears, apples, and
hazelnuts.
Although we don’t raise the same types of crops, we do have
one thing in common: We all oppose Measure 49.
When you commit to planting an orchard, you commit to years
of expenses before you get a crop. Like timber, our type of
farming is a long-term investment. We consider all the risks
when we make those investments in the future.
Measure 49 would grant the government the power to take the
value and use of private property without compensation.
That risk would jeopardize future investment by family
orchardists. We already make long term investments facing the
uncertainty of global competition, changes in climate, and
uncertain government labor policies. If government can take
our property without compensation, the risk becomes too
much.
Who would make long-term plans if you will lose your
investment with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen?
That’s why we urge a No Vote on Measure 49!
What About Subdivisions and Farmland?
It is laughable that those supporting Measure 49 are talking
about farmland and subdivisions.
These are the same people and special interest groups that
have supported the state land use regulatory system, a system
which has forced large scale development onto the prime
farmland around Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Medford for
over 30 years.
Measure 49 will force large scale developments onto prime
farmland near cities and lock away unproductive areas, all at
the expense of the property owner, Oregon agriculture, and
those of you sitting in traffic.
Measure 49 undermines Oregon agriculture. Please Vote
No on Measure 49.
Debra Laraway, apple grower, Hood River County
Phil Downing, hazelnut grower, Washington County
Frances Y. Benton, pear grower, Hood River County
(This information furnished by Debra Laraway, Laraway & Sons Inc.;
Phil Downing, Downing Nut Farm; Frances Y. Benton, Benton Orchards.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
57 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
THE ALBANY DEMOCRAT-HERALD CALLS THE YES ON
MEASURE 49 CAMPAIGN “A PILE OF BALONEY”
The Albany Democrat-Herald said this about supporters of
Measure 49: “The campaign for Measure 49 has begun, and if
the start is any indication, you are in for a pile of baloney.”
Albany Democrat-Herald,August 10th, 2007.
Supporters of Measure 49 will say just about anything to scare
you about Measure 37. Here are the facts about Measure 37:
1. There have been approximately 7,562 claims filed
under Measure 37. (Source: Portland State University
Measure 37 Database Website,
http://www.pdx.edu/ims/m37database.html, last visited
August 30th, 2007).
2. The amount of land that is subject to Measure 37 claims is
approximately 1% of the land in Oregon. (Source: Portland
State University Measure 37 Database Website,
http://www.pdx.edu/ims/m37database.html, last visited
August 30th, 2007). That means 99% of Oregon is
unchanged by Measure 37.
3. The average home site created by Measure 37 is 13 acres.
Source: Portland State University website,
http://www.pdx.edu/ims/m37.html, last visited
August 30th, 2007). 13 acres is roughly the size of 13 city
blocks. These are the “massive subdivisions” that
opponents keep talking about. Look around, have you
seen these massive subdivisions?
4. Measure 37 doesn’t allow any use that will endanger the
public’s health or safety. See ORS 197.352(3)(B). In order to
make a Measure 37 claim, you must prove there is
adequate water (you can’t dry up your neighbor’s wells),
adequate sewer disposal (you can’t pollute), adequate
roads, adequate fire/police protection etc. All health and
safety regulations must be complied with.
As the Democrat-Herald notes, “The idea now is to scare
us about Measure 37’s effects.” Albany Democrat-Herald,
August 10th, 2007. These are the tactics of Measure 49
supporters. Now that you know the facts, you shouldn’t be
scared.
(This information furnished by Ross Day, Director of Legal Affairs,
Oregonians In Action.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
MEASURE 49 SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK!
Don’t vote to penalize Oregonians who followed the law!
Thousands of your fellow Oregonians have spent a lot of
money – some people have invested their entire life savings –
following the current law, trying to get their property rights
back.
These Oregonians have followed the rules, jumped through
all the hoops the government put in their way, all just to get
their rights back. Measure 49 threatens everything your fellow
Oregonians have worked so hard for.
Under Measure 49, property owners who have received
waivers to use their property under current law will have to
re-file their applications, satisfy a whole new set of criteria, and
run the risk of the government denying any relief whatsoever.
It’s the language of the Measure that counts:
Supporters of Measure 49 claim that Measure 49 does not
require any property owners to re-file anything. But a quick
read of Measure 49 shows that Measure 49’s supporters simply
are wrong:
- Section 6(6)(d) requires claimants to re-file their claims
using tougher new standards that weren’t required under
Measure 37
- Section 8(2)(b) requires the Department of Land
Conservation and Development to identify the information
that a property owner has to file under Measure 49
- Section 8(3) explains that a property owner must file the
form requirement by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, along with any
information required by the form.
By requiring new information, and new filings, Measure 49 puts
at risk the investments of thousands of Oregonians who have
done nothing more than follow the law and played by the rules.
Despite what supporters of Measure 49 are claiming,
the fact is that Oregonians are going to have to go
through the application process yet again if Measure 49
passes.This is simply not fair.
When you read Measure 49, it is easy to see that Measure 49
simply will not work.
Please vote NO on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Frank L. Nims, President, Oregonians In
Action.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Don’t Let Out-Of-State Corporations
Take Your Property!
Stop the Measure 49 Trojan horse!
Measure 49 will allow government to take your private
property, without compensation, to benefit a single
corporation.
They didn’t tell you that in the misleading ballot title did they?
Here’s what happens if Measure 49 passes:
Let’s say that some local politicians want to help a big
corporation. The big corporation says that it wants your
property as a “buffer,” the local politicians can pass a law or
regulations that prohibits you from using your property –
without one dime of compensation. You paid for the land with
years of hard work, and the corporation gets all the benefits.
The politicians pay you nothing for the use of your land…
and you lose your life’s savings.
That is why Measure 49 is so unfair.
That is why so much money is pouring in from corporations
and their front groups to pass an Oregon ballot measure, its
why Measure 49 was so controversial that it only passed the
Legislature by a single vote, that is why the Legislature refused
to hold even one public hearing to expose the real intent.
Measure 49 is a Trojan horse – it is what is hidden inside
the measure that will steal the property and life work of
thousands of real Oregonians.
Don’t let them fool you with talk of farmland and groundwater –
this Measure is about one thing, letting government take your
property without compensation. The farmland talk is the
“Trojan Horse” to get you to grant them the power to take your
property!
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
58 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Please Read Measure 49 carefully, and we are positive that you
will join us in voting No on Measure 49.
(This information furnished by Ashley Overman.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
PLANNING OFFICIALS ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON 49
As planning commissioners/community planning organization
presidents, we have a unique understanding of how zoning
and planning works in our areas, and of Oregon’s unique and
controversial land use laws.
We have each examined Measure 49 in detail, and urge
you to vote NO on this badly flawed measure.
Measure 49 erases what little control Oregon property
owners maintain in their property. It allows state and local
governments to take your property without just compensation.
We have seen countless examples in our duties as planning
commissioners of property owners making perfectly
reasonable requests to use their property which were not
allowed by our current land use system.
It is very frustrating to have to tell a property owner that they
can’t do something that makes perfect sense.
If Measure 49 passes, we’ll be doing that a lot.
Matt Green-Hite, Gladstone Planning Commissioner
David Jaques, Douglas County Planning Commmissioner
Don Moore, Josephine County Planning Commissioner
Jerry Olsen, Estacada, Community Planning Organization
President
Rich Raynor, Douglas County Planning Commissioner
(This information furnished by Matthew Green-Hite, CPA, Gladstone
Planning Commission Chair; David Jaques, Planning Commission
Chairman 12 years, Douglas County Planning Commission; Don Moore,
Josephine County Planning Commission; Jerry Olsen, CPA;
Rich Raynor.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Please vote No on Measure 49.
Big Money Special Interests, Backed by Out-of-State
Corporations are Supporting Measure 49…
….here are a few reasons we recommend a No vote on
Measure 49:
#1 They Have Tried To Fool You:
The Oregon Legislature narrowly passed Measure 49 by
one vote, but refused to allow even 1 public hearing on this very
controversial bill. They also drafted a title for the ballot that was
completely misleading, and then added a provision stripping
Oregonians the fundamental right to appeal for a fair and
unbiased ballot title.
#2 They Have Tried Mislead You:
The ballot title states that Measure 49 will protect farm-
land, forestland, and ground water. This is untrue. Look around,
over the past 30 years Oregon’s state land use laws has directed
the building of subdivisions around Portland, Hillsboro, Salem,
Albany, Eugene, and Medford on “prime farmland.” That
continues whether Measure 49 passes or not. Why would the
Legislature need our statewide vote to protect groundwater?
It is condescending that they think they can mislead Oregon
votes with a ballot title would insult us with this ballot title.
#3 What Do They Have To Hide??
Measure 49 makes a dramatic change to property law
in Oregon. It would allow state and local governments to
take your property without compensation.If you vote for
Measure 49 you are surrendering the protections in current
law for the property you own, or every property you or your
children hope to own in the future.
Measure 49 is a radical change to state law that allows
government to literally steal private property. We cannot give
up such precious protections.
Please Vote No On Measure 49
(This information furnished by Frank Mills.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Before voting on Measure 49, ask yourself these
questions:
1. Why did the legislature refuse to hold even one public
hearing on Measure 49 before they sent it to voters?
2. Why did the legislature reject the Oregon Attorney
General’s neutral and unbiased ballot title for Measure 49?
3. Why did the legislature refuse to allow the public to
comment on the ballot title they prepared for Measure 49?
4. Why did the legislature refuse to allow the Oregon
Supreme Court to make sure the ballot title for Measure 49
was not biased misleading or inaccurate? Every other
ballot title can be reviewed by the Supreme Court, why not
Measure 49’s ballot title?
5. How is Measure 49 a “compromise” when the Measure
was approved by the legislature along party lines? Why
didn’t the legislature pass a proposal that had broad,
bipartisan support?
6. Why won’t Measure 49 supporters tell you that any
property owner in Oregon can be sued by anyone for
wanting to put just one home on their property?
7. Why won’t Measure 49 supporters tell you that under
Measure 49, your home and property can be taken by the
government without compensation, and if you try and
get your property back, you will have to pay your attorney,
your appraiser, the government’s attorney, and the
government’s appraiser, even if you win your case?
Unfortunately, there are no good answers to these questions.
Which is part of the reason why we urge a NO vote on
Measure 49.
Measure 49 is no “compromise.” It doesn’t fix anything. It
makes sweeping changes to Oregon law. Please reject
Measure 49.
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Stop Taking Our
Property PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
59 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Argument in Opposition
As a former Mayor and land use hearings officer I understand
the frustration many citizens have with overbearing land use
regulations and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development.
I did not vote for Measure 37 but represent some Measure 37
claimants. In doing so, I have been appalled at how poorly
citizens have been treated by the State (DLCD). I believe DLCD
has deliberately violated the law and put elderly ordinary
citizens, in a position where they have to sue the State in court
for relief. Last May, DLCD, in collusion with a small number of
legislators, concocted Measure 49 behind closed doors. They
are now asking the voters to pass a measure that is flawed and
will not work.
Measure 49 designates as high value farmland most properties
in Central Oregon even though there are no water rights on
the land or soils to support agricultural activity. Sagebrush and
juniper as high value farmland? Nonsense!
Measure 49 penalizes innocent citizens who, in reliance on
Measure 37 waivers, spent their hard earned resources to file
land use applications. Measure 49 does not grandfather those
persons in as has been done in the past. Instead, your fellow
citizens will lose not only their rights but also their hard earned
savings.
There is a better approach. The State can reform our land use
system by allowing a certain level of rural development on
lands that do not have high value for agricultural or forest uses
or are in sensitive environmental areas. The State has rejected
innovative measures and believes that the overbearing
regulations that were the cause of Measure 7 and Measure 37
must stand. Do not be deceived. If Measure 49 passes, there
will be no incentive for the State to initiate reform. Vote No on
Measure 49 and force the State to initiate meaningful reform in
our land use system.
Edward Fitch, Attorney at Law, Redmond
(This information furnished by Edward Fitch, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: COMPENSATION
If Measure 49 passes, government can take your home
and property without compensation.
Why? Because if Government takes your property, and you ask
for it back, Measure 49 requires you to pay for two appraisals
of the property. Section 12(2). Your appraiser is required to
determine the fair market value that’s been taken from you
using an interest rate for a one-year Treasury Bill. Section 12(2).
Unfortunately, one-year Treasury Bills haven’t been sold since
2001!
That means your appraiser can’t calculate the value of your
property that has been taken. Measure 49 makes it impossible
to prove your case!
That’s just the beginning.Measure 49 allows the government
to charge you a “fee” to “review your claim.” Section 13(3).
That “fee” will include charges for the government’s appraisers
to review your claim, the government’s lawyers to review your
claim, the government’s planners to process your claim, and
the government’s hearings officer to conduct a public hearing
on your claim.
And all this because you dared to ask for your property back!
But that’s not all.If government takes your property, and you
file a claim to get it back, you will have to endure at least one
government hearing on your claim, where anyone can show up
and oppose you. Section 14(1). If the government decides to
give you your property back, anyone who appeared at the
public hearing (even if they just sent an e-mail) can sue you in
the local court! Section 16(1).
It gets even worse.Even if you win, and the government
gives you your property back, you will still have to pay your
attorneys and appraisers and the government’s attorneys and
appraisers. Why? Because Measure 49 changes Oregon law to
eliminate your right to recover your costs to get your property
back! Section 4.
The point is simple. Nobody will have any protection for their
home and property if Measure 49 passes.
Dale Riddle, Attorney at Law, Eugene
(This information furnished by Dale Riddle, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: WHY WAIVERS AREN’T TRANSFERABLE
UNDER MEASURE 49
Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49
that are simply false.
Supporters of Measure 49 claim that Measure 49 makes
“waivers” transferable
Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:
For Measure 49 claims made before June 28th, 2007,
Section 11.(6) says:
(6) An authorization to partition or subdivide the property,
or to establish dwellings on the property, granted under
section 6, 7 or 9 of the 2007 Act runs with the property and
may be either transferred with the property or encumbered
by another person without affecting the authorization.
Nowhere in this section does it say “Waivers are transferable”.
The term “waiver” is specially defined in Measure 49 in
Section 2.(21). If the Legislature meant for “waivers” to be
transferable, the Legislature would have said so. Instead, this
section says that “authorizations” (i.e. permits) are
transferable.
Permits are transferable under current law. Measure 49 does
not change the current law to allow for “transferability of
waivers”.
For Measure 49 claims made after June 28th, 2007,
Section 12.(6) of Measure 49 says
(6) A use authorized by this section has the legal status of a
lawful nonconforming use in the same manner as provided
by ORS 215.130…..When a use authorized by this section is
lawfully established, the use may be continued lawfully in
the same manner as provided by ORS 215.130.
What this means is that property owners who file a
Measure 49 claim after June 28, 2007, must establish
the use of the property (i.e. build the house) before the
property can be sold. This is exactly what supporters of
Measure 49 say is the status of the current law.
Measure 49 does not change the current law, which means
Measure 49 does nothing to change transferability.
When you take the time to read Measure 49, you realize that
Measure 49 simply doesn’t work.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
60 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Ross Day, Attorney at Law, Tigard
(This information furnished by Ross A. Day, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: WHY MEASURE 49 WILL MAKE YOU PAY THE
GOVERNMENT TO GET YOUR RIGHTS BACK
Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49
that are simply false.
But here is something the Supporters of Measure 49 are not
telling you.
Under Measure 49, you are no longer able to recover your
attorney fees. What is worse, under Measure 49, you may have
to pay for the government’s attorney fees and appraisals.
Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:
Section 4 of Measure 49 repeals your right to recover your
attorney fees.
Section 8.(5) of Measure 49 allows the government to collect
the “actual and reasonable cost of the review [of your claim]”.
Section 13.(3) of Measure allows the government to “impose a
fee for review of a claim filed under [Measure 49] in an amount
not to exceed the actual and reasonable cost of reviewing the
claim.”
Under Measure 49, not only do you lose your right to recover
attorney fees, but the government can actually charge you
for the cost of reviewing your claim – which will include,
undoubtedly, the cost of having the government’s lawyers
review your claim.
Also, under Measure 49, the government will be able to charge
you for other costs like land use planners and the government’s
own appraisal. The government’s appraisals alone will cost
thousands of dollars that the government can make you pay for
under Measure 49 before you can get your right to do anything
on your property.
When you take the time to read Measure 49, you realize that
Measure 49 simply doesn’t work.
Please vote NO on Measure 49
Eric Winters, Attorney at Law, Wilsonville
(This information furnished by Eric C. Winters, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: WHY THE GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER PAY YOU
COMPENSATION FOR TAKING YOUR PROPERTY
Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49
that are simply false.
Supporters of Measure 49 claim that it entitles you to
compensation when government takes your property, if you
can prove the value of what they’ve taken.
The problem is that Measure 49 creates a formula that makes
it impossible to prove how much the government has taken
from you.
Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:
Section 7.(6) says:
“The reduction in the fair market value of the property
caused by the enactment of one or more land use regulations
that were the basis for the claim is equal to the decrease,
if any, in the fair market value of the property from
the date that is one year before the enactment of the
land use regulation to the date that is one year after
enactment, plus interest;” and,
“Interest shall be computed under this subsection using the
average interest rate for a one-year United States
Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of each
year of the period between the date the land use regulation
was enacted and the date the claim was filed, compounded
annually on January 1 of each year of the period.”
This formula won’t work because one-year Treasury Bills
haven’t been sold since 2001.Second, by limiting the amount of
decrease to a single year after its adoption the market won’t
have adjusted to reflect the regulation’s long term impact.
Under Measure 49 your loss is limited to one year’s decrease in
value, even if you have owned the property for 30 years. But
even that won’t work because you can’t calculate your loss.
In plain English, you get nothing.
When you take the time to read Measure 49, you realize that
Measure 49 simply is not as advertised.
Vote NO on 49
Sean Smith, Attorney at Law, Cottage Grove
(This information furnished by Sean Smith, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: MAKING PROPERTY OWNERS
RE-FILE THEIR MEASURE 37 APPLICATIONS
Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49
that are simply false.
Supporters of Measure 49 claim that current Measure 37
claimants will not have to re-file applications under
Measure 49.
Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:
Section 8.(2)(b) of Measure 49 requires the Department of Land
Conservation and Development to identify the information that
a property owner has to file under Measure 49.
Section 8.(3) of Measure 49 explains that a property owner
must file the form requirement by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, along with any information
required by the form.
But the worst part is this. Not only do you have to re-file
your claim, but Measure 49 significantly changes the
rules that you must meet, meaning many Measure 37
claimants will lose their claim.
By requiring new information, and new filings, Measure 49 puts
at risk the investments of thousands of Oregonians who have
done nothing more than follow the law and played by the rules.
Despite what supporters of Measure 49 are claiming, the fact is
that Oregonians are going to have to go through an application
process yet again if Measure 49 passes.
When you take the time to read Measure 49, you realize that
Measure 49 simply doesn’t work.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
61 | State Measures
continued September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Please vote NO on Measure 49
Cameron Krauss, Attorney at Law, Glendale
(This information furnished by Cameron Krauss, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
ISSUE: WHY THE “1 TO 3 HOME EXPRESS LANE”
DOESN’T WORK
Supporters of Measure 49 are making claims about Measure 49
that are simply false.
Supporters of Measure 49 who drafted the Explanatory
Statement for Measure 49 say “Claimants may build up to three
homes if allowed when they acquired their properties.”
Read the text of Measure 49 and decide for yourself:
Under Measure 49, there are different requirements for the
“1 to 3 home option” depending on where you live.
If you live outside a UGB, Section 6(6) of Measure 49 says that
in order to get 1 to 3 homes you must prove 6 things, including:
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing
the lot, parcel or dwelling;
Under Measure 49, in order to get 1 to 3 homes, you must have
1) already filed a Measure 37 claim, and 2) prove there is one
or more land use regulations that prohibit establishing the lot,
parcel or dwelling.
That is a much tougher standard than current law, which
requires you to show that a land use regulation “restricts”
the use of you property.
The distinction is critical because most rural families are
prevented from building one home on their property by a
restriction,like LCDC’s $80,000 rule or a wildlife habitat
overlay.
These are examples of restrictions – they don’t stop you from
building, they tell you under what conditions you can build.
These restrictions have led to most Measure 37 claims.
There are many other laws out there that are restrictions, not
prohibitions, on your ability to use your land. Those laws are
NOT subject to Measure 49.
Which means that if at the time you bought your
property you could have built three homes, but you
can’t build three homes now because of a land use
restriction, Measure 49 wipes out your claim.
Take the time to read Measure 49. It simply doesn’t work.
Dave Hunnicutt, Attorney at Law, Tigard
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Attorney at Law.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
Do you need more information about Measure 49?
Go to www.stoptakingourproperty.com and you can find
out what Measure 49’s supporters aren’t telling you.
You can also read the text of Measure 49 for yourself, and hear
what experts say about Measure 49 and what changes it makes
to Oregon law using the exact language of the measure.
The exact language of Measure 49 is important, because it’s the
language of Measure 49 that judges and lawyers are required to
follow if they are asked to sort out the mess that Measure 49
would create.
www.stop49.com
MEASURE 49 – A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Director, Stop Taking
Our Property PAC.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Argument in Opposition
PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE 49
“IF WE CAN STACK PEOPLE UP IN TOWN AND PUT THEM
IN A FOOD LINE WE WILL HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL,.”
These were the words of a head land use planner in Polk County
about 30 years ago. I have seen nothing contrary to that
statement in 30 years. The agenda is to limit housing growth to
the designated urban areas, and restrict rural housing to a
minimum.
In 1973, passage of Senate Bill 100 initiated that process for
Oregon. To preserve beautiful Oregon, “PLANNING” (land
control) was initiated. Property rights were sacrificed without
compensation to the landowner for loss of use or value.
Enron people have gone to jail for manipulating values of
people’s investments in stocks. “PLANNING” has caused a
manipulated loss of value for owners of rural land in this State
since 1973 without compensation to the owner.
M-49
1. Land applications will be made to the State, rather than to
the counties in which the land and usually the owner exists
(state control rather than local control.)
2. One to three parcels will be hard to get and the State will
designate where the parcels will be. They will contain a
maximum of two acres, clustered together to make a
mini-town, at a State designated spot on the property.
3. There is no time limit as to when the parcels will be approved
by the State.
4. If there is an appeal, which can be brought by anyone, the
applicant will be required to pay the government appraiser and
attorney plus his own representation with no allowance for
collection of those funds, even if the applicant prevails.
5. Vested use is mentioned several times but never defined,
nor has it been for 30 years.
6. The legislature has completely disregarded the voice of the
people in the Oregon Supreme Court upheld law of M-37 and
the initiative process enacted by her citizen’s.
VOTE NO ON M-49.
(This information furnished by Vern Ratzlaff.)
This space purchased for $500 in accordance with ORS 251.255.
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the
State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any
statement made in the argument.
Measure 49 Arguments
Official 2007 November Special Election Voters’ Pamphlet
62 | State Measures September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
NONPROFIT
CAR-RT SORT
U.S. Postage
PAID
Portland, OR
Permit No. 815
Residential Customer
Secretary of State
Bill Bradbury
State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310-0722
Voters’ Pamphlet
State Measures
Oregon Special Election
November 6, 2007
Please recycle this pamphlet with your newspapers.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
2
Staff claims that: "There are important differences between the claims." (See page 2 of memo.)
However, the specific "difference" cited is a "difference without a legal distinction." Furthermore,
the provided basis for the interpretation does not follow the statutory rules of interpretation and
relies on a "textual" argument that isn't the determinant element of the criterion. (Specifically, the
staff considered the different definitions of "restrict" versus "prohibit," but that's not the issue, as I
explain. The issue is the meaning of "residential use," as I also explain. Glenn Klein's advice relied
on the latter, as well.)
I understand that Glenn Klein is still available for limited assistance to the City Council. What I am
requesting is that you solicit Glenn's opinion on this case solely with respect to the proper
interpretation of ORS 195.305(1), “if a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that
restrict the
residential use of private real property…the owner of the property shall be entitled to just
compensation” and ORS 195.310(1)(c) providing that a person may file a M49 claim if “the person’s
desired use of the property is restricted by one or more land use regulations.” (Emphasis added.)
I've attached a rebuttal to the staff's new interpretation. My analysis follows the proper structure
for statutory construction, consistent with Glenn's former interpretation. I've also had lengthy
discussions with knowledgeable DLCD staff, and they state they know of no cases or legislative
history that would support the staff's new interpretation. I've also discussed this with my land use
attorney, and he believes Glenn's interpretation is sound.
As my testimony states, the implications of the staff's extremely broad interpretation would have
drastic, far-reaching effect on the Council's ability to adopt future code amendments that added or
increased limitations on development (e.g., to implement the Envision Eugene policy
of "protecting neighborhood livability").
The question of which is the proper interpretation of the pertinent M49 statutory provision is far
more important than just one M49 waiver. Accordingly, I'm requesting that, as the City's chief legal
officer, you do two things to help ensure that City Council makes the correct decision:
a) Solicit Glenn Klein's (limited) advice on the issue of "residential use"; and
b) Provide the Council with a frank explanation of the potential impacts on future code
amendments if the Council were to adopt the Planning staff's new interpretation.
If you would like to discuss this further, I would be happy to fill you in on what I have learned
through my conversations mentioned above and researching the history of Measures 37 and 49.
I would appreciate a reply either to me directly or to my City Councilor, Emily Semple.
Thank you for you help.
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Ward 1
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
'45+.0/:3' -+4'003' '#463'
-#+.+-'
+F3>:EE653J)2F= @?E6#F=J
#:03#/&06/%+-034
,96&@@C6&62DFC64=2:>72:=DE@>66EE967@==@H:?8DE2EFE@CJC6BF:C6>6?ED3642FD6
,964:E65C68F=2E:@?
2 5:5?@E OC6DEC:4EE96C6D:56?E:2=FD6@7AC:G2E6
C62=AC@A6CEJ P
,962AA=:42?E92D?@E G2=:5=J6DE23=:D965E92E E964:E65C68F=2E:@? OC65F46051 E9672:C
>2C<6EG2=F6@7E96AC@A6CEJ P
"?=:89E@7E966G:56?46 2?5E96#F=J
>6>@7C@> 2?%2H=6CE96A:G@E2=BF6DE:@?
C682C5:?8E96AC@A6C2AA=:42E:@?@7E96&62DFC6(C68@?*6G:D65+E2EFE6D (*+ 3@:=D5@H?
E@E9:D
#).& -# ).( $& + % - -# & " &)*$($)()!!)+' +$-2--)+( 2& ((& $(0#$ #-#
$-2).( $&!)+' &&2 )*- ,!$( $(",$( ,)&.-$)( (2$("-# $&,)( ,.+
& $'$&
+E2774=2:>DE92EE96EH@42D6D.:=D@?2?5&@@C62C65:DE:?8F:D923=63642FD6
O,96C62C6:>A@CE2?E5:776C6?46D36EH66?E964=2:>D "?E96 .:=D@?4=2:>E96 :EJ
4@?4=F565E92EE96C68F=2E:@?2E:DDF65:5?@EC6DEC:4EE96C6D:56?E:2=FD6 @7E96AC@A6CEJ
3642FD6E964=2:>2?ED925@E96CG:23=6>6E9@5DE@249:6G6E96:C56D:C65 C6D:56?E:2=FD6
"?E96&@@C6&4=2:>E964=2:>2?E2AA62CDE@92G6?@G:23=6>6E9@5E@ 249:6G696C
56D:C65C6D:56?E:2=FD6 Q P
,9:D72=D6=J56D4C:36DE96EH@42D6D2?5AC6D6?ED25:DE:?4E:@?H:E9@FE25:776C6?46
,96.:=D@?D56D:C65E96 FD6 @7E96:CAC@A6CEJ7@C2@?672>:=J5H6==:?82?52D64@?52CJ
5H6==:?8 ,96.:=D@?D2=D@56D:C65E@ :>A=6>6?E E9:DFD6H:E92DA64:7:456D:8?E92EH2D
AC@9:3:E653JE964:E65C68F=2E:@?
4H9:49=:>:E65E963F:=5:?896:89E@7E96
D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8E96.:=D@?D56D:C65E@92G6
&@@C656D:C6DE@ FD6 96CAC@A6CEJ7@C2@?672>:=J5H6==:?8 &@@C62=D@56D:C6DE@ :>A=6>6?E
E9:DFD6H:E92DA64:7:456D:8?E92E:DAC@9:3:E653JE964:E65C68F=2E:@?
2
H9:49=:>:EDE963F:=5:?8D:K6@7E96@?672>:=J5H6==:?8E92E&@@C656D:C6DE@92G6
"? '40-65+0/ E96 :EJ @F?4:=25@AE652D:ED:?E6CAC6E2E:@?@7E962AA=:423=6&62DFC6
DE2EFE6DE96@A:?:@?@7 =6?$=6:?H9:49DE2E6D
O<#/& 4' ')6-#5+0/4=
O
O
4 :D2 AC@G:D:@?@7E96 :EJNDK@?:?8@C5:?2?462?5:EC68F=2E6D
C6D:56?E:2=FD6D@?AC@A6CEJK@?657@CC6D:56?E:2=FD6D !@H6G6C2D5:D4FDD65:?
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
>@C656E2:=:?D64E:@? 36=@H
4 5@6D ?@EC6DEC:4EE96C6D:56?E:2=FD6 @7
E96.:=D@?DN AC@A6CEJE96C67@C6
4 5@6D ?@EBF2=:7J2D 2M=2?5FD6
C68F=2E:@?N7@CAFCA@D6D@7&62DFC6
O
O '453+%5+0/0/ '4+&'/5+#- 4'
OM=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@?N @?=J8:G6DC:D6E@2&62DFC64=2:>:7E96C68F=2E:@?C6DEC:4ED
E96 C6D:56?E:2=FD6@7AC:G2E6C62=AC@A6CEJK@?657@CC6D:56?E:2=FD6
4
AC@G:56D2 96:89E=:>:E7@C?6H2EE249652?556E24965D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8F?:EDH:E9:?
E964:EJC64@8?:K65 3@F?52C:6D@7>2K@?'6:893@CD 2:C>@F?E'6:893@CD2?5+@FE9
-?:G6CD:EJ'6:893@C9@@52?5 AC@D4C:36D 0D:41 2>6E9@57@C56E6C>:?:?8E9696:89E@72
3F:=5:?8 =2:>2?ED2==686E92E
4 C6DEC:4EDE96C6D:56?E:2=FD6@7E96:C
AC@A6CEJ2D:EAC6G6?EDE966I:DE:?8C6D:56?46 @? E96:CAC@A6CEJ7C@>2FE@>2E:42==J
BF2=:7J:?82D2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8 03642FD6E966I:DE:?85H6==:?86I4665DE96>2I:>F>
96:89E=:>:E1
O0)C@G:56DE964@567@C
4 1
O,92E:DF?56CE964@56AC@G:D:@?DE92E6I:DE65AC:@CE@E96 25@AE:@?@7(C5:?2?46'@
E96 =2:>2?ED6I:DE:?8DECF4EFC6>6EE9696:89EC6BF:C6>6?E7@C 256E24965
D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8 !@H6G6CE964@56AC6D4C:365>2??6C7@C>62DFC:?8E963F:=5:?8
96:89E@7256E24965D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8E92EH6?E:?E@67764E@?AC:=
BF@E65
23@G6 AC6G6?EDE96 =2:>2?ED7C@>4@?G6CE:?8E966I:DE:?8DECF4EFC6E@2=2H7F=
56E24965D64@?52CJ 5H6==:?8 2D65@?E96>62DFC:?8>6E9@525@AE65:?
E96
=2:>2?ED6I:DE:?8DECF4EFC6 6I4665DE96>2I:>F>96:89E2==@H657@C256E24965
D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8
O =2:>2?ED2DD6CEE92E
4 :D 2M=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@?N E92EMC6DEC:4EDE96
C6D:56?E:2=FD@7E96:CAC@A6CEJ3642FD6AC:@CE@E96
25@AE:@?@7(C5:?2?46'@
E96 6I:DE:?8C6D:56?46@? =2:>2?EDAC@A6CEJH@F=592G62FE@>2E:42==JBF2=:7:65
2D256E24965 D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8F?:E !@H6G6C7@==@H:?8E9625@AE:@?@7(C5:?2?46
'@
E966I:DE:?8 C6D:56?46?@=@?86C2FE@>2E:42==JBF2=:7:6D2D256E24965
D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8F?:E3642FD632D65 @?E96H2JE96DECF4EFC6 >FDE36>62DFC65
5*''9+45+/)3'4+&'/%'+45005#--5026#-+(:#4#&'5#%*'& 4'%0/:&8'--+/)6/+5
O!@H6G6C56DA:E6E9696:89EC6DEC:4E:@?D:>A@D653J
4 DE27792D
:56?E:7:652 ?F>36C@7255:E:@?2=H2JD4=2:>2?ED4@F=5 4@?DECF4E2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8
@?E96DF3;64E AC@A6CEJ
O
O *'4536%563'%0/5#+/+/)5*''9+45+/)&8'--+/)%06-&$'#-5'3'&50.''55*'
%633'/5*'+)*5-+.+5(034'%0/:&8'--+/)E9:DH@F=5=:<6=JC6BF:C6C6>@G:?8
E96E@A7=@@C2?5FD:?8 E96=@H6CA@CE:@?4FCC6?E=J282C2867@CE965H6==:?8
2?5E96?364@?G6CE65E@2 D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8:?4@?;F?4E:@?H:E92?6H
AC:>2CJ5H6==:?83F:=E@?E96AC@A6CEJ
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
OD)=2??:?8DE277A@:?E@FEH9:=6
4 AC6G6?ED4=2:>2?ED7C@>EC62E:?8
E96 6I:DE:?8DECF4EFC6@?E96AC@A6CEJ2D2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8H:E9@FE2=E6C2E:@?D
% &0'4/05(03'%-04'5*'-#+.#/54(30.&'7'-01+/)$05*#13+.#3:
&8'--+/)#/'%0/: &8'--+/)0/5*'46$,'%51301'35:,96 =2:>2?ED2C8F6E92E
E96:CFD6@7E96AC@A6CEJ:DC6DEC:4E65 3642FD6AC:@CE@
4 E96DECF4EFC6
@?E96:CAC@A6CEJH@F=592G6 2FE@>2E:42==J BF2=:7:652D2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?82?5?@H:E
5@6D?@E !@H6G6C&62DFC6C6BF:C6DE92E2=2?5 FD6C68F=2E:@?C6DEC:4E2C6D:56?E:2=
FD62?52D?@E6523@G6
4 5@6D?@EAC6G6?E E96C6D:56?E:2=FD6@7E96
AC@A6CEJ86?6C2==J?@C5@6D:EAC@9:3:E =2:>2?ED7C@>6DE23=:D9:?83@E9 2AC:>2CJ2?5
2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8@?E96DF3;64EAC@A6CEJ )2F= @?E62?5 2C@=J?#24@3D2=D@
DF3>:EE65E6DE:>@?J:?E@E96C64@C52C8F:?8E92E
4 5@6D ?@EC6DEC:4EE96
FD6@7 =2:>2?END AC@A6CEJ
O642FD6E96C62C6@E96CH2JD7@C =2:>2?EDE@A=2462D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8F?:E@?E96
DF3;64E AC@A6CEJE96 :EJ&2?286C4@?4=F56DE92E
4 5@6D ?@EC6DEC:4E
E96C6D:56?E:2=FD6 @7 =2:>2?EDN AC@A6CEJ2DC6BF:C653J&62DFC6 P >A92D:D
25565
"END4C:E:42=E@?@E6E92E:?E9642D6@7E96.:=D@?DN4=2:> ?@?6 @7E96O255:E:@?2=H2JD4=2:>2?ED
4@F=54@?DECF4E2D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8@?E96DF3;64E AC@A6CEJPH@F=592G62==@H65E96.:=D@?DN
E@92G6E96D64@?52CJ5H6==:?8H:E9E9696:89EE92EE96.:=D@?ND56D:C65 "?@E96CH@C5DH9:=6
$=6:?ND@A:?:@?C64@8?:K65E92EE9625@AE65C68F=2E:@?OC6DEC:4E65PE96>2I:>F>96:89E@7E96
+ - E92EE96.:=D@?D56D:C65$=6:??@?6E96=6DD7@F?5E92EE96C68F=2E:@?5:5 ?@E C6DEC:4EE96
C6D:56?E:2=FD6@7E96.:=D@?NDAC@A6CEJ
+E27792D>:D=625:?8=JDE2E65E92EE96.:=D@?DO925@E96CG:23=6>6E9@5DE@249:6G6E96:C
56D:C65 C6D:56?E:2=FD6P2D:7E92ED@>69@HH2D5:776C6?EE92?:?E96&@@C642D6 FEE96ECF6
4@>A2C:D@?:DE92E.:=D@?DH6C623=6E@249:6G6E96:C56D:C65 FD6 @72AC:>2CJ5H6==:?82?52
D64@?52CJ5H6==:?83FEH6C6 ?@E 23=6E@249:6G6E96:C56D:C65 :>A=6>6?E2E:@?H9:49:D6I24E=J
E9642D6H:E9&@@C6H9@:D23=6E@249:6G696C56D:C67@C2@?672>:=J5H6==:?8 FD63FE:D ?@E
23=6E@249:6G696C56D:C65:>A=6>6?E2E:@?
+E27792D>:DE2<6?=J4@?7=2E65E96=682=>62?:?8@7OFD6PH:E9E96 H2JOFD6PD@>6E:>6D@44FCD
:?:?7@C>2=4@>>F?:42E:@? '@@?6H@F=55:D28C66E92E:EH@F=5?@E36@FE@7E96@C5:?2CJ7@C
2 =2J A6CD@?E@D2JO"N5=:<6E@ ., >JAC@A6CEJ7@C2
DBF2C67@@E9@>6 P!@H6G6CE96
>62?:?8@7E96G6C3OE@FD6P:?2?:?7@C>2=4@?E6IE:D>@DE567:?:E6=J?@EE96D2>62DE96?@F?
OFD6P:?=2?5FD6=2H
F86?6 @56>2<6DE9:D4=62C3J567:?:?8OFD6P:? 67:?:E:@?D
O 4' ,96AFCA@D67@CH9:49=2?5@C23F:=5:?8:D2CC2?86556D:8?65@C:?E6?565@C 7@C
H9:496:E96C=2?5@C23F:=5:?8:D@44FA:65@C>2:?E2:?65 P
O-D6P:D6IA=:4:E=J2OAFCA@D6P?@E2A2CE:4F=2C56D:8?@CD6E@7762EFC6DFD65E@:>A=6>6?E2
3F:=5:?8E@D6CG6E92EAFCA@D6
F86?6 @566IA=:4:E=J=:DEDE96OFD6DP7@C6G6CJK@?6 (*+
AC@G:56D E967@==@H:?8
C6=6G2?E567:?:E:@?
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
O/@?657@CC6D:56?E:2=FD6 >62?DK@?:?8E92E92D2D:EDAC:>2CJAFCA@D6D:?8=672>:=J
C6D:56?E:2=FD6 P
,96 F86?6 @56ND* /@?67:EDE9:DDE2EFE@CJ567:?:E:@?
63104'0( 08'/4+5: '4+&'/5+#-"0/',96AFCA@D6@7E96* %@H
6?D:EJ*6D:56?E:2=K@?6:DE@:>A=6>6?EE96&6EC@)=2?3JAC@G:5:?82C62D7@C=@H
56?D:EJC6D:56?E:2=FD6 ,96* K@?6:D56D:8?657@C@?672>:=J5H6==:?8DH:E9D@>6
2==@H2?467@C@E96CEJA6D@75H6==:?8D
@CE96 * /@?6E96=:DE@7OFD6DP:D7@F?5:?,23=6 #$-'
'4+&'/5+#-"0/'#/&
4'4#/& '3.+5 '26+3'.'/54 DF38C@FA@7FD6D :?E9:DE23=6:D 7@C O*6D:56?E:2= P,9FD
H:E9:?E9:D DF38C@FA F86?6 @56 6DE23=:D96D L $(& " &- +',L E96 OC6D:56?E:2=FD6D P ,96
6=6>6?ED:?E9:D42E68@CJ2C6H92E 2C6 6?4@>A2DD65 3J E96DE2EFE6D E92E6DE23=:D9 E96
C6BF:C6>6?ED7@C2G2=:5&62DFC64=2:>
%:DE65F?56CE96* C6D:56?E:2=FD6D2C6O(?6 2>:=J H6==:?8PO+64@?52CJ H6==:?8P
O FA=6IPO&F=E:A=6 2>:=J H6==:?8P2?5@E96CD ,96C6:D?@E2D:?8=6C6D:56?E:2=OFD6PE92E
6>3@5:6D2A2CE:4F=2C D:K6 @C6I2>A=6E96C62C6?@OC6D:56?E:2=FD6DP7@CO E@ DBF2C6
7@@E5H6==:?8PO E@
DBF2C67@@E5H6==:?8P2?5O
DBF2C67@@E@C=2C86C5H6==:?8 P
"?.:=D@?ND4=2:> =6??$=6:?ND@A:?:@?H2D32D65@?E96724EE92EE96:C=@E2==@H65EH@FD6D
(?6(?6 2>:=J H6==:?82?5@?6+64@?52CJ H6==:?8 L )-# !)+ ( !- +
0 , )*-
"?&@@C6ND4=2:>E96F?5:DAFE65 724E:DE92E96C=@E2==@H65 E96FD67@C @?6(?6 2>:=J
H6==:?8 L )-# !)+ ( !- +
0 , )*-
& ((& $(4, ( &2,$, ( )*$($)(0 , )++ - ( **&$ & -) )-#-# $&,)( ( ))+
,$-. -$)(,
*'+5:06/%+-*#4/03'#40/#$-'1#5*50#11307+/)5*'003''#463'
%-#+.8+5*065 3','%5+/) 5*'06/%+-=408/(+/&+/)4+/5*'!+-40/
'#463'
%-#+.8*+%*'91-+%+5-:#&015'&-'//-'+/=4-')#-01+/+0/
"72?J4@F?4:=@C:DF?46CE2:?23@FEE9:D56DA:E6E964=62C6G:56?46:END:?4F>36?E@?9:>@C96C
E@D66< =6??$=6:?ND@A:?:@?@C2E=62DEE96 @A:?:@?@7 6AFEJ :EJ EE@C?6J >:=J#6C@>6 "
4964<65H:E9 >:=J2?5D96DE2E65D9692D?@E366?:?G@=G65:?E96&@@C64=2:> "36=:6G6
>:=J92DE96?646DD2CJ4@>A6E6?46E@AC@A6C=J@A:?6@?H96E96C =6??$=6:?NDAC:@C@A:?:@?
:D2AA=:423=6:?E96&@@C642D6
5#((=4'330/'064+/5'313'5#5+0/0(5*'45#565'4806-&*#7'&+4#453064+.1#%540//7+4+0/
6)'/'#/&5*'>-'#3#/&$,'%5+7'064+/)11307#-3+5'3+# 1'?130%'44
67@C66IA=2:?:?8E96@3G:@FD7=2HD:?DE277ND2EE6>AE2E:?E6CAC6E:?8E96DE2EFE6D"H2?EE@
>2<6DFC64@F?4:=@CDF?56CDE2?5E967F==:>A=:42E:@?DE92EH@F=52C:D6:7E96 @F?4:=H6C6E@
C6;64E =6??$=6:?ND :?E6CAC6E2E:@?2?5 25@AEE96DE277:?E6CAC6E2E:@?:?DE625
"?D:>A=6E6C>DDE2772C8F6DE92E (2 4@562>6?5>6?EE92EC6DEC:4ED (2 762EFC6@72(?6
2>:=J H6==:?8OC6DEC:4EDE96C6D:56?E:2= FD6P@7E96AC@A6CEJ ,96&@@C64=2:> :DDA64:7:42==J
32D65@?24@562>6?5>6?EE92EC65F465E96>2I:>F>DBF2C67@@E286@725H6==:?8@?2?
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
2==6J2446DD=@E !@H6G6CE966I24ED2>6:?E6CAC6E2E:@?H@F=52AA=JE@C65F4:?8>2I:>F>
3F:=5:?896:89E@72+64@?52CJ H6==:?82D:?E96.:=D@?4=2:>:?4C62D:?83F:=5:?8D6E324<D
C6BF:C:?8:>AC@G65EC62E>6?E@7DE@C>H2E6C:?4C62D:?8@C564C62D:?8A2C<:?8C6BF:C6>6?ED
6E4
D=@?82D2AC@A6CEJ@H?6C4@F=5A2J2?244@>>@52E:?82AAC2:D6CE@2DD6CEE96AC@A6CEJND
G2=F6H2DC65F4653JD@>62>@F?E3642FD6 6I24E=J H92E4@F=5363F:=E367@C64@F=5?NE36
:56?E:42==J 3F:=E27E6CE96 :EJH@F=592G6E@2AAC@G6E964=2:> "?AC24E:42=E6C>DE96 @F?4:=
H@F=52=>@DE46CE2:?=JE96?H2:G6E96?6HC68F=2E:@? ,96C6DF=EH@F=536E@67764E:G6=J C6?56C
2?J?6H56G6=@A>6?EC6BF:C6>6?ED F?6?7@C4623=6 7@C2A6C:@5@77:G6J62CD27E6C25@AE:@?
&4=2:>D>FDE367:=65H:E9:?7:G6J62CD@7E964:E65C68F=2E:@?
(3G:@FD=J2EE@C?6JD=:<6:==$=@@DH@F=5EC@E2C@F?5E@H?D@=:4:E:?84=:6?EDE@92G6 9:>7:=6E96
4=2:>D?646DD2CJE@6G256E96?6HC68F=2E:@?D "EH@F=536@?6>2EE6C:7 E96A6C:@55FC:?8
H9:49?6HC68F=2E:@?DH6C6F?6?7@C4623=6H6C6D@>6E9:?8E96 @F?4:=36=:6G65>6C:E65 2
52J@C@?6J62CA6C:@5367@C6 E96 C68F=2E:@?H6?E:?E@67764E 3FE2 F?:G6CD2=7:G6J62C 56=2J:?
67764E:G652E6H@F=5 6DD6?E:2==J56762E 2?JC62D@?23=62EE6>AEE@ 4@?EC@= 56G6=@A>6?E
,9:D4@?D6BF6?46H@F=5C6?56C2=>@DE>62?:?8=6DD2?J2EE6>AE3JE96 :EJE@56G6=@A2?5
25@AEO:?7:==4@>A2E:3:=:EJDE2?52C5DP@CDA64:2=2C62K@?6D:?@C56CE@:>A=6>6?E24@C6
?G:D:@? F86?6A:==2CO)C@E64E*6A2:C2?5 ?92?46'6:893@C9@@5%:G23:=:EJ P,96DE277ND
>:D:?E6CAC6E2E:@?@7&62DFC6DE2EFE6D:725@AE65 H@F=52==@HAC@A6CEJ@H?6CDE@:8?@C6
3J2&4=2:>2=>@DE2==D:8?:7:42?E56G6=@A>6?EC6BF:C6>6?EDE92E>:89E 2AAC@AC:2E6=J=:>:E
C6D:56?E:2=56G6=@A>6?E &62DFC6DE2EFE6DAC@G:566I46AE:@?D7@C46CE2:??6HC68F=2E:@?D
6 8 7@CAF3=:4D276EJ
,964@?D6BF6?46@7DE277ND>:D:?E6CAC6E2E:@?H@F=52=D@4C:E:42==J F?56C>:?62?J2EE6>AEE@
C6A=246C6D:56?E:2=56G6=@A>6?EC68F=2E:@?DE92E2C6?NEO4=62C2?5@3;64E:G6PH:E92AAC@G2=
4C:E6C:2E92E2C6O4=62C2?5@3;64E:G6 P @C 6I2>A=6E962AAC@G2=4C:E6C:2 7@C.:==2>6EE6
C66?H2J)6C>:ED2C6?@E4=62C2?5@3;64E:G62?592G6366?492==6?865F?56C C646?E DE2EFE6D
,9:D492==6?86:D=:<6=JE@36DF446DD7F=H9:49>62?DE92EE96 :EJH:==?@E362==@H65E@
6?7@C46E96.:==2>6EE6 C66?H2J4C:E6C:2@?9@FD:?8AC@A@D2=D6 8 )=2??65-?:E
6G6=@A>6?ED2=@?8E96C:G6CF?E:=E96 :EJ25@AED4=62C2?5@3;64E:G62AAC@G2=4C:E6C:2
!@H6G6C27E6C25@AE:@? @7?6H.:==2>6EE6 C66?H2J4C:E6C:22?JAC@A6CEJ@H?6C4@F=54=2:>
E92E AC:@CE@E96D6?6HC68F=2E:@?DE96:CAC@A6CEJH2D?@E3@F?53J (2 .:==2>6EE6 C66?H2J
C6DEC:4E:@?D2?5E96C67@C6E96 :EJH@F=592G6E@2AAC@G62&62DFC64=2:>2?5H2:G6C @7
?6H4=62C2?5@3;64E:G6.:==2>6EE6 C66?H2J4C:E6C:27@C7:G6J62CD @C AC@G:56 DF3DE2?E:2=
>@?6E2CJ4@>A6?D2E:@?
5>:EE65=J"42?NEAC@G:56E96 @F?4:=2>@C6:?56AE92?2=JD:D@7E96A@E6?E:2=:>A24ED@7E96
DE277ND>:D:?E6CAC6E2E:@?3642FD6"925@?=JE9C6652JDE@C6DA@?5E@E96:C56=2J65>6>@
!@H6G6CE96 @F?4:=42??@E:?8@@572:E925@AEE96DE277ND:?E6CAC6E2E:@?H:E9@FE36:?823=6E@
C6G:6H2E9@C@F892?2=JD:D@7E96A@E6?E:2=:>A24ED +E2772DFDF2=92D72:=65E@AC@G:56E96
@F?4:=@CAF3=:46G6?2O9625DFAP23@FEE96:>A=:42E:@?D@7E96:C:?E6CAC6E2E:@?
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
5#((=4+/5'313'5#5+0/+4830/)#/&(#+-450(0--085*'.045$#4+%> 6-'40( 5#56503:
0/4536%5+0/?
.:E92==E9623@G6D2:5"H2?EE@2=D@>2<64=62CE92EE96=2E6DEDE277:?E6CAC6E2E:@??@E@?=J
H@F=5AC@5F4623DFC52?592C>7F=C6DF=ED:END2C:5:4F=@FD=J:?4@>A6E6?E2?2=JD:DE92E5@6D?NE
6G6?7@==@HE96>@DE32D:4=682=CF=6D7@C:?E6CAC6E:?8DE2EFE6D
,96DE277:?E6CAC6E2E:@?:D32D656?E:C6=J@?E967@==@H:?82C8F>6?E
OE962AAC@AC:2E6:?BF:CJF?56C&62DFC6:D?@EH96E96CE96 C68F=2E:@?*+ / (-,
C6D:56?E:2=FD63FEH96E96CE96C68F=2E:@?+ ,-+$ -,C6D:56?E:2=FD6 P
"?E9686?6C2=D6?D6E9:DDE2E6>6?E:D4@CC64E .92EDE277:8?@C65:?E96AC6G:@FD=JDF3>:EE65
E6DE:>@?J:DE92EE96 )(&2 A6C>:EE65FD6@7&@@C6ND=@E3@E9367@C62?527E6CE9625@AE:@?@7
E964:E65C68F=2E:@?H2D @?6 (?6 2>:=J H6==:?8 )C:@CE@36:?8AC@G6?HC@?8DE2774=2:>65
E92E2(?6 2>:=J H6==:?8H2DO:?762D:3=6PH9:49>62?EE92E&@@C64@F=5?@EA=246E9:D(?6
2>:=J H6==:?8@?96C=@E "?67764EDE2772C8F65E92E 25@AE:@?@7
2 AC6G6?E65
96C7C@>C6D:56?E:2=FD6@796C=@E "C6DA@?5653JAC@G:?82
DBF2C67@@E5H6==:?8H2D3@E9
762D:3=62?5E96 :EJ92D56G6?A6C>:EE652D>2==6C(?6 2>:=J H6==:?8@?2D>2==6C2==6J
2446DD=@E ,9FD" DE2E65 .+ - &2E92EOE964:E65C68F=2E:@?5@6D?@EAC6G6?EE96C6D:56?E:2=
FD6@7E96AC@A6CEJ P
!2G:?83=@H?E96:C7:CDE2EE6>AE2E2AA=J:?8E96&62DFC6DE2EFE6DDE27792D?@HD6EFA2
ODEC2H>2?P 2DD6CE:?8 E92E 3642FD6E96DE2EFE6E6IEFDOC6DEC:4EP 2?5?@E OAC6G6?EP &@@C6ND
&62DFC6 4=2:>:DG2=:5 +E277E96?>2<6D2 ! .1 2EE6>AE2E3@=DE6C:?8 E96:C :?E6CAC6E2E:@?3J
4:E:?8E@E965:4E:@?2CJ567:?:E:@?@7 OC6DEC:4E P
,96@3G:@FD567:4:6?4J:?DE277ND4@?4=FD:@?:DE92EE96J=62A7C@>E96:C@77A@:?E OC6DEC:4EP
G6CDFD OAC6G6?EP 4@>>6?EDE@E964@?4=FD:@?E92E OC6DEC:4EP :?E96DE2EFE6 2AA=:6DE@A2CE:4F=2C
:>A=6>6?E2E:@?D @75H6==:?8DH9:49 :E5@6D?@E ,96C62=A@:?E :DE92E OC6DEC:4EP :?E96&62DFC6
DE2EFE6D 2AA=:6DE@6:E96CAC6G6?E:?8E96A=246>6?E@72?J D:?8=672>:=J 5H6==:?8D@? 2
AC@A6CEJ@CC65F4:?8E96 (.' +@7 D:?8=672>:=J 5H6==:?8D @?2AC@A6CEJ
+E277AC@G:56D?@ =682=2?2=JD:D2E2==@7E96E6C> OC6D:56?E:2=FD6 P "?DE625DE2773=:E96=J
2DDF>6D
O0&@@C6ND1 56D:C65C6D:56?E:2=FD6E92EH2D2==@H65AC:@CE@E966?24E>6?E@7
2 01 :DE964@?DECF4E:@?@72
DBF2C67@@E9@>6 P
(3G:@FD=J?@>2EE6C9@H&@@C6ND2EE@C?6J >2J92G6 6IAC6DD65&@@C6ND O56D:C65FD6P E92E
:D?NE C6=6G2?E E@ E96 ,- -.- ,:?E6?565>62?:?8@7 OC6D:56?E:2=FD6 P "? @E96CH@C5DDE27792D
AC@G:565 ?@ @7C6=6G2?E2?2=JD:DE@DFAA@CEE96:C2DDF>AE:@?E92E OFD6P 6?4@>A2DD6D
:>A=6>6?E2E:@?762EFC6D "?E96 23D6?46 @F?4:=D9@F=5C6=J @? =6??$=6:?ND4@>A6E6?E2?5
4@CC64E2?2=JD:D2?5@A:?:@?@CD66<24@>A6E6?E@A:?:@?7C@> >:=J#6C@>6
'@EE@7=@82 O56259@CD6P 3FE6G6?2 7:CDE J62C(C68@?=2HDEF56?E H@F=536 72>:=:2CH:E9E96
=682=C6BF:C6>6?ED7@C:?E6CAC6E:?8 (C68@? DE2EFE6D "H@?NE86EE@566A:?E@E96 =682=6D6 >:=J
4@F=5AC@G:56E92E7@C2?J:?E6C6DE654@F?4:=@C 2D:42==JE96 @F?4:=>FDE=@@<2EE96 E6IE@72
DE2EFE6E964@?E6IE2?5=68:D=2E:G69:DE@CJ "?255:E:@?2?:?E6CAC6E2E:@?>FDE?@EAC@5F46
23DFC5C6DF=ED ,96C62C6@E96CCF=6D3FEE96D62C6>@DEC6=6G2?E :?E9:D:?DE2?46
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
,@AC@A6C=J:?E6CAC6EE96A9C2D6OC6DEC:4EC6D:56?E:2=FD6P:?(*+ E96 :EJ>FDE7:CDE
=@@<E@E96E6IE2?5E96?4@?E6IE
(*+ 67:?:E:@?D7@C(*+ E@ 5@6D?@E567:?6OC6D:56?E:2=FD6P@COFD6 P
!@H6G6C(*+
5@6DAC@G:56E967@==@H:?8 96=A7F=567:?:E:@?2D4@?E6IE
O/@?657@CC6D:56?E:2=FD6>62?DK@?:?8E92E92D2D:EDAC:>2CJAFCA@D6D:?8=672>:=J
C6D:56?E:2=FD6 P
'@E69@H OD:?8=672>:=JC6D:56?E:2=FD6P 42?@?=J36F?56CDE@@5 2D>62?:?8E92E OFD6P C676CD
E@2A2CE:4F=2C OAFCA@D6P DA64:7:42==J7@C OD:?8=672>:=JP 5H6==:?8D ,9:D:?DE2?46@7 OFD6P
42??@EC62D@?23=J36F?56CDE@@52DC676CC:?8E@2A2CE:4F=2C56D:8? @CD:K6 @72D:?8=672>:=J
5H6==:?8
,96DE2EFE@CJ 567:?:E:@?6BF2E6DOC6D:56?E:2=FD6P:?E964@?E6IE@7&62DFC6DE2EFE6D
DA64:7:42==JH:E9OD:?8=672>:=JC6D:56?E:2=FD6 P,9FDE967:CDEBF6DE:@?:?E9:D4=2:>:D :5E96
4:E65C68F=2E:@?C6DEC:4EE96@H?6C7C@>FD6 @796C AC@A6CEJ7@C2D:?8=672>:=JC6D:56?46,96
2?DH6C:D567:?:E:G6=JO'@ P F86?692D:DDF6523F:=5:?8A6C>:E7@C2@?672>:=J5H6==:?8@?
25:776C6?E2==6J2446DD=@EE92E:DD=:89E=JD>2==6CE92? &@@C6ND =@E
F86?6%2?5-D6 @56AC@G:56D 2>@C67:?68C2:?65567:?:E:@?@7O-D6PE92E4@G6CDE964=2:>65
C6DEC:4E:@?C6=2E65E@@?672>:=J5H6==:?8F?:E '(+/+5+0/4 :?4=F56DE967@==@H:?8
567:?:E:@?
4',96AFCA@D67@CH9:49=2?5@C23F:=5:?8:D2CC2?86556D:8?65@C:?E6?565@C7@C
H9:496:E96C=2?5@C23F:=5:?8:D@44FA:65@C>2:?E2:?65
,9FDE96D64@?5BF6DE:@?:D :5E964:E65C68F=2E:@?C6DEC:4EE96OAFCA@D67@CH9:490E96
@H?6CND1=2?5Q:D:?E6?565P F86?6 @56D6ED7@CE9E96:?E6?565AFCA@D67@CAC@A6CEJE92E:D
K@?65* 2DE9:DAC@A6CEJ:D
63104'0( 08'/4+5: '4+&'/5+#-"0/',96AFCA@D6@7E96* %@H
6?D:EJ*6D:56?E:2=K@?6:DE@:>A=6>6?EE96&6EC@)=2?3JAC@G:5:?82C62D7@C=@H
56?D:EJC6D:56?E:2=FD6 ,96* K@?6:D56D:8?657@C@?672>:=J5H6==:?8DH:E9D@>6
2==@H2?467@C@E96CEJA6D@75H6==:?8D
44@C5:?8=JE96D64@?5BF6DE:@?:D>@C6DA64:7:42==J :5E964:E65C68F=2E:@?C6DEC:4EE96@H?6C
7C@>56G6=@A:?8 96C AC@A6CEJH:E92 O@?672>:=JP : 6 D:?8=672>:=J5H6==:?8H9:49:D@?6@7
E962==@H65OFD6DP =:DE65F?56C O*6D:56?E:2=
H6==:?8DP :?E96* K@?:?84@56,962?DH6C:D
4=62C=JO'@ P
-?56C4FCC6?EC68F=2E:@?DE96@H?6C:D2==@H65E@3F:=52@?672>:=JC6D:56?46@?E96DF3;64E
AC@A6CEJ ,9FDE964:E65C68F=2E:@?5:5?@EOC6DEC:4EE96 C6D:56?E:2=FD6@70E96@H?6CND1AC:G2E6
C62=AC@A6CEJP2?5E96&4=2:>:DH:E9@FE>6C:E
(E96CD64E:@?D@7E96&62DFC6DE2EFE6DAC@G:564@?7:C>:?84@?E6IE ,96DE277>6>@ ?6:E96C
:?4=F56DE96D6D64E:@?D?@C2?2=JK6D9@HE96J AC@G:564@?E6IE7@CAC@A6C DE2EFE@CJ
:?E6CAC6E2E:@?
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
(*+ DE2E6D
O-?=6DDE964=2:>:D32D65@?E966?24E>6?E@7@?6@C>@C6=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@?D
56D4C:365:?(*+ 6C6=:67>2J?@E368C2?E65F?56CE9:DD64E:@?:7E96
9:896DE2?536DEFD6@7E96AC@A6CEJ2EE96E:>6E96=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@?H2D6?24E65
H2D?@E E96 64'E92EH2DC6DEC:4E653JE96=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@? P >A92D:D25565
'@E6E92EE96DE2EFE6NDE6IEC676CDE@ OFD6P ?@E O56D:8?P O56G6=@A>6?EP O:>A=6>6?E2E:@?P @C
2?J@E96C E6C> "?E9:DD64E:@? OFD6P 42?@?=JC62D@?23=JC676CE@2?2==@H23=6FD6=:DE65:?E96
2AA=:423=6 =2?5FD6C68F=2E:@?D
+:>:=2C=J (*+
DE2E6DE92E2&62DFC64=2:>>FDEAC@G:56
O56D4C:AE:@?@7E96 DA64:7:4 64'@7E96AC@A6CEJE92EE964=2:>2?E56D:C6DE@42CCJ@FE
3FE42??@E3642FD6@7E96=2?5FD6C68F=2E:@? P
!6C6282:?E96E6IE5@6D?@EC676CE@ ODA64:7:456G6=@A>6?EP ODA64:7:456D:8?P 6E4
G6?E962AA=:42?END9:C652AAC2:D6CEC62ED OC6D:56?E:2= FD6P H:E9 E962AAC@AC:2E6=2?5FD6
>62?:?8: 6 2FD6 2==@H65 7@CE962AA=:423=6K@?6
O,96C67@C6E964@?4=F5659:896DE2?536DEFD62D@7E96
5 2E6@7G2=F6H@F=536
56G6=@A>6?EH:E9 #/#--08#$-'3'4+&'/5+#-64'+/5*' ;0/'
O
O,96C67@C6E964@?4=F565 9:896DE2?536DEFD62D@7E96
52E6@7G2=F6H@F=536
56G6=@A>6?EH:E92?#--08#$-'3'4+&'/5+#-64'+/5*' ;0/' P +66)286
@7
I9:3:E :?E96&2AA=:42E:@? >A92D:D25565
D 9:89=JC6=6G2?E 4@?E6IE&62DFC6 2=D@ C6BF:C6D E92E6G6?E9@D64=2:>D7@C4@>A6?D2E:@?
@CH2:G6CE92E925366?>256F?56CE96>@C66IA2?D:G6AC@G:D:@?D@7&62DFC6H9:49
&62DFC6C6A=2465 DE:==
5'.,- )'*&20$-# && **&$ & ,- ( + ,")/ +($(",$-$(")+ / &)*' (-)!-#
0 &&$("&)-)+* + &$( &. $(" .-()-&$'$- -)-# &) -$)( ,$"( )(,-+. -$)()+
,$3 )!-# 0 &&$("&)-)+* + & P +66(C68@?%2HD
+64E:@?
"EH@F=5>2<6?@D6?D67@CE96DE2EFE6DE@:>A@D6E9:DC6BF:C6>6?E@?4=2:>DF?56C2>@C6
6IA2?D:G6>62DFC6 &62DFC6 3FEE96??@E:?E6?5E92E4=2:>DF?56C2>@C6C6DEC:4E:G6
>62DFC6 &62DFC6 H@F=5 D@>69@H36EC62E655:776C6?E=J ,96724E:DE92E OFD6P :? E96 E6IE
@7&62DFC6DE2EFE6D 5:5 ?@E 6?4@>A2DD 56D:8? @C:>A=6>6?E2E:@? 762EFC6D D@E92E OC6DEC:4E
E96FD6P 5@6D ?@E6?4@>A2DD56G6=@A>6?E DE2?52C5D @C762EFC6D
:?2==J2D=68:D=2E:G69:DE@CJ:ENDH6==6DE23=:D965E92E&62DFC6H2D>@DE=J5C:G6?3J CFC2=
=2?5@H?6CDH9@H2?E65E@ A=246255:E:@?2=5H6==:?8D@?E96:C=2C86A2C46=D2?5H6C6
AC@9:3:E657C@>5@:?8D@3J E9625@AE:@?@7=2?5FD6=2HDE92EC6DEC:4E65E96 (.' +@7
5H6==:?8D@?28C:4F=EFC2=2?57@C6DE=2?5D ,96@?=JC@=6E92E56G6=@A>6?EDE2?52C5DDF492D
7@C6DED6E324<DH@F=5A=2J:?&62DFC6H2D:72DE2?52C5:?96C6?E=J =:>:E65E96?F>36C@7
5H6==:?8D2==@H65 &62DFC6E:89E6?653@E9E96D4@A6@74=2:>D2?5E966IE6?E@7H2:G6CD
A2CE:4F=2C=J:?9@H>2?J255:E:@?2=5H6==:?8DH6C62==@H65F?56C2G2=:5H2:G6C ,96C6:D
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
)286
?@E9:?8:?E96C64@C5E92EH@F=5DF886DE&62DFC6 9252?J :?E6?E:@?@7255C6DD:?84=2:>D
E92E2C68F=2E:@? OC6DEC:4E65P 3F:=5:?896:89E @CD:K6
"?4@?4=FD:@?E96DE277>6>@AC@G:565?@C6=:23=6 6G:56?46@C 7@==@H65E96 C6BF:C65 DE2EFE@CJ
6G2=F2E:@? DE6AD E92EH@F=5DFAA@CE E96:C :?E6CAC6E2E:@?@7E96 &62DFC6DE2EFE6D "?
4@?EC2DE2=68:E:>2E62?2=JD:DDFAA@CED =6??$=6:?ND@A:?:@?H9:49E96 :EJ @F?4:=AC6G:@FD=J
25@AE65 ,96 :EJ @F?4:=D9@F=5?@E@G6CEFC?E92E564:D:@?2?5D9@F=5C6=J@?E96:CAC6G:@FD=J
25@AE65:?E6CAC6E2E:@? D24@?D6BF6?46E96&@@C6&62DFC64=2:>>FDE3656?:65
5#((655'3-: >$#+-4? 0/7#-++/)5*'3'26+3'q#+4#-'45+.#5'4
=E9@F89E96 :EJ @F?4:=5@6D?@E?665E@C624924@?4=FD:@?@?E96G2=:5:EJ@7E962AAC2:D2=
6DE:>2E6D3642FD6E964=2:>:ED6=75@6D?@E>66EE96DE2EFE@CJC6BF:C6>6?ED:END :>A@CE2?EE@
42==@FEE96F?AC@76DD:@?2=C6DA@?D63JDE277 :?C682C5DE@H6==5@4F>6?E65AC@3=6>DH:E9E96
6DE:>2E6DAC@G:5653JE96 2AA=:42?END9:C65 2AAC2:D6C
"?DE625DE277>6C6=J OA2CC@EDP E962AAC2:D6CND@H? O3@:=6CA=2E6P DE2E6>6?E@74@?7@C>2?46
2?5 DE277D92>6=6DD=J 9:56D369:?5E96DE2E6>6?EE92E OE96C6:D?@DE2EFE@CJ@3=:82E:@?7@CE96
:EJE@@3E2:?2E9:C5A2CEJC6G:6H@7E964=2:>2?END2AAC2:D2=D P
(3G:@FD=JH:E9E9:D=6G6=@7:CC6DA@?D:3=6@G6CD:89E3JE96DE2772?2AAC2:D6C42?766=7C66E@
O7:?6DD6P E966DE:>2E6D@C2D>2J92G6 92AA6?65:?E96&@@C6 42D6D:>A=J :?25G6CE6?E=J
>2566CC@CD J2==@H:?8DE277E@D9:C<E96:CC6DA@?D:3:=:E:6DE96)=2??:?8 :C64E@C @?46282:?
8C@DD=J?68=64ED 9:D5FEJE@ AC@E64E E96:?E6C6DE@7 F86?64:E:K6?D :?D66:?8E92E&62DFC6
4=2:>D 2C6?@E 23FD65
"7E96 :EJ @F?4:=?665DE@56E6C>:?6H96E96CE966DE:>2E6DH6C632D65@?D@F?56G:56?46
2?52?2=JD:DH9:49E96J2C6?@EE96?E96 :EJ @F?4:=>FDE5:C64EE96 :EJ&2?286CE@86E2?
$( * ( (-C6G:6H@7E962AAC2:D2=:?4=F5:?82?:?56A6?56?E@A:?:@? @?H96E96CE96DA64:7:4
H6==5@4F>6?E65@3;64E:@?DE92E"AC6G:@FD=J DF3>:EE6592G6>6C:E
*6DA64E7F==JDF3>:EE65
)2F= @?E6
. E9 G6
F86?6(*
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
{00286855;1 }
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 2018
To: Mayor Lucy Vinis and City Council
From: Dan Lawler, Assistant Planner
Subject: Moore M49 Claim (M49 18-1) – Additional Information
This memorandum provides additional information regarding several issues raised in testimony
submitted for the Moore M49 (M49 18-1) claim. First, as discussed below, the statutory
standard for evaluating M49 claims is whether a regulation restricts the desired residential use
of the property. Second, legislative history shows that inclusion of the phrase “whichever is
smaller” in EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. was not an error. Third, the claimant’s appraisal complies with
the statutory requirements for Measure 49 claims and there is no statutory obligation for the
City to obtain a third party review of the claimant’s appraisals.
Public testimony was made that the City should deny the Moore M49 claim because the cited
regulation does not prevent the residential use of the property. A review of the statutes cited
in that testimony shows that the appropriate inquiry under Measure 49 is not whether the
regulation prevents residential use, but whether the regulation restricts residential use. Under
ORS 195.305(1), “if a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the
residential use of private real property…the owner of the property shall be entitled to just
compensation.” (Emphasis added) Similarly, ORS 195.310(1)(c) provides that a person may file a
claim if “the person’s desired use of the property is restricted by one or more land use
regulations.” (Emphasis added) (See Attachment A)
The statutory provisions discussed above do not contain the word “prevent” (see ORS
195.305(1) and 195.310(1)(c) in Attachment A). Though the statute does not define either
”prevent” or “restrict,” according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, “prevent”
means “to keep from happening or existing,” while “restrict” means “to set bounds or limits to:
hold within bounds.” (See Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1798, 1937 (unabridged ed.
1986)). The language of the statute requires localities to determine whether a regulation
confines a residential use of the property within certain limits, rather than whether a regulation
stops residential use of the property from happening altogether.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
{00286855;1 }
Public testimony was made that Measure 49 requires an owner to prove that building a
dwelling of 462 square feet is infeasible. Valid Measure 49 claims require a regulation to
restrict, rather than make infeasible or completely prevent, a residential use of property. The
claimant is not required to address whether a 462 square foot dwelling is feasible on the
property. In conformity with the language of the statute, the Moore M49 claim shows that EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts residential use of the property to a maximum dwelling size of 462
square feet (down from the more than 2,000 square foot dwelling that would have previously
been allowed on the property).
Measure 49 claims can be made for restrictions on a claimant’s desired residential use of the
property. ORS 195.310(1)(c) states that a person may file a claim if “the person’s desired use of
the property is restricted by one or more land use regulations.” Similarly, ORS 195.310(1)(b)
allows claims if “the person’s desired use of the property is a residential use.” (See Attachment
A) The statute specifically accounts for restrictions on a claimant’s desired use of property.
Property owners are not required to show that the regulation makes all residential uses
infeasible.
Public testimony was made that the City’s response to a prior M49 claim (Wilson) should be
applied to the current claim. There are important differences between the claims. In the
Wilson claim, the City concluded that the regulation at issue did not restrict the residential use
of the property because the claimants had other viable methods to achieve their desired
residential use. In the Moore M49 claim, the claimant appears to have no viable method to
achieve her desired residential use that was allowed prior to the enactment of EC
9.2751(18)(a)3., which is the construction of a 1,200 square foot home. In addition, the City
Manager concluded that the appraisals for the Wilson claim did not conform to the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as required by Measure 49, and that conclusion
contributed to the City Manager’s recommendation to deny the claim.
Regarding the legislative history of the code section regulating the size of dwellings on alley
access lots, EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. states that for alley access lots, “the total building square
footage of a dwelling shall not exceed 10 percent of the total lot area or 800 square feet,
whichever is smaller.” Public testimony was made that the word “smaller” is an error and that it
should be replaced by the word “greater.” A review of legislative history from the 2014 single
family code amendments does not appear to indicate that “greater” was the intended word.
The legislative history suggests instead that the drafters intended for dwellings on alley access
lots to be equal to or smaller than 800 square feet.
An email dated February 16, 2014 indicates that several community members reviewed and
supported the revised ordinance containing the language “whichever is smaller” (see
Attachment B). The February 16, 2014, email includes a document created by community
members that “provides a very concise and precise set of changes for code related to SDUs,
development on existing alley access lots and accessory buildings” (see Attachment B). On page
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
{00286855;1 }
3 of the document, under the “development standards for existing alley access only lots”
heading, it states that building size for existing alley access lots should be changed to be the
same as for detached SDUs. On page 2 of the document, under the “lot and development
standards for SDUs” heading, it states that building size should be “a maximum total square
footage of 10% of lot area, not to exceed 800 s.f., for both attached and detached SDUs.” In the
legislative history reviewed by staff, including the draft ordinance and related Council packet
materials leading up to adoption (see Attachment C), staff did not find any indication that the
code drafters intended to limit building size for alley access lots to 10% of lot size or 800 square
feet, whichever is greater. The legislative history appears to indicate that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. is
correct and free from error.
Public testimony was made that the appraisal provided with the M49 claim overstates the
reduction in the fair market value of the property. According to the claim, the regulation
diminishes potential building size on the property from 50% of lot coverage (2,310 square feet)
to 462 square feet. The appraisal that was submitted by the claimant to place a value on this
reduction conforms with Measure 49’s statutory requirements. For an appraisal to be valid
under Measure 49, ORS 195.310(2)(a-c) requires: 1) a person certified under ORS Chapter 674
or a person registered under ORS Chapter 308 to prepare the appraisal; 2) the appraisal to
comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal practice, as authorized by the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989; and 3) the appraisal to
determine the highest and best use of the property at the time the land use regulation was
enacted. (See Attachment A)
Both appraisers, Zoe York and Richard Duncan, are certified general appraisers licensed by the
State of Oregon (see Attachment D), as required by ORS 195.310(2)(a). The first page of the
appraisal certifies that it conforms to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
as required by ORS 195.310(2)(b). No testimony has been provided to indicate that the
appraisal does not comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
Finally, the Moore appraisal identifies “allowable residential use in the R-1 zone, subject to
general development standards” as the highest and best use of the property at the time the
restricting regulation was enacted, as required by ORS 195.310(2)(c) (see page 6 of Attachment
D).
Attachments
Attachment A – Selected Provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes
Attachment B – Email from Carolyn Jacobs, dated February 16, 2014 with Draft R-1 Code
Amendment Recommendations Attached
Attachment C – June 16, 2014 City Council AIS and Meeting Materials including Draft
Ordinance
Attachment D – Appraisal for Moore M49 (M49 18-1) Claim
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(4)
2017 ORS 195.305¹
Compensation for restriction of use of real
property due to land use regulation
If a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the residential
use of private real property or a farming or forest practice and that reduce the fair
market value of the property, then the owner of the property shall be entitled to just
compensation from the public entity that enacted the land use regulation or
regulations as provided in ORS 195.310 (Claim for compensation) to 195.314
(Notice of claim).
Just compensation under ORS 195.310 (Claim for compensation) to 195.314
(Notice of claim) shall be based on the reduction in the fair market value of the
property resulting from the land use regulation.
Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to land use regulations that were
enacted prior to the claimant’s acquisition date or to land use regulations:
That restrict or prohibit activities commonly and historically recognized as
public nuisances under common law;
That restrict or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety;
To the extent the land use regulations are required to comply with federal law;
That restrict or prohibit the use of a property for the purpose of selling
pornography or performing nude dancing;
That plan and rezone land to an industrial zoning classification for inclusion
within an urban growth boundary; or
That plan and rezone land within an urban growth boundary to an industrial
zoning classification.
(a) Subsection (3)(a) of this section shall be construed narrowly in favor of granting
just compensation under this section. Nothing in subsection (3) of this section is
intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States
Constitution.
Page 1 of 3ORS 195.305 - Compensation for restriction of use of real property due to land use regula...
7/20/2018https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/195.305
Attachment A
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
2017 ORS 195.310¹
Claim for compensation
• calculation of reduction in fair market value
• highest and best use of restricted property
• status of use authorized
A person may file a claim for just compensation under ORS 195.305
(Compensation for restriction of use of real property due to land use regulation)
and 195.310 (Claim for compensation) to 195.314 (Notice of claim) after June 28,
2007, if:
The person is an owner of the property and all owners of the property have
consented in writing to the filing of the claim;
The person’s desired use of the property is a residential use or a farming or
forest practice;
The person’s desired use of the property is restricted by one or more land use
regulations enacted after January 1, 2007; and
The enactment of one or more land use regulations after January 1, 2007,
other than land use regulations described in ORS 195.305 (Compensation for
restriction of use of real property due to land use regulation) (3), has reduced
the fair market value of the property.
For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, except as provided in subsection (4)
of this section, the reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the
enactment of one or more land use regulations that are the basis for the claim is
equal to the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the property from the date
that is one year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is
one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on the enactment
of more than one land use regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in
the fair market value of the property caused by each regulation shall be determined
separately and the values added together to calculate the total reduction in fair
market value. Interest shall be computed under this subsection using the average
Page 1 of 4ORS 195.310 - Claim for compensation - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
7/20/2018https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/195.310
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
(a)
(b)
(c)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(A)
(B)
interest rate for a one-year United States Government Treasury Bill on December
31 of each year of the period between the date the land use regulation was
enacted and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually on January 1 of
each year of the period. A claimant must provide an appraisal showing the fair
market value of the property one year before the enactment of the land use
regulation and the fair market value of the property one year after the enactment.
The actual and reasonable cost of preparing the claim, including the cost of the
appraisal, not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation of the reduction
in fair market value under this subsection. The appraisal must:
Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chapter 674 or a person
registered under ORS chapter 308;
Comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as
authorized by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989; and
Unless the claim is based on the enactment of one or more land use
regulations described in ORS 195.300 (Definitions for ORS 195.300 to
195.336) (14)(e), expressly determine the highest and best use of the property
at the time the land use regulation was enacted.
Unless the claim is based on the enactment of one or more land use regulations
described in ORS 195.300 (Definitions for ORS 195.300 to 195.336) (14)(e), relief
may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of the property at
the time the land use regulation was enacted was not the use that was restricted
by the land use regulation.
For a claim based on a land use regulation described in ORS 195.300 (Definitions
for ORS 195.300 to 195.336) (14)(e), the reduction in fair market value:
Is the reduction in fair market value of a lawfully established unit of land that is
attributable to the land use regulation on the date the claim is filed.
May, at the election of the owner who files the claim, be supported:
In the manner described in subsection (2) of this section; or
By appraisals showing the value of the land and harvestable timber, with
and without application of the land use regulation, conducted in
accordance with generally accepted forest industry practices for
determining the value of timberland.
Page 2 of 4ORS 195.310 - Claim for compensation - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
7/20/2018https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/195.310
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:KLEIN Glenn
Sent:Monday, February 17, 2014 2:17 PM
To:HANSEN Alissa H; DAVIES Anne C
Cc:MEDARY Sarah J; BURKE Carolyn J
Subject:FW: Recommendations for R-1 code amendments
Attachments:Draft R-1 Code Amendment Recommendations 16-Feb-2014.pdf
Alissa and Anne - Not sure if this is the same as the earlier one or different. In case it is different, here it is.
From: Carolyn Jacobs [carolyn.i.jacobs@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:42 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Subject: Recommendations for R-1 code amendments
Dear Mayor and City Councilors,
Please find attached specific recommendations for addressing unresolved issues with the R-1 Code Amendments.
The attached document provides a very concise and precise set of changes for code related to SDUs, development on
existing alley access lots and accessory buildings.
We are also recommending that the code to allow creation of new alley access lots be put on hold until this problematic
concept can be dealt with more thoroughly during neighborhood planning processes. As you know, taking the time to get
this concept right would have an insignificant impact on the capacity for single-family housing over the next twenty years.
In addition to myself, Paul Conte (JWN), Sue Prichard (Amazon) and Bill Aspegren SUNA) have also reviewed the revised
ordinance and believe it reflects the values expressed by many neighborhood leaders across the city.
We hope this will be helpful to you and staff in moving quickly to complete the R-1 Code Amendment process with the full
support of the community.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your support of our neighborhoods.
Carolyn Jacobs, Chair
South University Neighborhood Association
Attachment B
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
0 %2.#$,$-#,$-2$".,,$-# 2(.-1
$!
&1./8558@2702<*;.<987<.=8=1.2=B *7*0.;E<;.:>.<=/8;<9.,2/2,-2;.,=287/;86,8>7,258;<
87,1*70.<=1.B@*7==8<..27=1.-;*/= $ 8;-27*7,.=1*=@*<9;.<.7=.-+B<=*//
3,, 07.% ++0$".,,$-# 2(.-1
-2$0(,0.2$"2(.-$ 130$1 D #>=27*<.9*;*=.8;-27*7,. +*<.-87 =1.;.?2<.-,8-.
.6*25.-=8,8>7,2587 .+;>*;B +B>72?.;<2=B7.201+8;188-5.*-.;< ";-27*7,.
<18>5-1*?. *7 266.-2*=. .//.,=2?.-*=.*7-=1..//.,=2?.-*=.6><= 78= +.-.9.7-.7=
87 *,478@5.-0.6.7=
0$ 2(.-.%-$5 ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21 D $.68?.*55,8-.=1*=@8>5-*558@,;.*=2878/
7.@*55.B*,,.<<875B58=< 85-8//87/>;=1.;@8;487=12<,87,.9=>7=252=,*7+.-.*5=
@2=1*<9*;=8/-.?.5892708;;.?2<270<9.,2/2,7.201+8;188-95*7<
5-$0 .""3/ -"7 12 -# 0#1%.0 1 D -89==1.<.*<9*;=8/=1.8;-27*7,.=1*=
2695.6.7=< 7=.;26#;8=.,=287 .*<>;.< *4.=1.69.;6*7.7=*7-,2=B@2-.@1.7
=1.,2=B@2-.*6.7-6.7=</8;%'-.?.5896.7=<=*7-*;-<*;.*-89=.-
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1
*4. =1./8558@270,1*70.<=8=1.-;*/=,8-.
8>7=%'<@1.7,*5,>5*=270-.7<2=B
7,;.*<. 62726>6 58=<2C.<=86*27=*27-.7<2=B@2=127 =1.
8@.7<2=B
$.<2-.7=2*5;*70. 558@<6*55.;58=<=1;8>01.A2<=270#'9;8?2<287<
2<*558@%'<87F/5*0 58=< G
$.->,.=1.1.201=8/<=;>,=>;.<,58<.=87.201+8;270+*,4B*;-<+B;.->,270=1.
F27/5.,=287G9827=*=@12,1=1.<589.-<.=+*,4+.027<
7,;.*<.=1.*705.8/=1.<589.-<.=+*,4=8*558@;.*<87*+5.6*<<2708/<=;>,=>;.<
$.@;2=.*-3><=6.7=<=8,5*;2/B ,;2=.;2**7- 5262= .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.*-3><=6.7=<
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21
'<.=1.<*6.<.=+*,41.201=*7-6*<<270<=*7-*;-<=1*=*;.><.-/8;-.=*,1.-%'<
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1
$.->,.=1.1.201=8/<=;>,=>;.<,58<.=87.201+8;270+*,4B*;-<+B;.->,270=1.
F27/5.,=287G9827=*=@12,1=1.<589.-<.=+*,4+.027<
7,;.*<.=1.*705.8/=1.<589.-<.=+*,4=8*558@;.*<87*+5.6*<<2708/<=;>,=>;.<
$.@;2=.*-3><=6.7=<=8,5*;2/B,;2=.;2**7- 5262= .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.*-3><=6.7=<
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1
6.7-&*+5.
=8,8>7=%'<@1.7,*5,>5*=270-.7<2=B
F55-@.55270<
<1*556..=62726>6*7-6*A26>6
-.7<2=B ;.:>2;.6.7=<27*,,8;-*7,.@2=1&*+5.
G
"=1.;=1*7=1.*+8?.=1. %' <=*7-*;-<*;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.-27 =1.9;898<.-,8-.>7-.;
<.,=287
/$"( +$4$+./,$-2 2 -# 0#1%.0 !+$
>7-.;=1.F $".-# 07
5$++(-&1G<>+<.,=28727=1. /8558@270<>+<.,=287<
.2 0$ $.:>2;.*62726>68/ <:>*;./..=/8;*7%'@1.=1.;*==*,1.-8;
-.=*,1.- 558@<6*55.;58=<=1;8>01*#'*<5870*<8?.;*55-.7<2=B;.6*27<@2=127
8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5;*70. 878=*558@%'<87/5*058=<
3(+#(-&1(8$558@*6*A26>6 =8=*5<:>*;./88=*0. 8/ 8/58=*;.*78==8.A,..-
< / /8;+8=1*==*,1.-*7--.=*,1.-%'<
3(+#(-&$(&'2 $2! "* 8;-.=*,1.-%'<*7-*7B98;=2878/*7*==*,1.-%'=1*=2<
68;.=1*7 /..=/;86=1. /;87=9;89.;=B527.
&1.-@.552708;98;=2878/-@.55270<1*55 +.5262=.-+B 27=.;28;B*;-<.=+*,4< =1*=
*;. /2?./..= @2=1*727/5.,=2879827= *= /..= 1.201= *7-*<589.-<.=+*,4 /;86=1*=
1.201= =1*=27,;.*<.<*==1.;*=.8/ 27,1.<?.;=2,*55B/8;.?.;B*--2=287*5
27,1.<
18;2C87=*55B
$
!' ( %
"
$
"
(2=1=12<<.=+*,4,87/20>;*=2872=E<;.*<87*+5.=8*558@*6*A 26>6+>25-2701.201=8/
/..=87 *5558=< /8;+8=1-.=*,1.- %'< *7-*//.,=.-98;=287<8/*==*,1.-%'< 7
/88=1.201=@8>5-1*?.=8+. /..=/;86=1.*-3*,.7=9;89.;=B
8 78= *558@*7B27=;><287<27=8=1.<.=+*,4*;.*<8=1.;=1*7.*?.<*7-,1267.B<
$.@;2=. #)312,$-2 =8,5*;2/B,;2=.;2**7-<.=6*A26>6 .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.
*-3><=6.7=<*</8558@<
.-4$01(.-.%6(12(-&3(+#(-&"+?28><5B*558@ ,87?.;<287 2/=1.<=;>,=>;.6..=<
*55 %' <=*7-*;-< 8;<=;>,=>;.<=1*=@8>5-,87/8;6 =8 *55<=*7-*;-<# =1.
*558@875B/8;=8=*5<:>*;./88=*0.7868;.=1*7 < / *7-
7898;=2878/<=;>,=>;.68;.=1*7 E*+8?.0;*-. 558@,87?.;<2878/<>,1
<=;>,=>;.<=1*=*;.,58<.;=1*7/2?./..==8*727=.;28;58=527. 875B 2/=1.*-3*,.7=
9;89.;=B8@7.;0;*7=<*7.*<.6.7=
3(+#(-&$(&'2558@*6*A1.201=8/
/..=2/*558/=1. <=;>,=>;. =1*=@8>5-/*55
@2=127=1.<,89.8/=1.F>25-270 .201=
%589.-%.=+*,4G <=*7-*;- 2< *=5.*<=
/..=
/;86*5527=.;28;9;89.;=B527.< *7- @2=127=1.<589.-<.=+*,4
8>7,258;<6*B@*7==8*-89=*<5201=5B-2//.;.7=62726>658=<2C. .;.*;.=1.;.5.?*7=/*,=8;<
&1.
8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5-.7<2=B6*A26>62<
-@.55270<9.;7.=*,;.->
7*@12,12<
.:>2?*5.7==887.-@.552709.; <:>*;./..=8; =@8-@.55270<9.; <:>*;./..=
&1.2=BE<$ 8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5)87.6*A26>6-.7<2=B2< ->
7*@12,12<.:>2?*5.7==887.-@.55270
9.; <:>*;./..=8;=@8-@.55270<9.;
<:>*;./..=
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21
&1.<. <=*7-*;-<*;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.- 27 =1.9;898<.-,8-. >7-.; <.,=287
++$7
""$11.2 2 -# 0#1 >7-.;=1.F.?.5896.7=%=*7-*;-< G %>+<.,=287 &1./8558@270
9;898<.-<>+<.,=287<<18>5-+.,1*70.-=8+.=1. <*6.*</8;-.=*,1.-%'<
3(+#(-& (8$
3(+#(-& $(&'2-2$0(.0 $2! "*
7*--2=287=8><270=1.<*6.>25-270 .201=<=*7-*;-<><.=1.<*6. #)312,$-2 /8;
+>25-2701.201= 2 . ;.95*,.*-3><=6.7=@2=1=1.;.@;2==.7*-3><=6.7=
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1
&1.<. <=*7-*;-< *;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.- 27 =1.9;898<.-,8-. >7-.; <.,=287
/$"( +
$4$+./,$-2 2 -# 0#1%.0 !+$
>7-.;=1.F,,.<<8;B>25-270<27$ G
<>+<.,=28727=1./8558@270<>+<.,=287<
3(+#(-& (8$%26952/B*,,.<<8;B+>25-270<2C.5262=<*< 8/ 58=<2C./8;*5558=<
;.0*;-5.<<8/58=<2C.8;-.?.5896.7=<2=.<2C. 558@*5=.;7*=2?.</8;5*;0.;-.?.5896.7=
<2=.< 875B =1;8>01#'<
3(+#(-&$(&'2 $2! "*.%26952/B*7-9;8?2-.*-.:>*=.9;8=.,=287+B1*?27027=.;28;
B*;-<.=+*,4<+. /2?./..= @2=1*727/5.,=2879827=8//..=*7-*<589.-<.=+*,4=1*=
27,;.*<.<*==1.;*=.8/ 27,1.<?.;=2,*55B/8;.?.;B*--2=287*5
27,1.<18;2C87=*55B
(2=1=12<<.=+*,4,87/20>;*=2872=E<;.*<87*+5.=8*558@*6*A26>6+>25-2701.201=8/
/..=87*55 58=<
/88=1.201=@8>5-1*?.=8+. /..=/;86=1.*-3*,.7=
9;89.;=B &12<<18>5-+.<=*=.-*<F!89*;=8/=1.+>25-270.A,.9=,1267.B<<1*55+.
68;.=1*7
/..=*+8?.0;*-. G
$.@;2=. #)312,$-2 =8*558@ 875B >9=8*/2?./88=27,;.*<.27 1.201= 27*#' *7-
*<5870*<=1..7=2;.<=;>,=>;.6..=<=1.<589.-<.=+*,4<=*7-*;-<
#
"
$ $&
!
$ ! '
(
!'
(
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
& ?3URJUDP)LOHV [ ?1HHYLD&RP?'RFXPHQW&RQYHUWHU?WHPS?GRF
((((8*(1(8*(1(8*(1(8*(1(&&&&,7<,7<,7<,7<&&&&281&,/281&,/281&,/281&,/
$$$$*(1'$*(1'$*(1'$*(1'$,,,,7(07(07(07(06666800$5<800$5<800$5<800$5<
ǣ Ǧ
ǡ Ǣ
ͻǤͲͷͲͲǡͻǤͳʹͶͷǡͻǤʹͶͲǡͻǤʹͶͳǡͻǤʹͷͲǡͻǤʹͷͳǡͻǤͷǡͻǤͺͲ͵ͲǢ
ȋ ͳ͵Ǧ͵Ȍ
ǣ
ͳǡʹͲͳͶ ǣͷ
ǣ ǣ
ǤǦǤ ǣͷͶͳǦͺʹǦͷͷͲͺ
ǦǦͳǤ
ǡ
ǡ ȋ ǡ
ȌǤ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ȋ
Ȍǡ
Ȁ Ǥ
ʹͲͳ͵ ǡ
Ǧ ȋ
Ȍ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǯ ǡ Ǥǡ
ȋͲȌ
Ǥ
͵ͲǡʹͲͳ͵ǡ ͳͺǡ
ʹͲͳ͵ǡ Ǥ ͳʹǡʹͲͳͶǡǡ
Attachment C
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
& ?3URJUDP)LOHV [ ?1HHYLD&RP?'RFXPHQW&RQYHUWHU?WHPS?GRF
Ǥǡ ͳʹǡʹͲͳͶǡ
ǡ ͳʹǡʹͲͳͶǤ
Ǧ
ȋǡ Ȍǡ
Ǥǡ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ͳͶǡʹͲͳͶǡǦǡ
Ȁǡ
ʹͲͳͶ Ǥ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ
ͳǡʹͲͳͶǤ ǡ
ǯ ǣ
•
• ͳͲ
ǡ ͺͲͲ
• ȋ ͳ͵ǡͷͲͲ
Ȍ
•Ȁ
•
• ͳͲ
•ʹͷ ǡ
•
ǡ ǯ
ȋ ȌǤ
Ǥ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡʹʹǤͳͺȋ
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
& ?3URJUDP)LOHV [ ?1HHYLD&RP?'RFXPHQW&RQYHUWHU?WHPS?GRF
ͷȌ
Ǥ Ͷǡͷ͵ʹǦͳ
ȋͶǡͷͲͲǡͲͻͻȌʹͻǦͳ
ȋͳ͵ǡͷͲͲȌ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡǤ
ͷ ǡ͵ͷ
ǡ
ʹͲͳͶȋ Ȍ Ǥ
ǡ
ȋ
Ȍ
ǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ͻǡʹͲͳͶǡ Ǥ
ǯʹͲͳ͵ Ǧ
ǣǣȀȀǤǦ
ǤȀǤǫ αʹͲͺͺ
ǡ
ǡ ȋ
ȌǤ
ǤǤ
ǯ
Ǥ Ǥ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǤǦͳ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ͻǡʹͲͳͶ
ǣ
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
& ?3URJUDP)LOHV [ ?1HHYLD&RP?'RFXPHQW&RQYHUWHU?WHPS?GRF
ǣ ͷͶͳǦͺʹǦͷͷͲͺ
Ǧǣ ǤǤ̷ ǤǤǤ
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
ATTACHMENT A
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendation
Single Family Code Amendments
October 21, 2013
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 to 0) to recommend approval of the Single Family Code
Amendments, with the following modifications:
Secondary Dwelling Units
x Building Size: Change primary residence to principal residence [General agreement, no vote taken]
x Ownership/Occupancy: Use majority ownership instead of percentage when determining ownership
[General agreement, no vote taken]
x Minimum Wall Length: Modify to require a 2 foot deep by 5 foot wide minimum articulation on walls
over 25 feet in length. Full height is intended to mean from floor to ceiling (allowing for cantilever
floor joists). [Straw vote 6-0-1 with Steve Baker indicating he was neutral]
Alley Access Lots
x Distance from Street/Fire Access: Clarify distance requirement for lot and modify to require sprinklers
in dwelling if any portion of house is beyond 150 feet of alley/street intersection [Straw vote 7 to 0]
x Lot Standards: Establish maximum lot size for new alley access lot size as 5,000 square feet [General
agreement, no vote taken]
x Development Standards: Allow windows, dormers and balconies on second story of alley lot dwelling
on any non-alley facing property line only with the written approval of the affected adjacent property
owner, in lieu of requiring an adjustment review. [Straw vote 7 to 0]
Accessory Buildings
x Building size/setbacks: For lots 13,500 square feet or less in area, limit the total square footage of all
accessory buildings to 1000 square feet. For lots greater than 13,500 square feet to 43,560 square
feet, limit the total square footage of all accessory buildings to 10 percent of the lot area, not to
exceed 3,000 square feet, and require 10 foot setback and 10:12 sloped setback. For lots greater than
43,600 square feet (one acre) in size, no limit on square footage of accessory buildings, but require 10
foot setback and 10:12 sloped setback. [Straw vote 7 to 0]
University Area Interim Protection Measures
x Timing/Sunset: Establish sunset date that interim measures would remain in effect for 42 months
after the date of adoption. [Straw vote 7 to 0]
x Bedroom Count: Support 3 bedroom limit for new dwellings/remodels, with following exception: For
any remodel that adds a bedroom or bedrooms beyond 3 bedrooms, the maximum number of
unrelated individuals living in dwelling would be limited to 3 (instead of 5) as long as interim protection
measures are in effect, and property owner would be required to record deed restriction stating such.
[Straw vote 7 to 0]
x Occupancy: Add provision to require property owner to provide city with copy of current lease(s) or
rental agreement(s) as a means of verifying occupancy (add as city wide provision) [Straw vote 6 to 0]
x Secondary Dwelling Units: Add development standards (see Exhibit 1 for draft development standards)
to allow for secondary dwellings during the interim, subject to the 42 month sunset date. [Straw vote
6 to 1 with John Jaworski voting in opposition due to preference for shorter sunset date.]
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
ATTACHMENT A
Other Deliberation Topics
The Planning Commission discussed additional topics during their deliberations. However, the motions related
to these topics did not pass, and as such are not included in their recommendation.
Secondary Dwelling Units
x Limit occupancy to 3 to 4 people and limit to 2 bedrooms [general agreement to not add occupancy
limit and to leave proposed bedroom limit]
x Increase minimum lot size for detached secondary dwellings from 6,000 square feet to 6,225 square
feet [Straw vote 2 to 5 with Steve Baker and John Jaworski voting in favor. Those in favor indicated
consistency with density requirements and concerns about compatibility, while those in opposition
noted that new standards will improve compatibility, the interim standards will address pressures
around the university, and satisfaction that existing requirement is consistent with density.]
Alley Access Lots
x Lot Standards: Increase proposed minimum lot size from 2,250 to 3,600 square feet [Straw vote 3 to 4
with Steve Baker, John Barofsky and John Jaworski voting in favor. Those in favor mentioned concerns
about lot coverage, compatibility and density, while those in opposition noted that the proposed
development standards, including building size and paving limitations would limit lot coverage, and
that advisory committee looked at these issues extensively.]
x Setbacks: Increase building setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet from the two property lines perpendicular
to alley [Straw vote 3 to 4 with Steve Baker, John Barofsky and John Jaworski voting in favor. Those in
favor indicated concerns about privacy, compatibility and transition, and noted that Portland requires
10 foot setbacks. Those in opposition noted that the proposed 5 foot setback works with the proposed
sloped setbacks and other development standards to ensure compatibility, and that changing one
standard in isolation may result in unintended consequences, including more two story buildings.]
University Area Interim Protection Measures
x Sunset date: Set a date certain of July 31, 2017 for interim measures to automatically sunset
[Straw vote 3 to 4 with Steve Baker, Rick Duncan and John Jaworski voting in favor. Those in favor
expressed support for certainty and specificity, while those in opposition noted that if the timing of the
ordinance adoption changes or if the effective date changes, then the 42 month timeline provides more
flexibility.]
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
0 %2.#$,$-#,$-2$".,,$-# 2(.-1
$!
&1./8558@2702<*;.<987<.=8=1.2=B *7*0.;E<;.:>.<=/8;<9.,2/2,-2;.,=287/;86,8>7,258;<
87,1*70.<=1.B@*7==8<..27=1.-;*/= $ 8;-27*7,.=1*=@*<9;.<.7=.-+B<=*//
3,, 07.% ++0$".,,$-# 2(.-1
-2$0(,0.2$"2(.-$ 130$1 D #>=27*<.9*;*=.8;-27*7,. +*<.-87 =1.;.?2<.-,8-.
.6*25.-=8,8>7,2587 .+;>*;B +B>72?.;<2=B7.201+8;188-5.*-.;< ";-27*7,.
<18>5-1*?. *7 266.-2*=. .//.,=2?.-*=.*7-=1..//.,=2?.-*=.6><= 78= +.-.9.7-.7=
87 *,478@5.-0.6.7=
0$ 2(.-.%-$5 ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21 D $.68?.*55,8-.=1*=@8>5-*558@,;.*=2878/
7.@*55.B*,,.<<875B58=< 85-8//87/>;=1.;@8;487=12<,87,.9=>7=252=,*7+.-.*5=
@2=1*<9*;=8/-.?.5892708;;.?2<270<9.,2/2,7.201+8;188-95*7<
5-$0 .""3/ -"7 12 -# 0#1%.0 1 D -89==1.<.*<9*;=8/=1.8;-27*7,.=1*=
2695.6.7=< 7=.;26#;8=.,=287 .*<>;.< *4.=1.69.;6*7.7=*7-,2=B@2-.@1.7
=1.,2=B@2-.*6.7-6.7=</8;%'-.?.5896.7=<=*7-*;-<*;.*-89=.-
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1 D $.?2<.*<-.<,;2+.-+.58@
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1
*4. =1./8558@270,1*70.<=8=1.-;*/=,8-.
8>7=%'<@1.7,*5,>5*=270-.7<2=B
7,;.*<. 62726>6 58=<2C.<=86*27=*27-.7<2=B@2=127 =1.
8@.7<2=B
$.<2-.7=2*5;*70. 558@<6*55.;58=<=1;8>01.A2<=270#'9;8?2<287<
2<*558@%'<87F/5*0 58=< G
$.->,.=1.1.201=8/<=;>,=>;.<,58<.=87.201+8;270+*,4B*;-<+B;.->,270=1.
F27/5.,=287G9827=*=@12,1=1.<589.-<.=+*,4+.027<
7,;.*<.=1.*705.8/=1.<589.-<.=+*,4=8*558@;.*<87*+5.6*<<2708/<=;>,=>;.<
$.@;2=.*-3><=6.7=<=8,5*;2/B ,;2=.;2**7- 5262= .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.*-3><=6.7=<
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21
'<.=1.<*6.<.=+*,41.201=*7-6*<<270<=*7-*;-<=1*=*;.><.-/8;-.=*,1.-%'<
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1
$.->,.=1.1.201=8/<=;>,=>;.<,58<.=87.201+8;270+*,4B*;-<+B;.->,270=1.
F27/5.,=287G9827=*=@12,1=1.<589.-<.=+*,4+.027<
7,;.*<.=1.*705.8/=1.<589.-<.=+*,4=8*558@;.*<87*+5.6*<<2708/<=;>,=>;.<
$.@;2=.*-3><=6.7=<=8,5*;2/B,;2=.;2**7- 5262= .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.*-3><=6.7=<
ATTACHMENT C
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
.2 -##$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 1
6.7-&*+5.
=8,8>7=%'<@1.7,*5,>5*=270-.7<2=B
F55-@.55270<
<1*556..=62726>6*7-6*A26>6
-.7<2=B ;.:>2;.6.7=<27*,,8;-*7,.@2=1&*+5.
G
"=1.;=1*7=1.*+8?.=1. %' <=*7-*;-<*;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.-27 =1.9;898<.-,8-.>7-.;
<.,=287
/$"( +$4$+./,$-2 2 -# 0#1%.0 !+$
>7-.;=1.F $".-# 07
5$++(-&1G<>+<.,=28727=1. /8558@270<>+<.,=287<
.2 0$ $.:>2;.*62726>68/ <:>*;./..=/8;*7%'@1.=1.;*==*,1.-8;
-.=*,1.- 558@<6*55.;58=<=1;8>01*#'*<5870*<8?.;*55-.7<2=B;.6*27<@2=127
8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5;*70. 878=*558@%'<87/5*058=<
3(+#(-&1(8$558@*6*A26>6 =8=*5<:>*;./88=*0. 8/ 8/58=*;.*78==8.A,..-
< / /8;+8=1*==*,1.-*7--.=*,1.-%'<
3(+#(-&$(&'2 $2! "* 8;-.=*,1.-%'<*7-*7B98;=2878/*7*==*,1.-%'=1*=2<
68;.=1*7 /..=/;86=1. /;87=9;89.;=B527.
&1.-@.552708;98;=2878/-@.55270<1*55 +.5262=.-+B 27=.;28;B*;-<.=+*,4< =1*=
*;. /2?./..= @2=1*727/5.,=2879827= *= /..= 1.201= *7-*<589.-<.=+*,4 /;86=1*=
1.201= =1*=27,;.*<.<*==1.;*=.8/ 27,1.<?.;=2,*55B/8;.?.;B*--2=287*5
27,1.<
18;2C87=*55B
$
!' ( %
"
$
"
(2=1=12<<.=+*,4,87/20>;*=2872=E<;.*<87*+5.=8*558@*6*A 26>6+>25-2701.201=8/
/..=87 *5558=< /8;+8=1-.=*,1.- %'< *7-*//.,=.-98;=287<8/*==*,1.-%'< 7
/88=1.201=@8>5-1*?.=8+. /..=/;86=1.*-3*,.7=9;89.;=B
8 78= *558@*7B27=;><287<27=8=1.<.=+*,4*;.*<8=1.;=1*7.*?.<*7-,1267.B<
$.@;2=. #)312,$-2 =8,5*;2/B,;2=.;2**7-<.=6*A26>6 .A=.7=8/*558@*+5.
*-3><=6.7=<*</8558@<
.-4$01(.-.%6(12(-&3(+#(-&"+?28><5B*558@ ,87?.;<287 2/=1.<=;>,=>;.6..=<
*55 %' <=*7-*;-< 8;<=;>,=>;.<=1*=@8>5-,87/8;6 =8 *55<=*7-*;-<# =1.
*558@875B/8;=8=*5<:>*;./88=*0.7868;.=1*7 < / *7-
7898;=2878/<=;>,=>;.68;.=1*7 E*+8?.0;*-. 558@,87?.;<2878/<>,1
<=;>,=>;.<=1*=*;.,58<.;=1*7/2?./..==8*727=.;28;58=527. 875B 2/=1.*-3*,.7=
9;89.;=B8@7.;0;*7=<*7.*<.6.7=
3(+#(-&$(&'2558@*6*A1.201=8/
/..=2/*558/=1. <=;>,=>;. =1*=@8>5-/*55
@2=127=1.<,89.8/=1.F>25-270 .201=
%589.-%.=+*,4G <=*7-*;- 2< *=5.*<=
/..=
/;86*5527=.;28;9;89.;=B527.< *7- @2=127=1.<589.-<.=+*,4
8>7,258;<6*B@*7==8*-89=*<5201=5B-2//.;.7=62726>658=<2C. .;.*;.=1.;.5.?*7=/*,=8;<
&1.
8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5-.7<2=B6*A26>62<
-@.55270<9.;7.=*,;.->
7*@12,12<
.:>2?*5.7==887.-@.552709.; <:>*;./..=8; =@8-@.55270<9.; <:>*;./..=
&1.2=BE<$ 8@.7<2=B$.<2-.7=2*5)87.6*A26>6-.7<2=B2< ->
7*@12,12<.:>2?*5.7==887.-@.55270
9.; <:>*;./..=8;=@8-@.55270<9.;
<:>*;./..=
ATTACHMENT C
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
$.,866.7-*=287</8; $ 8-. .+;>*;B
#*0.
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 $6(12(-& ++$7 ""$11.-+7+.21
&1.<. <=*7-*;-<*;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.- 27 =1.9;898<.-,8-. >7-.; <.,=287
++$7
""$11.2 2 -# 0#1 >7-.;=1.F.?.5896.7=%=*7-*;-< G %>+<.,=287 &1./8558@270
9;898<.-<>+<.,=287<<18>5-+.,1*70.-=8+.=1. <*6.*</8;-.=*,1.-%'<
3(+#(-& (8$
3(+#(-& $(&'2-2$0(.0 $2! "*
7*--2=287=8><270=1.<*6.>25-270 .201=<=*7-*;-<><.=1.<*6. #)312,$-2 /8;
+>25-2701.201= 2 . ;.95*,.*-3><=6.7=@2=1=1.;.@;2==.7*-3><=6.7=
$4$+./,$-212 -# 0#1%.0 ""$11.07!3(+#(-&1
&1.<. <=*7-*;-< *;.68<=5B<9.,2/2.- 27 =1.9;898<.-,8-. >7-.; <.,=287
/$"( +
$4$+./,$-2 2 -# 0#1%.0 !+$
>7-.;=1.F,,.<<8;B>25-270<27$ G
<>+<.,=28727=1./8558@270<>+<.,=287<
3(+#(-& (8$%26952/B*,,.<<8;B+>25-270<2C.5262=<*< 8/ 58=<2C./8;*5558=<
;.0*;-5.<<8/58=<2C.8;-.?.5896.7=<2=.<2C. 558@*5=.;7*=2?.</8;5*;0.;-.?.5896.7=
<2=.< 875B =1;8>01#'<
3(+#(-&$(&'2 $2! "*.%26952/B*7-9;8?2-.*-.:>*=.9;8=.,=287+B1*?27027=.;28;
B*;-<.=+*,4<+. /2?./..= @2=1*727/5.,=2879827=8//..=*7-*<589.-<.=+*,4=1*=
27,;.*<.<*==1.;*=.8/ 27,1.<?.;=2,*55B/8;.?.;B*--2=287*5
27,1.<18;2C87=*55B
(2=1=12<<.=+*,4,87/20>;*=2872=E<;.*<87*+5.=8*558@*6*A26>6+>25-2701.201=8/
/..=87*55 58=<
/88=1.201=@8>5-1*?.=8+. /..=/;86=1.*-3*,.7=
9;89.;=B &12<<18>5-+.<=*=.-*<F!89*;=8/=1.+>25-270.A,.9=,1267.B<<1*55+.
68;.=1*7
/..=*+8?.0;*-. G
$.@;2=. #)312,$-2 =8*558@ 875B >9=8*/2?./88=27,;.*<.27 1.201= 27*#' *7-
*<5870*<=1..7=2;.<=;>,=>;.6..=<=1.<589.-<.=+*,4<=*7-*;-<
#
"
$ $&
!
$ ! '
(
!'
(
ATTACHMENT C
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
D
1
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
a
b
l
e
(
T
a
b
l
e
1
)
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
th
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
o
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
(
S
D
U
s
)
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
a
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
(
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
w
o
r
k
s
es
s
i
o
n
(
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
)
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
Ta
b
l
e
1
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
L
o
t
Si
z
e
/
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Fo
r
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
Ex
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
f
l
a
g
l
o
t
s
,
t
h
e
l
o
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
t
le
a
s
t
4
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
n
S
D
U
.
Fo
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
Ex
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
f
l
a
g
l
o
t
s
,
t
h
e
l
o
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
t
le
a
s
t
6
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
Fl
a
g
l
o
t
s
:
M
u
s
t
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
13
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
fo
r
an
y
S
D
U
De
n
s
i
t
y
:
Th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
l
o
n
g
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Me
t
r
o
P
l
a
n
,
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
S
D
U
s
w
h
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
at
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
y
a
r
e
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
s
u
p
p
l
y
of
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
Fl
a
g
l
o
t
s
:
No
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
De
n
s
i
t
y
:
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
e
t
r
o
Pl
a
n
,
o
f
n
o
t
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
S
D
U
s
w
h
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
t
o
6,
1
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
an
y
S
D
U
Fl
a
g
l
o
t
s
:
Pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
S
D
U
s
o
n
a
l
l
f
l
a
g
l
o
t
s
De
n
s
i
t
y
:
A
d
d
c
o
d
e
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
S
D
U
s
t
o
b
e
co
u
n
t
e
d
w
h
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
By
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
a
n
d
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4,
7
8
0
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
U
G
B
or
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1 0%
o
f
a
l
l
l
o
t
s
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
S
D
U
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
b
e
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
S
DU
.
Fl
a
g
l
o
t
s
:
I
f
S
D
U
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
ed
o
n
f
l
a
g
l
o
t
s
,
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
30
0
l
o
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
b
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
S
D
U
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
i
z
e
80
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
o
c
c
u
p
y
i
n
g
a
n
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
a
m
u
l
t
i
-
st
o
r
y
h
o
m
e
Li
m
i
t
s
a
l
l
S
D
U
s
8
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
C
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
s
h
o
w
t
o
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
Li
m
i
t
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
t
o
1
0
%
o
f
l
o
t
a
r
e
a
,
n
o
t
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
80
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
Fo
r
l
o
t
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
8
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
,
S
D
U
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
8
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
Fo
r
a
6
,
1
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
l
o
t
,
t
h
e
S
D
U
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
6
1
0
sq
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
T
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
tw
o
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
s
,
7
5
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
is
a
m
o
r
e
r
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
i
z
e
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
30
f
e
e
t
o
r
3
7
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
st
e
e
p
e
r
(
s
am
e
a
s
m
a
i
n
h
o
u
s
e
)
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
1
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
2
2
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
st
e
e
p
e
r
i
f
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
f
ee
t
o
f
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
(A
l
l
o
w
s
fo
r
2
s
t
o
r
y
)
20
f
e
e
t
o
r
2
7
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
s
t
e
e
p
e
r
i f
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
.
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
n
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
1
5
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
5
:
1
2
o
r
l
e
s
s
(
f
l
a
t
t
er
)
or
1
8
fe
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
s
t
e
e
p
e
r
i
f
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
20
f
e
e
t
o
f
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
.
(
A
l
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
1
s
t
o
r
y
)
24
f
e
e
t
,
i
f
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
a
n
y
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
(A
l
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
2
s
t
o
r
y
)
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
18
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
a
n
y
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
of
a
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
th
a
t
is
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
6
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
a
f
r
o
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
.
N
o
ch
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
wi
t
h
i
n
6
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
f
r
o
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
.
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
1
8
f
e
e
t
Lo
w
e
r
s
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
a
t
ta
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
6
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
fr
o
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
(
s
t
r
e
e
t
)
to
1
8
f
e
e
t
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
he
i
g
h
t
of
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
D
U
.
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
of
t
e
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
g
a
r
a
g
e
,
b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
s
.
F
o
r
l
o
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
in
t
h
e
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
l
o
c
k
/
re
c
t
i
l
i
n
e
a
r
l
o
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
c
o
m
m
o
n
l
y
fo
u
n
d
in
E
u
g
e
n
e
’
s
c
l
o
s
e
r
i
n
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
la
r
g
e
r
o
r
hi
l
l
y
lo
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
h
i
l
l
s
,
a
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
r
l
o
t
s
n
o
r
t
h
of
t
h
e
r
i
v
e
r
)
th
i
s
m
a
y
b
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
f
o
r
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
th
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
m
e
.
If
an
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
6
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
ex
c
e
e
d
s
1
8
f
e
e
t
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
,
a
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y
,
t
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
pr
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
o
t
s
t
h
a
t
ca
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
ed
S
D
U
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
.
Sl
o
p
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Y
a
r
d
Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
No
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
(
w
h
i
c
h
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
c
a
n
r
e
a
c
h
ma
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
t
a
po
i
n
t
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
)
Fo
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
:
cr
e
a
t
e
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
1
2
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
.
F or
a
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
ng
,
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
5
f
o
o
t
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
i
n
he
i
g
h
t
t
o
1
2
f
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
s
l
o
p
e
aw
a
y
fr
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
a
t
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
Fo
r
a
l
l
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
a
n
d
a
n
y
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
th
a
t
i
s
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
6
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
om
t
h
e
f
r
o
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
:
cr
e
a
t
e
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
8
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
(
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
1
2
f
e
e
t
)
,
a
n
d
u
s
e
a
ma
x
i
m
u
m
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
1
0
:1
2
(
8
3
%
)
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
ri
d
g
e
(
t
a
l
l
e
s
t
p
o
i
n
t
)
o
f
t
h
e
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
e
i
n
g
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
3
fe
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
.
Th
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
/
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
id
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
a
re
a
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
D
U
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
ad
o
p
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
si
t
y
A
r
e
a
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Ta
k
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
t
h
a
t
ty
p
i
c
a
l
ce
i
l
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
8
t
o
9
f
e
e
t
,
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
cr
a
w
l
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
in
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
8
f
o
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
n
o
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
D
2
6:
1
2
(
5
0
%
)
r
i
s
i
n
g
t
o
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
1
8
f
e
e
t
.
T
h
i
s
wo
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
r
i
d
g
e
(
t
a
l
l
e
s
t
p
o
i
n
t
)
o
f
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
e
i
n
g
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
7
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
.
Se
t
b
a
c
k
I
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
s
Al
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
e
a
v
e
s
,
a
w
n
i
n
g
s
,
ch
i
m
n
e
y
s
,
b
a
y
s
,
b
a
y
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
p
o
r
c
h
e
s
,
t
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
o
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
u
p
t
o
2
f
e
e
t
Li
m
i
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
e
a
v
e
s
,
c
h
i
m
n
e
y
s
a
n
d
g
a
b
l
e
s
.
Li
m
i
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
e
a
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
h
i
m
n
e
y
s
Wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
a
l
l
o
w
g
a
b
l
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
j
ec
t
i
n
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
Ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
/
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ei
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
be
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
y
t
he
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
St
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
d
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
an
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
,
r
e
q
u
ir
i
n
g
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
v
e
r
i
f
y
ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
d
e
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
e
v
e
r
y
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
me
t
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
l
e
a
v
e
u
n
d
e
r
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
.
Ad
o
p
t
a
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
No
n
e
Al
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
l
e
a
v
e
,
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b ui
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
an
d
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
h
e
i
g
h
t
)
.
To
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
me
e
t
a
l
l
o
f
S
D
U
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
;
t
h
e
S
D
U
m
u
s
t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
8
0
0
sq
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
o
n
e
s
t
o
r
y
o
r
o
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
fl
o
o
r
o
f
2
s
t
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Ot
h
e
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
p
p
l
y
.
To
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
S
D
U
o
v
e
r
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
ga
r
a
g
e
)
,
l
i
m
i
t
S
D
U
s
i
z
e
t
o
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
,
l
i
m
i
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
t
o
2
4
f
e
e
t
.
O
t
h
e
r
r
e
l
e
va
n
t
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
ap
p
ly
.
To
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
,
i
f
th
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
s
a
l
l
S
D
U
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
e
x
c
e
p
t
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
l
i
m
i
t
S
D
U
t
o
6
0
0
sq
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
in
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
a
n
d
1
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
I
f
c
l
o
s
e
r
th
a
n
5
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
er
t
y
l
i
n
e
,
a
l
l
o
w
i
f
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
g
r
a
n
t
s
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
.
To
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
SD
U
ov
e
r
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
l
i
m
i
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
to
2
4
f
e
e
t
i
f
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
is
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
Fo
r
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
w
o
u
l
d
p
l
a
c
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
li
m
i
t
s
o
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
a
n
d
h
e
ig
h
t
(
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
o
s
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
SD
U
s
)
.
W
h
e
r
e
a
s
a
n
e
w
S
D
U
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
8
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
18
f
e
e
t
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
(
a
s
s
u
m
i
n
g
a
n
8
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
si
z
e
d
l
o
t
)
,
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
t
o
a
n
S
D
U
co
u
l
d
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
6
0
0
s
q
u
a
re
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
1
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
To
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
S
D
U
o
v
e
r
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
wo
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
f
ee
t
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
s
a
n
d
f
i
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
l
o
p
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y
,
t
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
r
e
s
u
l
t
in
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
lo
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
d
o
a
n
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
D
3
Al
l
e
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
L
o
t
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
a
b
l
e
(
T
a
b
l
e
2
)
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
th
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
o
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
o
n
a
l
l
e
y
l
o
t
s
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
po
s
a
l
a
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
un
c
i
l
’
s
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
(
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
w
o
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l)
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
Al
l
e
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
L
o
t
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
(t
o
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
n
e
w
l
y
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
l
o
t
s
)
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
(t
o
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
;
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
n
e
w
l
o
t
s
)
Im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
l
o
t
s
No
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
.
Al
l
o
w
f
o
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
a
l
le
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
,
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Do
n
o
t
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
e
w
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
i
z
e
No
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
e
x
c
e
p
t
t
h
a
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
o
t
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
to
t
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
t
o
5
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
o
t
)
1,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
.
F
o
r
t
w
o
s
t
o
r
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
o
n
l
y
40
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
1
,
0
0
0
i
s
al
l
o
w
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
u
p
p
e
r
f
l
o
o
r
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
:
L
i
m
i
t
t
o
t
a
l
sq
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
t
o
1
0
%
o
f
l
o
t
a
r
e
a
,
n
o
t
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
8
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
a
r
e
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
i
n
a
r
e
a
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
h
o
m
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
50
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
o
r
l
e
s
s
.
Ho
m
e
s
o
n
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
i
n
m
o
s
t
c
a
s
e
s
.
H
o
m
e
s
o
n
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
a
r
e
a
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
t
y
p
e
t
h
a
n
S
D
U
s
.
L
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
t
o
su
c
h
a
s
m
a
l
l
s
i
z
e
(
a
n
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
)
w
i
l
l
l
i
m
i
t
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
th
e
se
h
o
m
e
s
f
o
r
o
w
n
e
r
-
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
.
Th
e
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
r
e
a
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
l
l
o
w
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
o
f
1,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
n
e
x
i
s
ti
n
g
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
30
f
e
e
t
o
r
3
7
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
s
t
e
e
p
e
r
24
f
e
e
t
18
f
e
e
t
Sa
m
e
a
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
Sl
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
No
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
(
w
h
i
c
h
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
c
a
n
r
e
a
c
h
ma
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
t
a
po
i
n
t
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
)
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
1
4
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
.
S ta
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
5
f
o
o
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
wo
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
t
o
1
4
f
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
wo
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
sl
o
p
e
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
a
t
a
ma
x
i
m
u
m
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
8
:
1
2
(
6
7
%
)
r
i
s
i
n
g
t
o
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
he
i
g
h
t
o
f
2
4
f
e
e
t
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
r
i
d
g
e
(
t
a
l
l
e
s
t
po
i
n
t
)
o
f
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
e
i
n
g
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
2
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
of
8
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
(
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
1
4
f
e
e
t
)
,
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
s
l
o
p
e
t
o
1
0
:
1
2
(
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
8
:
1
2
)
.
Th
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
ri
d
g
e
(
t
a
l
l
e
s
t
p
o
i
n
t
)
o
f
t
h
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
e
i
n
g
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
3
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
(i
n
s
t
e
a
d
of
2
0
f
e
e
t
)
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
f
o
r
d
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
S
D
U
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
id
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
-s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
D
U
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
ad
o
p
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
ve
r
s
i
t
y
A
r
e
a
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Ta
k
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
t
h
a
t
ty
p
i
c
a
l
ce
i
l
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
8
t
o
9
f
e
e
t
,
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
c
r
a
w
l
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
8
f
o
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
n
o
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
No
n
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
/
s
l
o
p
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
a
l
e
,
l
oc
a
t
i
o
n
,
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
,
l
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
s
o
l
a
r
ac
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
v
i
s
u
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
th
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
o
f
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
p
t
o
ma
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
2
4
f
e
e
t
i
f
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
fe
e
t
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
e
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
l
o
t
s
a
r
e
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
et
a
n
d
a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
5
0
fe
e
t
i
n
w
i
d
t
h
.
A
s
s
u
c
h
,
i
t
m
a
y
n
o
t
be
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
o
r
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
s
2
0
f
e
e
t
fr
o
m
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
s
.
D
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
t
o
10
%
o
f
l
o
t
a
r
e
a
(
s
e
e
a
b
o
v
e
)
,
wh
i
c
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
ve
r
y
sm
a
l
l
h
o
m
e
,
i
t
i
s
u
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
o
r
d
e
s
i
r
e
t
o
se
e
k
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
D
4
Ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
a
b
l
e
(
T
a
b
l
e
3
)
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
th
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
c
o
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
al
a
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
ci
l
’
s
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
(
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
by
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
4
w
o
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
a
l
t
er
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
)
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
of
t
h
e
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
.
Ta
b
l
e
3
Ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
i
z
e
No
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
e
x
c
e
p
t
t
h
a
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
o
t
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
to
t
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
t
o
5
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
o
t
)
On
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
)
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
1
3
,
5
0
0
sq
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
l
e
s
s
i
n
a
r
e
a
,
li
m
i
t
t
o
t
a
l
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
t
o
1,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
O n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
)
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
13
,
5
0
1
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
4
3
,
5
5
9
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
,
l
i
m
i
t
t
o
t
a
l
sq
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
a
g
e
to
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
,
n
o
t
t
o
ex
ce
e
d
3
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
O n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
4
3
,
5
6
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
(
o
n
e
a
c
r
e
)
o
r
gr
e
a
t
e
r
i
n
a
r
e
a
,
o
r
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
(
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
p
a
r
k
,
c
h
u
r
ch
o
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
)
,
n
o
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
i
z
e
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Li
m
i
t
t
o
1
0
%
o
f
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
f
o
r
a
l
l
l
o
t
s
Al
l
o
w
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
f
o
r
l
a
r
g
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
P
U
D
s
Su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
y
n
o
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
s
,
a
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
.
Re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
p
la
n
n
e
d
u
n
i
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
P
U
D
)
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
o
r
la
r
g
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
n
e
r
o
u
s
t
o
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
.
P
U
D
s
a
r
e
a
t
w
o
-
s
t
e
p
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
th
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
Of
f
i
c
i
a
l
;
a
r
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
o
f
$2
1
,
5
9
3
;
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
t
o
h
i
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
f
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
a
pp
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
n
d
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
a
k
e
at
l
e
a
s
t
6
t
o
9
m
o
n
t
h
s
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
H
e
i
g
h
t
20
f
e
e
t
o
r
2
7
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
r
o
o
f
s
l
o
p
e
s
6
:
1
2
o
r
s
t
e
e
p
e
r
22
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
)
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
13
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
r
l
e
s
s
i
n
a
r
e
a
25
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
3
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
i
n
a
r
e
a
o
r
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
n
-re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
.
25
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
a
l
l
l
o
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
s
i
z
e
Su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
y
n
o
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
s
,
a
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
th
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
.
Sl
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
No
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
(
w
h
i
c
h
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
a
n
r
e
a
c
h
ma
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
t
a
po
i
n
t
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
)
On
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
)
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
1
3
,
5
0
0
s
q
f
t
or
l
e
s
s
i
n
a
r
e
a
,
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
’.
I
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
t
a
p
o
i
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
1
2
’
a
b
o
v
e
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
g
r
a
d
e
,
t
h
e
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
h
a
l
l
s
l
o
p
e
a
t
6
:
1
2
ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
l
y
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
t
o
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
2
2
’
O n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
3
,
5
0
0
s
q
f
t
i
n
a
r
e
a
o
r
on
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
n
-r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
,
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
0
f
e
e
t
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
a
t
a
p
o
i
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
1
2
’
a
b
o
v
e
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
g
r
a
d
e
,
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
h
a
l
l
sl
o
p
e
at
1
0
:
1
2
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
l
y
a
w
a
y
fr
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
t
o
a
ma
x
i
m
u
m
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
2
5
f
e
e
t
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
f
o
r
al
l
s
i
z
e
d
l
o
t
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
s
l
o
p
e
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
a
f
i
v
e
f
o
o
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
st
a
r
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
b
u
i
l
di
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
8
f
e
e
t
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
a
d
e
(
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
of
1
2
f
e
e
t
)
.
U
s
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
1
0
:
1
2
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
l
o
t
si
z
e
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
ri
d
g
e
(
t
a
l
l
e
s
t
p
o
i
n
t
)
o
f
t
h
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
e
i
n
g
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1
9
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
.
Su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
y
n
o
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
s
,
a
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
a
l
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
s
a
m
e
8
f
o
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
y
a
r
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
a
s
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
a
l
l
e
y
ac
c
es
s
l
o
t
s
.
Re
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
2
5
f
o
o
t
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
1
9
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
(a
s
o
p
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
2
5
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
)
.
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
No
n
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
/
s
l
o
p
e
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
a
l
e
,
l
oc
a
t
i
o
n
,
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
,
l
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
s
o
l
a
r
ac
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
v
i
s
u
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
th
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
of
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Al
l
o
w
u
p
t
o
a
f
i
v
e
f
o
o
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
n
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
u
n
i
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
s
l
o
n
g
as
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
m
e
e
t
s
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
Re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
u
n
i
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
P
U
D
)
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
o
r
la
r
g
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
n
e
r
o
u
s
t
o
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
u
n
i
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
a
t
w
o
-
st
e
p
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
e
n
t
a
t
iv
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
;
ar
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
o
f
$
2
1
,
5
9
3
;
r
e
q
u
i
re
a
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
t
o
h
i
r
e
a
t
e
a
m
o
f
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
o
pr
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
n
d
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
a
k
e
at
l
e
a
s
t
6
t
o
9
m
o
n
t
h
s
t
o
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
1
HANSEN Alissa H
From:OregonDan@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:27 PM
To:HANSEN Alissa H
Subject:Land Use Change - Reasons for Flag Lot development Prohibition
RE:LandUseChange
WhyisconstructionofasecondarydwellingTOTALLYPROHIBITEDONFLAGLOTS,yetpermittedonsmallernonͲ
flaglots?
DearCityPlannerAlissaHansen,
ThefairmarketvalueofmyTWOFLAGLOTS(eachlargerthan16,000sqft)willbereducediftheproposed
prohibitiononconstructionofasecondarydwellingisenacted.Evenwhentheareaofthepanhandleportionis
subtracted,theremainingareaofeachofmyflaglotsexceeds13,500squarefeet.
Whatisthejustificationforsinglingoutflaglotsforthedevelopmentprohibition?
Thankyouforyourtimeandattentiontothismatter.
Sincerely,
DanielRidder
2011KimberlyDr.,Eugene97405
(541)345Ͳ5228
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
HANSEN Alissa H
From:Eric Jones <ericjones2@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:29 PM
To:HANSEN Alissa H
Subject:Concerns proposed land-use regulation change (construction of secondary dwelling on
flag lots
Mywife,Linda,andIownpropertyat2953IngallsWay(taxlot1804Ͳ1211Ͳ02301).Ourpropertyisa“flag”lot,
approximately13,682squarefeet(0.36acres)insize,andisthesiteofourprimarydwelling.
WeareconcernedabouttheproposedchangestoEugene’slandͲusecodethatwouldnolongerallowtheconstruction
ofasecondarydwellingonflaglotsthatare13,500squarefeet(0.31acres)orlargerforthefollowingreasons:
1. Whiletheimpactsoftheproposedchangeareclear,therationaleforthechangeisnotstated.Itwouldappear
thattheoverarchingCouncilgoalistofurthercompacturbandevelopment.Prohibitingtheconstructionof
secondarydwellingsonlargeflaglots,assumingotherdevelopmentcriteriacanbemet,seemstobe
inconsistentwiththeCouncil’sadoptedpoliciesrelatedtourbandevelopment.
2. Singlingoutlargeflaglotsisarbitraryandcapricious.Wecanfindnostatedrationaleforapplyingthis
regulatorychangetoflaglotsandnot,forexample,alllotsgreaterthan13,500squarefeet.Itisnotgoodpolicy
tocreateblanketpoliciestoaddressindividualissues.Ifthereisaspecificpropertyonwhichaneighborhood
leaderwishestoblockconstructionofasecondarydwelling,thatsituationcanbearguedbeforetheappropriate
authorities.
3. Finally,wewouldliketonotethattheproposedchangehasthepotentialtodamageuseconomically.Ifwe
weretosellourpropertyatsomepointinthefuture,wewouldlosetheexistingpotentialvalueofbeingableto
constructasecondarydwelling,assumingotherdevelopmentcriteriacouldbemet.
Forthesereasons,werequestthattheCouncilnotapprovelandͲuseregulationsthatwouldprohibittheconstructionof
secondarydwellingsonflaglots13,500squarefeetormore.
Sincerely,
EricandLindaJones
2953IngallsWay
Eugene,OR97405
541Ͳ344Ͳ8653
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
HANSEN Alissa H
From:tammy@ashestobeauty.org
Sent:Saturday, May 31, 2014 9:13 PM
To:HANSEN Alissa H
Subject:Proposed change to land use regs
Ithinkthatthisisaterribletimetolimithousingpossibilities.Therearesomanyhomelesspeoplemanyof
whomareelderlyandneedthesupportoftheirfamily.Pleasedon’tdisallowsecondarydwellingsinRͲ1
residentialzones.
TamaraWilhite
541Ͳ606Ͳ5433
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
HANSEN Alissa H
From:Maggie <maggie@pacinfo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 01, 2014 7:56 AM
To:HANSEN Alissa H
Subject:proposed ordinance
DearAlissah,
IreceivedadisturbingletteraboutaproposedordinancechangethatIamtoldwillaffectmyproperty.Ihavefuture
planstobuildasmallhomeinthefootprintofmygarage,formetoliveinwhenIamolder.TheexpectationthatIwould
beabletoexpandthelivingspaceofmycurrentlessthan1,000sq.ft.homeintomyspaciousbacklotw/garage,to
makeroomforfamilymembersinthemainhouse,iswhyIboughtthishouseandpropertymorethantenyearsago.
PleaseletmeknowhowtoconfirmthatthisordinancewillaffectmeandwhatIcandotochallengeit.Iwillbeoutof
townfortheJune16thhearing.
Manythanks.
Maggie(Margaret)Keenan
2252PierceStreet
Eugene,OR97405
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
1
HANSEN Alissa H
From:Marcy Abbale <marcysweetie@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 04, 2014 9:54 AM
To:HANSEN Alissa H
Subject:Single-Family Housing Proposed Land Use Regulation Change
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
June 4, 2014
City Council of Eugene
Re: Notice of Proposed Land Use Regulation Change and City Council Public Hearing
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my concern about the proposed land use regulation change
regarding not being able to have the potential to build a secondary dwelling on a
residential lot.
If everyone of us would open their eyes and hearts to what’s happening in the world
(think outside of the box of Eugene) and the shrinking value of our currency and
rising food costs, they might be able to see that the stock market is volatile, the
economy is at high risk, and the food supply continues to grow in demand with less
agriculture landscape available to plant on, homes may need to be built smaller and
families may find themselves having to live together with parents, children,
grandparents, etc. To deny the possibility to build a tiny dwelling to assist others is
unacceptable. I’m not speaking about the homeless here. I’m talking middle
class/lower income families that struggle every day to meet ends meet.
You seem to be so concerned with the homeless…this preposterous idea contradicts
that idea of thinking. If the economy doesn’t turn around soon, you will find
yourself faced with many additional homeless people. Why not allow families to
help one another? Why not allow for strangers to help one another?
Put on your thinking caps before it’s too late.
Respectfully,
Marcy Ann Abbale
2487 Mangan Street
Eugene OR 97402-8724
(541)688.5650
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
ATTACHMENT E
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
4
,
2
0
1
8
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
-
I
t
e
m
3
Attachment D
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:02 PM
To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Cc:LAWLER Daniel R
Subject:Draft resolution denying M49 18-1 (Moore) claim
Attachments:ResolutionDenyingM49_18-1_DRAFT.pdf; Resolution5202DenyingM49_17-1
_ADOPTED.pdf
September 11, 2018
Mayor and Councilors,
The City Manager should provide you with TWO resolutions and supporting findings for you to
consider at your September 24th meeting. One should be for granting the M49 claim and the other
for denying the M49 claim.
If, however, the City Manager were to neglect this responsibility, the Council would be in a jam
because, to defend a denial on appeal, the City needs to have set forth it's analysis and basis for
denial in a resolution. It would be virtually impossible to construct that on-the-fly.
Consequently, the Mayor and Council should direct the City Manager to produce both alternative
Resolutions and Findings.
In the eventuality that the City Manager nevertheless does not provide an alternative resolution,
I've attached a DRAFT Resolution to deny the M49 18-1 (Moore) claim. I've also attached the
ADOPTED Resolution that denied the M49 17-1 (Wilson) claim. You can easily see that the draft is
worded exactly as the adopted resolution, except that the particulars of the claimant, the basis of
the claim and the property are changed.
The supporting version of the City Manager's Report could be created very efficiently by "cloning"
the City Manager Report for the M49 17-1 (Wilson) claim. If the short time that the record is open
permits, I will attempt to provide a draft for at least the analysis sections. Obviously, this should
be a task that the legal and staff completes, but ....
This message and attachments are submitted as testimony re the M49 18-1 (Moore) claim.
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Resolution - Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A MEASURE 49 CLAIM FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 70 WEST 24th PLACE, EUGENE, OREGON
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 18-03-06-42, TAX LOT 2700).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Elise Moore (Claimant) submitted a claim to the City seeking compensation or a
waiver of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. under Ballot Measure 49. Claimant alleges that the limits on
building size on alley access lots to 10% of the lot size or 800 square feet (whichever is smaller)
restricts the residential use and diminishes the fair market value of her property located at 70
West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon (the subject property).
B. The City Manager has caused the claim to be investigated and has submitted to
the Council a Report and Recommendation, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution,
recommending that the claim be denied.
C.Considering the requirements of Measure 49, the materials related to the claim
submitted to the City by the claimant and others, and the City Manager’s recommendation and
conclusion as to the validity of the claim, the City Council finds that the claim should be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of
Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.Based on the above findings, which are adopted, and the analysis contained in
the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution,
the City Council hereby denies the Measure 49 claim submitted by claimant Elise Moore for the
property located at Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700.
Section 2.A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Elise Moore at 70 West 24th
Place, Eugene, Oregon 97405, to her representative, Bill Kloos at 375 W. 4th Street, Suite 204,
Eugene, Oregon 97401, and to the City’s Planning & Development Department. A copy of this
Resolution shall be recorded with the Lane County Records Department.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 24th day of September, 2018.
________________________________________
City Recorder
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
1
LAWLER Daniel R
From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:36 PM
To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Cc:LAWLER Daniel R; BROTHERTON Kathryn
Subject:Zelenka clarifies "use"; staff confirms "use" NOT restricted; City Attorney advice to
Council could violate "Equal Protection"
September 11, 2018
Mayor and Councilors,
Thank you for the unanimous decision to reopen the record for the "Moore" Measure 49 Claim (City
File M49 18-1).
Although the discussion was brief, there were several very important "takeaways":
1. Councilor Zelenka clarified the "use" that is at issue in this claim.
2. Staff member Dan Lawler confirmed that the "use" allowed for the subject property has
not been restricted.
3. The City Attorney provided legal advice to the Council that, while not clear, could be
misinterpreted in this (and other) M49 decisions, resulting in the City Council violating
the "Equal Protection" provisions of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions.
I will submit more extensive testimony prior to the deadline; however, I wanted to point out these
items while councilors had their discussion fresh in their minds.
1. Councilor Zelenka clarified the "use" that is at issue in this claim.
In an exchange with Dan Lawler, Councilor Zelenka clarified Eugene Code's "One-Family Dwelling"
as the use permitted in the R-1 zone and which is the subject use of this M49 claim. Zelenka's
question to staff was answered by Lawler stating:
"This isn’t about an ADU, the claimant desires to build a primary, single-family dwelling, not
an ADU."
Eugene Code variously uses "single-family dwelling" and "one-family dwelling" in a synonymous
manner. The code defines "Dwelling, One-Family" (EC 9.0500). The code states the purpose of the
R-1 zone, in part, as: "The R-1 zone is designed for one-family dwellings with some allowance for
other types of dwellings, * * * * *." (EC 9.2700) The code lists "One-Family Dwelling (1 Per Lot in R-
1)" as the first "Residential" use under the Table 9.2740, which "identifies those uses in the
residential zones that are: (P) Permitted * * * * *."
The second "Residential" use Table 9.2740 is (now) "Accessory Dwelling," which was previously
"Secondary Dwelling."
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
2
As Councilor Zelenka helpfully clarified, the codified use at issue in this claim is precisely "One-
Family Dwelling."
2. Staff member Dan Lawler confirmed that the "use" allowed for the subject property has not
been restricted.
Perhaps unintentionally, Dan Lawler stated in precise terms the situation in this claim:
"Where we see the restriction of use is her desired residential use was to build a 1,200
square foot primary dwelling, single-family home. Now her use is restricted to only a 462
square foot home."
Lawler has confirmed that: a) Moore's desired "use" is to build a primary dwelling (i.e., one-family
dwelling); and b) her currently permitted use is a "home" (i.e., one-family dwelling). There can be
no question that both before and after the cited 2014 regulation was adopted, the code allowed
"One-Family Dwelling" as a use of Moore's property.
It's worth reminding councilors that you have adopted a definition of "use" in the Eugene Code:
EC 9.0500 Definitions.
Use. The purpose for which land or a building is arranged, designed or intended, or
for which either land or a building is occupied or maintained.
Note how "Use" is defined as "[t]he purpose ...," which ties the term directly to the purpose of the
residential zones (above), which is "designed for one-family dwellings" as well as the table of
"residential uses."
Nowhere in the code's definition of "use", nor in the purpose of residential zones, nor in the table
of residential uses is there any mention at all of the physical characteristics of a one-family
dwelling. The code is quite clear that a small one-family dwelling and a large one-family dwelling
are identical uses.
And Mr. Lawler has confirmed for the Council that the land use code allows the use of the subject
property to build a one-family home. His statement of that fact dovetails perfectly with what
Glenn Klein stated in the findings that you, the Council, unanimously adopted in Council Resolution
No. 5202 denying the Wilson M49 claim:
"The Claimants argue that their use of the property is restricted because prior to EC
9.2715(17(c)9. the structure on their property would have automatically qualified as a
secondary dwelling and now it does not. However, Measure 49 requires that a land use
regulation restrict a residential use and as noted above, EC 9.2715(17(c)9. does not prevent
the residential use of the property generally, nor does it prohibit Claimants from
establishing both a primary and a secondary dwelling on the subject property. Paul Conte
and Carolyn Jacobs also submitted testimony into the record arguing that EC 9.2715(17(c)9.
does not restrict the use of Claimant's property. ["use is emphasized with bold-italic in the
original report.]
"Because there are other ways for Claimants to place a secondary dwelling unit on the
subject property, the City Manager concludes that EC 9.2715(17(c)9. does not restrict the
residential use of Claimants' property as required by Measure 49. Page 4 -- "Report and
Recommendation of the City Manager"
The situation with the Moore M49 claim is even simpler than the prior (Wilson) M49 claim. The
permitted use before and after the cited regulation is simply a one-family dwelling. A 1,200 s.f.
one-family dwelling is the same use as a 462 s.f. one-family dwelling, regardless that the two
dwellings have different physical characteristics.September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
3
3. The City Attorney provided legal advice to the Council that, while not clear, could be
misinterpreted in this (and other) M49 decisions resulting in the City Council violating the
"Equal Protection" provisions of the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions.
The following exchange took place between Councilor Zelenka and the City Attorney:
Councilor Zelenka: “A tiny home. And, City Attorney, what … would this set a precedence
for other cases associated with Measure 49 and/or ADUs or alley access lots?"
City Attorney: "Ya know, consistency is always good, but it doesn’t bind (emphasis in speech)
you in any way. What your decision would do this evening is … if you decided … if you chose
to grant the Measure 49 waiver or deny the Measure 49 waiver, it won’t mean that the next
Measure 49 decision [sic] that came in would somehow be bound to that. You’re allowed to
change your approach and factual situations are also different and look at the individual
specs[?]. So, if you’re asking if a decision in this case, one way or another, to grant or deny,
would somehow mean that all your future decisions would be bound by that, no. It wouldn’t
be."
Councilor Zelenka: "In this case it seems to be almost be … the original idea behind the 2014
amendment was to treat these smaller lots like an ADU and have those kind of restrictions
make sense. But this seems to be an unintended consequence of that language; and that this
lot is not a tiny lot and it could easily accommodate a 1,200 square foot home as the, that
the person wants to build. And, it does kind of cry out in my mind for an exemption, er,
exception from this rule."
The City Attorney's advice was not perfectly clear. The City Attorney ("CA") is correct that
approving this M49 claim would not require the Council to approve all future M49 claims, nor would
denying this M49 claim require the Council to deny all future M49 claims. As the CA correctly
states, the Council would base future decisions on the specific facts of each case.
However, the CA should make certain that the Council understands that their interpretation and
application of the law must remain consistent in order to meet the constitutional requirements for
"equal protection under the law." (I won't provide a length legal discussion; but as the CA certainly
is aware, the "Equal Protection" constitutional rights apply to a local government's decisions
regarding development.)
In this case, if the Council were to adopt the staff's interpretation that the M49 statutes consider a
restriction on a dwelling's physical characteristics" to be a restriction on use, then the Council
would be bound to apply that same interpretation to all M9 claims. In fact, the Wilson's would
likely have a legal basis to reinstate their prior M49 claim by asserting the City Council had violated
their equal protection rights in denying their claim based on an inconsistent and prejudicial
application of the law. (Believe me, Bill Kloos will be out drumming up lots of M49 claims if the
Council makes this mistake.)
The City Attorney needs to clarify her advice to the City Council to avoid this issue. This isn't an
abstract potential problem, as demonstrated by Councilor Zelenka's comments immediately
following the CA's advice. Understandably, just hearing the CA's advice, Councilor Zelenka posited
that Moore's dilemma was an "unintended consequence of that language," and (in his opinion)
Moore's lot "could easily accommodate a 1,200 square foot home." Based on these points, Councilor
Zelenka suggested to his colleagues that "it does kind of cry out in my mind for an exemption, er,
exception from this rule."
The exact same intuitive (and potentially reasonable) argument could have been made for the
Wilson's M49 claim or any future claim by other property owners. But following that approach
would make each decision an arbitrary, "gut" decision, which would inevitably run afoul of the
equal protection clause for M49 claims that were denied. September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
4
The proper solution to Councilor Zelenka's assessment is very simple and legally proper: amend the
provision, e.g., by changing the 10% of lot size limitation to 20%, 25% or 30%. This would perhaps
delay resolution for Mrs. Moore, but it would address what Council may believe is a fundamental
flaw in the existing code.
Thank you for your consideration.
This is submitted as testimony during the re-opened record period.
Paul Conte
1461 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402
Ward 1
_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Caution:
This map is based on
imprecise source data,
subject to change, and for
general reference only.
0 1700 3400850
Ft
!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
I 5 S B
I 5 NB
EB I105 WB I105
HILYARD ST
P OLK ST
A L D E R S T
W I L LA M E T TE S T
W 11TH AVE
W 18TH AVE
W 7TH AVE
E 30TH AVE
CHAM
BER
S ST
W 6TH AVE
W 8TH AVE
HARRIS ST
W 28TH AVE
W 13TH AVE
E 19TH AVE
L O RANE H WY
W 12TH AVE
E 13TH AVE
AGATE ST
CREST DR
D O NALD ST
C OBUR G RD
E 18TH AVE
E 24TH AVE
ADA
M
S S
T
O N Y X ST
L I N CO L N S
T
F R I ENDLY ST
BLANTON RD
TYL E R S T
W 24TH AVE
CIT
Y VI
E
W
S
T
LAWR E N C E S T
E A
M
A
Z
O
N D
R
HARLOW RD
RIV
E
R
R
D
W 19TH AVE
PARK AVE
W
A
M
A
Z
O
N D
R
R I V E R VI EW ST
P A T T E R S O N S T
W 2ND AVE
AMAZON PKWY
MADISO
N ST
E 15TH AVE
OAKWAY R D
E 22ND AVE
W BROADWAY
E 11TH AVE
E 23RD AVE
ARTHU
R
S T
J EFF
E
R
S
O
N S
T
E 21ST AVE
W 4TH AVE
E 14TH AVE
E 40TH AVE
UN I V ERS
ITY
ST
G R A N T ST
SPRIN
G BLVD
BLAIR BLVD
KNOOP LN
HWY 99N
S
B D
ELTA
H
W
Y
NB D
ELTA H
WY
W 29TH AVE
M O S S S T
W 14TH AVE
W 7TH PL
F E R R Y S T
E 43RD AVE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD
SB I5 ONRP
CROSS ST
V I LL A RD ST
HAY
E
S
S
T
E 39TH AVE
ROOSEVELT BLVD
T A Y L O R S T
E 33RD AVE
N S H ASTA L P
O RR L
N
CAL
VIN ST
SORREL WAY
FRANKLIN BLVD
V A N BUREN ST
CLARK ST
AUGUSTA ST
O RCHARD ST
DAY ISLAND RD
G ARF
I E LD S T
ROAN DR
E 17TH AVE
E B I 10 5 C ONN
PIER
CE ST
W I LSO
N S
T
CL E VE LAND ST
E 12TH AVE
E 3RD AVE
SYLVAN S T
NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY
NB I5 OFRP
E 38TH AVE
CHESHIRE AVE
ONYX PL
COUNTRY CLUB RD
W I L L A G I L L E S P IE R D
P E A R L ST
ARC
ADIA DR
LEO HARRIS PKWY
BR A E B URN D R
E 46TH AVE
E 32ND AVE
FAIRMOUNT BLVD
E 34TH AVE
BETHEL DR
WALN U T S T
E 27TH AVE
HANSEN LN
BI R CH LN
A S H S T
KIMBERLY DR
C E N T R A L B L V D
RAILROAD BLVD
BAILEY LN
BARDELL AVE
S G A R D E N W A Y
W 17TH AVE
OAK S
T
EL I N O R S T
E 31ST AVE
F A I RW A Y L P
VALLEY RIVER DR
W 10TH AVE
W A V E R L Y S T
COUNTRY LN
F O X HO L L OW RD
HIGH ST
W 40TH AVE
E 36TH AVE
JACKSON S T
W 37TH AVE
W 39TH AVE
B A K E R B L V D
E 16TH AVE
E 29TH AVE
C H E R R Y D R
W 31ST AVE
N G A R D E N W AY
KINCAID ST
R A N DALL ST
W A L N U T L N
HARDY AVE
LAW LN
A NDERSON LN
W 30TH AVE
W 5TH AVE
E 34TH PL
E 10TH AVE
WESTERN DR
MILL ST
RUSTIC PL
W 18TH PL
N P OLK ST
FIRCREST D R
E 7TH AVE
WOODSON ST
P A L O M I N O D R
EB I105 ONRP
EB I105 OFRP
MARY LN
W 9TH PL
PORTLAND S T
W 20TH AVE
C O L U M BI A ST
WB I105 ONRP
I5 S B C O NN
I5 N
B OFFRA
M
P
I 5 N B C O N N
E
M
E
R
A
L
D
S
T
E BROADWAY
W 38TH AVE
W 3RD AVE
FILLM
O
R
E S
T
WB I105 CONN
OAKMONT WAY
HAIG ST
WILSON DR
FIRLAND BLVD
P OOL ST
CROCKER LN
W 27TH AVE
SA T R E ST
M A YFA
I R L N
E 28TH AVE
P OT T E R ST
E 4TH AVE
E 5TH AVE
E 35TH AVE
W 34TH AVE
W 1ST AVE
LINDLEY LN
N A D A MS S T
A L M A D E N S T
D E B RICK RD
FLO R A L H I L L D R
SUM MIT AVE
CLUB RD
WILS
O
N CT
KN O B H ILL LN
FILBERT AVE
CAPITAL DR
POW E LL ST
DILLA
R
D
R
D
W 25TH AVE
E 2ND AVE
MCK
I
N
L
E
Y
ST
FOREST BLVD
OXBOW WAY
VINE M
A
P
LE ST
DAPPLE WAY
W 23RD AVE
W 21ST AVE
VAN NESS S T
GARDEN AVE
HAWTHORNE AVE
SOUTHWOOD LN
SHERATON D R
E 6TH AVE
BAUER LN
N G R A N D S T
SB DELTA CONN
E 39TH PL
D A R T M O O R D R
W 36TH AVE
SHIELDS AVE
SKY L INE BLV D
F A I R O AKS DR
MCK
I
NLE
Y
CT
A S COT DR
MILL RAC E D R
L EIGH ST
SHARON WAY
RANDY LN
BRISTOL S T
TOMAHAWK LN
S U NSHINE ACRE S D R
BRIARCLIFF DR
CAMEO DR
P A N DA LP
VAN DUYN
ST
VA
LL
E
Y
RIV
E
R D
R
S
W
R
W 35TH PL
E 41ST AVE
BLACKTAIL DR
LARIAT DR
W
HITBECK BLVD
E 48TH AVE
MAHLON AVE
W 26TH AVE
KONA ST
E 47TH AVE
COVEY LN
SAND A V E
I 1 0 5 W B C O N N
L
A
U
R
EL
HIL
L D
R
FULVUE DR
MA R LP
ABBIE LN
PRES
I D EN T S T
TANDY TURN
ELK AVE
CRENSHAW RD
GRAHAM DR
W 16TH AVE
BARBER DR
PERSHING ST
W 28TH PL
SB DELTA OFRP
NIXON ST
A L BE RTA LN
G
L
E
N OAK D
R
HORIZON RD
PANORAMA DR
WENDELL LN
O L I V E ST
E 29TH PL
WALN
U
T
A
VE
FOCH ST
C H ES TNU
T DR
W 24TH PL
E 26TH AVE
SANDY DR
COMMONS DR
BRICKLEY RD
SKINNERS BUTTE LP
V I NCENT ST
C O R YDON ST
W 22ND AVE
MALABAR DR
CHEVY CHASE ST
EASTWOOD LN
REGENT AVE
CRESTA DE R U T A S T
N J A C K S O N S T
EM R A Y D R
W 27TH PL
PINTO WAY
F O RR
ESTER WAY
VALLEY RIVE
R CENTER
BUFF WAY
HON E Y S U C K L E L N
N GA
R FI E L D ST
W 25TH PL
FIRWOOD WAY
SHELTON MCMURPHEY BLVD
SOUTH EUGENE HS
WESTWOOD LN
I105 EB
PIONEER PIKE
ST
O
R
E
Y BLV
D
MADRONA DR
E 36TH PL
MCLEAN BLVD
W 34TH PL
S T O N E G A T E S T
FRONTIER DR
LEMERY LN
OAKWAY TER
E 37TH AVE
C HERR
Y
AV
E
E 44TH AVE
FIR LN
C E D A R ST
D
O
R
R
I
S
S
T
CLINTON DR
MO NR OE S T
BROOKSIDE DR
MCKEN D R ICK
S T
W
HITTEN D
R
NORTHVIEW BLVD
WB I105 OFRP
LYDICK WAY
SW E E T G U M L N
SPYGLASS DR
DELLWOOD DR
V A L L E Y R I V E R WAY
LASATER
B
L
V
D
W 35TH AVE
KEITH WAY
MERI AU LN
E 20TH AVE
WESTBROOK WAY
PRALL LN
LOCHMOOR PL
E 24TH PL
S OUT HPOINT E DR
NB D
ELTA O
N
R
P
S
B D
ELTA ON
RP
HIONDA AVE
BUTTE LN
THOMASON LN
W 15TH AVE
W 26TH PL
DOUGLAS DR
DOGWOOD DR
BEDFORD WAY
KNAPP LN
WESTWARD HO AVE
S S
H
A
S
T
A
L
P
CENTENNIAL LP
SUN
D IAL RD
I105 WB
G O O D P A S T U R E I SLAND RD
VER N A L S T
SUNDANCE ST
M O O N L EE
L
N
IN WOO D LN
SISTERS VIEW AVE
KINSRO W A V E
W PARK ST
HICKORY AVE
B EECH PL
TRAP LN
SPRING KNOLL DR
B E E C H S T
RIDGEMONT DR
JUDKINS RD
ESSEX LN
C L U B W AY
WOOD AVE
WATK I N S L N
MAR
C
H
E
C
H
A
S
E
D
R
KARYL AVE
VALLEY BUTTE DR
HOLEMAN AVE
BRYCELER DR
TIARA ST
P I N E C R E S T D R
SAINT ST
SWEETBRIAR LN
TIGERTAIL RD
PAIGE AVE
DEERTRAIL RD
C H A R N E L TO N S T
S TO NEY R I DGE R D
SUNSET DR
M A L IBU WAY
ME SA AV E
BIKE PATH
FE RRY STR EET BRID G E
AR LINE WAY
PIN
E
R
O
C
K
D
R
RO CKRIDGE LP
S T ANDRE W S D R
S HA ST A V IE W ST
M I A M I L N
RIDGEWOOD DR
CEDARWOOD RD
WOOD ACRES DR
PARKSIDE DR
N JE F F E R S O N S T
PINE CANYON DR
W ASH
I N G TO N S
T
D
E
N
S
M
O
R
E R
D
M I A L N
W 23RD PL
N CLEVE
LAN D ST
KODIA K S T
ARDENDALE LN
PARISH ST
E 8TH AVE
DURB I N S T
ROSE LN
C H U L A V I STA BLVD
E L L I E L N
MISSION AVE
CROSS PL
CH ATEAU MEADOWS DR
INAVALE ST
LOMA LINDA LN
EMERALD PL
E 42ND AVE
WOODS ID E D R
H A M B L E T ON IAN DR
MONTARA WAY
LARKWOOD ST
H E A T H E R W A Y
KINGSWOOD AVE
HIGHLAND DR
I NGALLS WAY
BENDIX AVE
W 16TH WAY
ABE
R DE EN
S
T
NORBERT LN
OAK GROVE DR
M C M I L L A N ST
HAMBLE AVE
V I E W LN
M A RCHE CHASE APT
JOHNSON LN
BRAEWOOD LN
L
A
U
R
E
L
W
O
O
D LN
GREENVIEW ST
REST-HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK
TERRACE VIEW DR
S PARK ST
E L W O O D DR
E 25TH AVE
RASOR AVE
BUCKINGHAM AVE
Y WA
Y
LONGVIEW ST
TURNBULL LN
R I V E RF RON
T
PKWY
OPPORTUNITY WAY
N M CKI
N
L
E
Y
S
T
N P IER
CE S
T
M OON M OUNTA IN DR
W 44TH AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
BABCOCK LN
ART
HUR
C T
NOB CT
DULLES AVE
BOARDWALK AVE
N A R TH UR S T
PR OS PEC T DR
N
E
SL
O L
N
LARCH ST
SUNRIDGE RD
GRAND VIEW DR
T A Y LO
R CT
G R A N D S T
WOODLAN
D D R
FENSTER S T
WOODSON LP
E STATE DR
LANE CO FAIRGROUNDS
E BRIARCLIFF LN
MORNING VIEW DR
N L A W R E N C E S T
PIONEE
R CT
W CENTENNIAL BLVD
N VAN B U R E N S T
MALLORY LN
BENT TREE LN
PINE VIEW CT
A R D E N P L
COLT DR
STADIUM PARK APTS
SUNCREST AVE
BLAN
T
O
N
H
EIGHT
S
RD
EXECUTIV E P K W Y
S AL IS TA PL
HAWK IN S LN
KIMBERLY CIR
VERNON WAY
BR AC KEN FE RN RD
COURTNEY PL
FLORAL AVE
STEPHENS DR
NORMANDY WAY
BRAEMAN VILLAGE
I105 EB CONN
TATUM LN
ALT
A VISTA CT
NB DELTA OFRP
CONESTOG A W A Y
N WASHING T O N S T
FOXGLENN AVE
PINEWOOD TER
M E R E W E T H E R S T
2ND AVE
SK Y PA RK W AY
F E R R Y L N
W 29TH PL
PRESTWICH PL
C A B R I O L E C T
FR
EDERICK CT
N MO
N
R
O
E
S
T
LARIAT MESA
HEN DRICK S HILL DR
MARQUET WAYTURNBERRY CT
L
O
M
B
A
R
D
S
T
M O U N T A I N V I E W ST
S C O U T A C CE S S R D
PARKSIDE LN
OPAL ST
BAILEY AVE
E
ATO
N
DR
MT CALVARY CEMETERY
C A M E L O T M H P
JU STICE CENT ER LP
WHITE OAK DR
STEVENS LN
M
A
R
C
HE C
HAS
E A
P
T
S
N MA D I S O N S T
J UD KIN S D ED I CA TED R D
W I L LS C T
ANT ELO PE WAY
ASHLEY LP
CO U N T R Y C L U B P K W Y
OLD CAMPUS LN
K E Y C T
EDGEWOOD ES
VERDEHILL DR
PARK RIDGE LN
BETTY NIVEN DR
S
O
L
O
M
AN LP
OAKWAY CENTER
H UBBAR D L N
SUNSHINE ACRES PL
L O R E LLA AVE
CHANDLER AVE
P A R K G R O V E APTS
MCMORRAN AVE
C
H
A
S
E
VILL
A
G
E A
P
T
S
LARIAT MEADOWS DR
C RE S T VIE W DR
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N A
L
Y
M EA DO W B UT TE LP
SOUTH RIDGE DR
BE-ELL PL
LOMA L I N D A D R
KEELER AVE
PA R K TE R
MIRA
M
O
NTI
D
R
N A O M I C T
S H A L AR CT
OAK CT
P O T T E R P L
TOMAHAWK PL
SHAUGHNESSY LN
E P A R K ST
A
R
T
H
U
R
PL
MCKENNA DR
BROOKHAVEN WAY
SUNRIDGE DR
IN
S
P
I
R
A
TIO
N P
O
I
N
T
D
R
ELWOOD CT
HI
GHLAN
D
OA
K
S
DR
MEADOWVALE CT
W 15TH CT
MERRILL CT
F A I RW A Y V I EW DR
EDISON ST
EUG
E
NE
P
U
B
LIC WORK S Y A R D
LEWIS AVE
ROC
K
WOO
D
S
T
S U N T R E K D R
D U C K V I L L A G E A PTS
WYLIE CREEK PL
B
L
A
C
K O
A
K
R
D
WHISPER LN
POLAR AVE
CORINTHIAN CT
SHADOW WOOD DR
SATRE LN
KERVON CT
W H I L L S I D E DR
KELLOGG RD
JJC SERVICE RD
ROSE CT
HIDEAWAY CT
VAN AVE
SPRING TERRACE DR
W 8TH PL
KAMAPHEEMA PL
MENLO LP
P E R I N I S T
CLASSIC PL
L AKE P A R K D
R
E 25TH PL
D A N N A C T
W
O
O
D
S
O
N
C
T
Realwood Products
HAZEL CT
SHIR E C T
MCLEAN CT
HENDRICKS RIDGE DR
G
A
RFIE
L
D P
L
COOKS GARDEN RD
CR
A
I
G
M
O
N
T
A
V
E
ED END ALE LN
LE ATHERWO OD D R
SPENCER BUTTE MS
DONNE R P L
HIWAN CT
HARRIS PL
C
HE
VY C
H
A
SE L
N
GEORGE CT
WESTOVER DR
W 19TH PL
WHY WORRY LN
WALNUT PL
W 17TH CT
HUCKLEBERRY ST
BRO O KWO O D ST
SYCAMORE AVE
REGAL CT
E
L
LIS C
T
I105
DAPPLE CT
FELL PL
MINICK LN
RAYNE R A V E
SANTA ANITA CT
W 14TH PL
SKY PARK CT
MARTHA CT
CANNON CT
PADDOCK D R
PEEVE R S T
HUMMING
BI R D L N
EXMOOR PL
RANSOM CT
MOONSHADOW
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L P
L
A
Z
A
WILLAMETTE GARDENS APTS
MORGAN PL
SUNSET HILLS MEMORIAL GARDENS
SUFF O L K C T
CLE
VELA N D PL
P
A
T
T
E
R
S
O
N C
T
MY D E C T
CHERRY G R O V E S T
Valley River Boat Launch for EMS
W 16TH CT
LITTLE JO H N L N
KIMWO
OD PL
DELMAR PL
E 35TH PL
K E R N S A C R E S R D
BRI
A
R CL IFF PL
SPENC E R C T
SOUTHRIDGE CT
K RIS TE N C T
BROO
KS
DIE DR
STAFF
ORD CT
T
O
M
AH
A
W
K CT
W 14TH CT
MO ON MOUNTAIN CT
JENKINS DR
CENTENNIAL BLVD
M C D O N A L D C T
TI
M
B
E
R
C
R
E
S
T R
D
S O M E R S E T C T
E 41ST AVE
AR T HUR ST
W 34TH AVE
KINCAID ST
E 26TH AVE
PATT E R S O N S T
ALMADEN ST
W 26TH AVE
E 8TH AVE
ABBIE LN
S U N T R E K D R
OL I V E S T
E 23RD AVE
W 24TH AVE
E M E R A L D S T
W 35TH PL
W 31ST AVE
W 17TH AVE
F I L L M O R E S T
W 29TH PL
W 16TH AVE
W 22ND AVE
W 19TH AVE
FERRY ST
HIG H ST
BAILEY AVE
TYLER ST
E 26TH AVE
CHESHIRE AVE
C H A R N E LTON ST
F E RRY ST
W 27TH AVE
W 35TH PL
FOREST BLVD
JEFFERSON S T
LANE CO FAIRGROUNDS
E 43RD AVE
E 15TH AVE
K I N C A ID ST
W 23RD AVE
WILS
O
N
ST
F ER RY STR E ET BRI DGE
CLARK ST
SYLVAN ST
G R AN
T
S
T
E 25TH AVE
I5 NB C ONN
E 25TH AVE
F IL L M O RE
S T
M C M I L L AN ST
V A N B U R E N S T
ADA
M
S ST
OLIVE ST
ONYX ST
W 27TH AVE
A D A M S S T
VAN B U R E N S T
W 37TH AVE
J EFF
E
R
S
O
N ST
ESSEX LN
ALDER ST
HIGH S T
E 29TH PL
E 38TH AVE
W B I 105 O F R P
M I L L S T
E 28TH AVE
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
E 6TH AVE
OAK ST
W 25TH AVE
BROOKSIDE DR
MENLO LP
E 38TH AVE
E 43RD AVE
W 2ND AVE
E
B I1
0
5
O
N
R
P
COUNTRY CLUB RD
N ADAMS ST
GRAHAM DR
W 4TH AVE
UNI V E R S I TY ST
F E R R Y S T
LEWIS AVE
FOCH S
T
W 15TH AVE
W 1ST AVE
E 40TH AVE
W 22ND AVE
OL IVE
ST
M O N R OE ST
W 27TH AVE
J A C K S O N S T
M I L L S T
W 30TH AVE
W A S H I N G T O N S T
FIR LN
W 22ND AVE
E 27TH AVE
M I L L S T
F R IE N D L Y ST
VALLEY RIVER DR
ALMADEN
ST
W 22ND AVE
W 16TH AVE
E 31ST AVE
W 19TH PL
KINCAI D S T
W
B I1
0
5 C
ONN
HWY 99N
E 26TH AVE
A L M A D E N S T
PORTLAN D S T
E 25TH AVE
E M E R A L D S T
M CMILLAN ST
E 39TH PL
TYLER S T
M OS S ST
F E RRY ST
E 17TH AVE
B E E C H S T
C O L U M BIA ST
E 25TH AVE
W 15TH AVE
E 32ND AVE
P OT TER ST
M C KIN
L
E
Y ST
W 27TH PL
W 24TH AVE
E 36TH AVE
W 25TH PL
LAWRENC E S T
E 8 TH AVE
W 16TH AVE
E 16TH AVE
PEAR L S T
W 17TH AVE
A D A M S S T
W 14TH AVE
GARFIELD
S T
M I L L S T
W 14TH AVE
KIN
C
A
I
D S
T
E 25TH AVE
M A D I S O N ST
G R ANT
S
T
W 21ST AVE
COUNTRY CLUB RD
TAYLOR ST
LINCOLN S
T
V A N B U R EN ST
W 15TH AVE
W 3RD AVE
MILL ST
LINC O L N S T
CHESHIRE AVE
E 12TH AVE
E 36TH AVE
LAUREL HILL DR
E BROADWAY
UNIVERSI T Y S T
BEDFORD WAY
WILLAMETTE ST
A L M A D E N S T
MONR
O
E
S
T
W 15TH AVE
U
NIV
E
R
SIT
Y S
T
E 44TH AVE
W 16TH AVE
A D A M S S T
W 22ND AVE
W 17TH AVE
BAUER LN
HAYES S T
W 24TH PL
W ASH
I N G TO
N ST
SPRING BLVD
M A D I S O N S T
A
L
D
E
R
S
T
W 25TH AVE
F E R R Y ST
W 17TH AVE
MAHLON AVE
W 29T
H A
V
E
W 25TH AVE
W 29TH AVE
W 20TH AVE
EB I105 CONN
E 27TH AVE
L I N C OLN ST
CH AR N EL TON ST
HARLOW RD
E 39TH PL
GAR
F
IEL
D PL
W 3RD AVE
O N Y X S T
MIL L ST
V
A
N B
U
R
E
N
ST
WI LSO
N
ST
W 36TH AVE
U N IVE R SIT Y ST
E 39TH AVE
HON E Y S U C K L E L N
W 23RD AVE
ONYX
ST
J ACKSON ST
PORTLAND S T
O N YX ST
E 29TH AVE
A N D E R S O N L N
E 28TH AVE
VAN BU R E N S T
E 43RD AVE
W 3RD AVE
TAYLOR S T
V A N B URE
N ST
E 37TH AVE
E 39TH PL
OAKMONT WAY
FER RY
S
T
W A S H I N G T O N S T
M A D I SON ST
HAYES S
T
C O L UMBIA ST
W 21ST AVE
UN I V ERS
I
T
Y
ST
W 20TH AVE
W 40TH AVE
H I LYARD ST
E 38TH AVE
W 26TH AVE
L I N CO
L N ST
GARFIELD ST
K I N C A I D S T
E 29TH AVE
LINCOL N S T
E 25TH AVE
LOMA LINDA D R
M C M I L L A N ST
E 25TH AVE
MCK
I
N
L EY ST
E 35TH AVE
W ASH
I N G TO N ST
MILL ST
BROOKSIDE DR
W 24TH PL
WESTWARD HO AVE
JACKSO
N ST
W 2ND AVE
V A N D UY N ST
E 26TH AVE
OAK ST
W 21ST AVE
TANDY TURN
W 7TH PL
FIL L M O R E S T
W 10TH AVE
POTTER ST
W 24TH AVE
O NYX S T
C L E VE L A ND
S T
L EI G H S
T
W 2ND AVE
E 30TH AVE
E 26TH AVE
POTTE R S T
HIGH ST
M AD ISO
N ST
MADISON ST
T A Y L O R S T
DILLARD RD
O L I V E ST
FIRWOOD WAY
W 22ND AVE
W 3RD AVE
W 15TH AVE
W 14TH AV E
E 36TH AVE
W 27TH PL
E 37TH AVE
P O T T E R S T
EB I105
W 38TH AVE
S PYG LAS S DR
WILLAMETTE GARDENS APTS
W 20TH AVE
HIGH ST
W 15TH AVE
FAIR M O UNT B L V D
TAY
L
OR ST
H I GH ST
CHESHIRE AVE
COUNTRY CLUB RD
E 39TH PL
W 10TH AVE
PIERCE ST
B R OO K S I DE D R
O
A
K S
T
W 20TH AVE
E 39TH AVE
W 27TH PL
W 5TH AVE
W 21ST AVE
BLAIR BLVD
A D A MS ST
RIVERFRONT PKWY
B I KE PA TH
S
B D
E
LTA
C
O
N
N
E 16TH AVE
S H A D O W W O O D D R
W 5TH AVE
W 21ST AVE
W 15TH AVE
AGATE ST
FLORAL HILL DR
W 25TH AVE
W 27TH PL
TAYLO
R ST
W 14TH AVE
CH AR
N EL T O N ST
M O N R O E ST
S
P
R
I
N
G
B
LV
D
SP YGLAS S DR
E 20TH AVE
E 18TH AVE
PEARL ST
W 23RD AVE
M AD ISO
N ST
W 19TH AVE
O AK S
T
W I L L A M E T T E S T
W 26TH AVE
P EARL ST
H I G H S T
W 25TH PL
LIN C O L N S T
L AWRE NCE S T
CROSS ST
PE A R L S T
I 5 SB C ON N
M I L L ST
E 26TH AVE
F E R R Y ST
T AYL
O R ST
M
A
Y
FA
I
R
L
N
CHESHIRE AVE
J A C K S O N S T
W 26TH AVE
W BROADWAY
O
LIV
E
S
T
S T O N E Y RIDGE RD
I5 SB
I 5 NB
EB I105 WB I105
H I L Y A R D S T
P O L K S T
CHA
M
B
E
R
S
ST
W I L LA METTE ST
W 11TH AVE
W 18TH AVE
W 7TH AVE
E 30TH AVE
W 6TH AVE
H I G H S T
O AK S
T
E 19TH AVE
W 28TH AVE
W 13TH AVE
PE A R L S T
DONALD S T
COBUR G R D
E 18TH AVE
E 24TH AVE
HARRIS ST
LINCOLN S
T
CIT
Y
V
I
E
W
S
T
AGATE ST
HARLOW RD
CREST DR
GA R FIE L D S
T
RIV
E
R
R
D
E A
M
A
Z
O
N
D
R
PARK AVE
W
A
M
A
Z
O
N D
R
E 11TH AVE
AMAZ
O
N
PK WY
O A K WA Y R D
W 24TH AVE
PAT T E R S O N S T
ALD E R S T
F R I E N D L Y S T
E 13TH AVE
JEFF
E
R
S
O
N S
T
LORANE HWY
AUGUSTA S T
HWY 99N
SB D
E
L
T
A H
W
Y
WASH
I N G T O N S
T
NB D
ELT
A H
W
Y
W 2ND AVE
W 7TH PL
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD
SB I5 ONRP
E 40TH AVE
ROOSEVELT BLVD
E 33RD AVE
BLAIR BLVD
N
S
H
A
S
T
A L
P
W 1ST AVE
FRANKLIN BLVD
EB I105 CON N
O L I V E ST
NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY
BAILEY LN
NB I5 OFRP
W 29TH AVE
E 43RD AVE
W I L L A G I LLESPIE RD
LEO HARRIS PKWY
BRAE BURN DR
E 46TH AVE
BETHEL DR
COUNTRY CLUB RD
S GARDEN W A Y
S
P
RIN
G
B
L
V
D
MC KIN
LEY
ST
RAILRO
AD BLVD
MONROE S
T
W 39TH AVE
FOX HO L L O W R D
N GARDEN WA Y
W 5TH AVE
E 29TH AVE
W 27TH AVE
E 7TH AVE
EB I105 ONRP
EB I105 OFRP WB I105 ONRP
I5 SB C ONN
K I N S R O W A V E
I5 NB O
F
F
R
A
M
P
I 5 NB C O N N
E BROADWAY
WB I105 CONN
OAKMONT WAY
A R T H U R ST
S A T RE S T
E 4TH AVE
SUMMIT AVE
CLUB RD
VALLEY RIVER DR
E 3RD AVE
SOUTHWOOD LN
E 6TH AVE
SB DELTA CONN
VAN D U YN S T
VALLE
Y RIVE
R D
R S
W
R
I105 W B C O N N
SB D
E
L
TA O
F
R
P
E 8TH AVE
COMMONS DR
COLUMBIA ST
E 27TH AVE
W 3RD AVE
V A N B U R E N S T
N G
A
R
F
IE LD S T
SHELTON MCMURPHEY BLVD
I105 EB
KINCAID ST
WB I105 OFRP
V
ALLEY RIVE
R WAY
NB D
ELTA O
N
R
P
SB D
ELT
A
O
N
RP
I105 WB
G OODPASTURE I S L A N D R D
DILLARD RD
FE RRY STR EET BRIDG E
CEDARWOOD RD
MILL ST
FIRLAND BLVD
FLORAL HILL DR
W CENTENNIAL BLVD
EXECUTIV E P K W Y
H AWKINS L N
E 16TH AVE
BRACKENFERN RD
E 23RD AVE
I105 EB CONN
FAI R MO UN T BL V D
E 20TH AVE
RIV E R V I E W S T
W B I 105 O F R P
W 5TH AVE
W
B
I105 CON
N
E 6TH AVE
C
O
U
N
T
R
Y
C
L
U
B
R
D
L I N COLN S
T
A G A T E S T
EB I105
FRANKLIN BLVD
COUNTRY CLUB RD
HWY 99N
I 5 NB C ON N
E BROADWAY
FE R RY S TRE E T B R IDG E
EB I105 CONN
E
B
I
105
O
N
R
P
E BROADWAY
M ILL ST
I 5 SB CO N N
W A S H I N G T O N S T
JE F F E R SON ST
E 43RD AVE
SB DE LT A C ON N
W 7TH ALY
M I L L ALY
W 10TH ALY HIGH ALY
M O N ROE ALY
OAK ALY
P E ARL ALY
W 5TH ALY
KINC A I D A L Y
O N Y X ALY
HA R R I S A L Y
CHARNELTON AL Y
HILYAR
D
AL Y
O L I V E A LY
LAWREN CE
A L Y
POT
T
E
R A
L Y
E 14TH ALY
E 13TH ALY
W 6TH ALY
O R C H A R D A L Y
A G AT E A LY
E 32ND ALY
J EFF
E
RSO
N ALY
E 34TH ALY
ADAM
S AL Y
W 4TH ALY
WAS
H
ING TO N A
L Y
E 33RD ALY
F R I E N D L Y A L Y
W 12TH ALY
M O S S A LY
W A LN
U T A L Y
W 3RD ALY
E 18TH ALY
E 15TH ALY
CHA
M
BER
S AL Y
H A YE S AL
Y
E 10TH ALY
W 2ND ALY
E 31ST ALY
E 3RD ALY
VILLAR D A L Y
JACKSO
N ALY
FERRY ALY
GRAN
T
A
LY
W 1ST ALY
E 11TH ALYPOLK A L Y
E 16TH ALY
MCM I L L A N A L Y
CO L U M B IA A L Y
VAN
BUREN AL Y
E 8TH ALY
W 11TH ALY
W BROADWAY ALY
W 19TH ALY
GARFIEL
D AL Y
ALDER ALY
EMERALD A L Y
PATTERSO N A L Y
GARDEN ALY
W 8TH ALY
UN I V E R S I T Y A L Y
TYLER A L Y
E 19TH ALY
PORTL
AND ALY
W 9TH ALY
W 27TH PL ALY
W IL L AM ET T E A L Y
M A D I S O N A L Y
E 23RD ALY
SUNSET ALY
N JEFFERSON A L Y
LINCOL N A L Y
E 2ND ALY
CLARK ALY
E 12TH ALY
E 24TH ALY
M I A A LY
W 16TH ALY
ELLIE A L Y
W 25TH ALY
W 26TH ALY
W 27TH ALY
W 13TH ALY
W 15TH ALY
CHESHIRE ALY
E 20TH ALY
E 21ST ALY
E 22ND ALY
W 25TH PL ALY
ALMADEN ALY
E 5TH ALY
DONALD A L Y
HOLEMAN ALY
E 17TH ALY
E 7TH ALY
W 14TH ALY
E BROADWAY ALY
E 24TH PL ALY
GRAND V I E W A L Y
C H A R N E L T ON ALY
J E F F E R S O N A L Y
O L I VE ALY
W ASH
I N G TO N A
L
Y
UNIVERSITY ALY
LINCOLN A L Y
W BROADWAY ALY
LINCOLN ALY
WILLAME T T E A
L Y
W 1ST ALY
H I GH ALY
E 18TH ALY E 18TH ALY
LINCO L N A L Y
W 8TH ALY
MAD
ISO
N AL Y
W 12TH ALY
MO N R O E A L Y
E 34TH ALY
HIGH ALY
OAK
ALY
W 11TH ALY
WILLAMETTE A L Y
E 18TH ALY
W 4TH ALY
OAK ALY
O A K ALY
W 7TH ALY
W 12TH ALY
W 5TH ALY
M A D I S O N A LY
A L D ER A L Y
WILLAMETTE ALY
E 19TH ALY
WAS H I N G T O N A L Y
L A WR EN CE
A L Y
W 11TH ALY
H I L Y A R D A L Y
P A T T E R S O N A L Y
O A K A L Y
E 18TH ALY
E 14TH ALY
HAY
E
S
A
L
Y
E M E R A L D A L Y
WILLAMETTE A L Y
F R I E N D L Y A L Y
O L I VE ALY
L A W R E N C E A L Y
W I LLAMETTE ALY
ADA
M
S ALY
ALDER A L Y
GRANT A
LY
W 6TH ALY
E 34TH ALY
E 21ST ALY
T Y L E R ALY
EME R A L D A L Y
W 12TH ALY
E 21ST ALY
P O T T E R ALY
W 11TH ALY
W 2ND ALY
W 11TH ALY
E 17TH ALY
H I G H ALY
E 19TH ALY
W 10TH ALY
OAK ALY
W 12TH ALY
PORTLAND A L Y
M I L L A L Y
W 8TH ALY
W 25TH ALY
W 8TH ALY
W 12TH ALY
F E R R Y ALY
E 2ND ALY
WASHIN G T O N A L Y
W 11TH ALY
W 4TH ALY
W IL L AMETTE ALY
J EFF
E
R
S
O
N AL Y
E 24TH ALY
W 3RD ALY
H A R R I S A L Y
E 11TH ALY
M A D I S O N A L Y
L I N C O LN A L Y
H I G H A L Y
LAWRENC E A LY
W 6TH ALY
OLIV E AL Y
W 11TH ALY
E 12TH ALY
E 18TH ALY
PEARL ALY
A L DER ALY
W 14TH ALY
A
L
DE
R A
LY
E BROADWAY ALY
J E FFERSON AL Y
MCMI L L A N A L Y
L A WR E N C E ALY
FRIENDLY AL Y
W ILL
A
M
E T TE A
L
Y
LINCOLN ALY
L I N C O L N A L Y
E 13TH ALY
W 11TH ALY
O A K A L Y
W 5TH ALY
L I N CO LN ALY
CHARNE L TO N A L Y
E 23RD ALY
E 19TH ALY
CHAR N E L T O N A L Y
V I L LA R D A LY
W 8TH ALY
E 22ND ALY
HOLEMAN ALY
E 22ND ALY
W I LLAMETTE ALY
W 13TH ALY
E 19TH ALY
O L I V E AL Y
W BROADWAY ALY
HIGH ALY
W I LL A M E T T E A L Y
C HARNELTON ALY
E 20TH ALY
O L I V E ALY
A L D E R A L Y
M A D I S O N A L Y
W 10TH ALY
OLIVE ALY
FER R Y A L Y
E 20TH ALY
E 18TH ALY
PEARL ALY
WILLA
M
E
T
T
E A
LY
´
Eugene UGB
!Addresses: "TYPE" ='ALY'
Major Streets
Taxlots
PMS Alleys
Streets - TYPE = 'ALY'
Streets - TYPE <> 'ALY'
Lots of interest - outline
Lots_20ft_of_ally_GT45ft_fromSt and LDR or R-1
Water Bodies
July 22, 2013
DRAFT Working Map: Potential Existing Alley Lots - R1 & LDR
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A MEASURE 49 CLAIM AND WAIVING A
PROVISION OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 70 WEST 24th PLACE, EUGENE,
OREGON (ASSESSOR’S MAP 18-03-06-42, TAX LOT 2700).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Elise Moore (Claimant) submitted a claim to the City seeking compensation or a
waiver of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. under Ballot Measure 49. Claimant alleges that the limit on
building size on alley access lots of 10% of the lot size or 800 square feet (whichever is smaller)
restricts the residential use and reduces the fair market value of her property identified as
Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700 and located adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene,
Oregon (the subject property).
B. The City Manager has caused an investigation of the claim to be made, has
determined the claim to be valid, and has submitted to the Council a Report and
Recommendation, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, recommending that EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. be waived to allow Claimant to construct a 1,200 square foot dwelling that
complies with all other residential lot standards on the subject property. The recommended
waiver does not address the applicability of any other provision that might preclude such
construction.
C. Considering the requirements of Measure 49, the materials related to the claim
submitted to the City by Claimant and others, the City Manager’s report and recommendation,
and the lack of City funds with which to pay compensation to the Claimant, the City Council
finds the public interest will be best served by waiving EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings, which are adopted, and the analysis contained in
the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution,
the City Council hereby waives EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. for the property owned by Claimant Elise
Moore, Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700, to the extent necessary to allow Claimant to
construct a 1,200 square foot dwelling that complies with all other applicable residential
development standards.
Section 2. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Elise Moore at 70 West 24th
Place, Eugene, Oregon 97405, to her representative, Bill Kloos at 375 W. 4th Street, Suite 204,
Eugene, Oregon 97401, to any person who submitted written arguments or evidence before the
close of the record, and to the City’s Planning & Development Department. A copy of this
Resolution shall be forwarded to Lane County Deeds and Records.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 24th day of September, 2018.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
________________________________________
City Recorder
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Exhibit A to Resolution Approving
Moore Measure 49 Claim
Page 1 – Exhibit A to Resolution Approving Moore Measure 49 Claim
BALLOT MEASURE 49
(ORS 195.300 – ORS 195.336)
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
NAME OF CLAIMANT: Elise Moore
PROPERTY ADDRESS: West 24th Place & Portland Alley
Eugene, OR 97405
CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Kloos
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: Tax Lot 2700 of Assessor’s
Map 18-03-06-42
ZONING: R-1 Low Density Residential
I. Summary of Claim
Elise Moore (Claimant) submitted a claim under Ballot Measure 49 for compensation or
waiver of land use regulations alleging a reduction in fair market value to her vacant property
located near the intersection of West 24th Place and Portland Alley in Eugene, Oregon. The
property is a vacant alley access lot that is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. Claimant asserts
that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., which limits building size on alley access lots to 10% of the lot size or
800 square feet (whichever is smaller), restricts the residential use of her property and reduces its
value. Specifically, Claimant contends that she purchased the lot in 2010 to build a 1,200 square
foot house on the property and that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., enacted in 2014, limits maximum building
size on the lot to 462 square feet. She claims the regulation reduced the property’s value by $25,000
and asks the City to compensate her for the lost value or to waive EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. to allow
construction of a 1,200 square foot dwelling that complies with all other residential development
standards.
A City Council public hearing on this Measure 49 claim was held on July 16, 2018. The
claimant’s attorney, Bill Kloos, testified in favor of granting the claim. No other testimony was
received at the public hearing.
Following the hearing, the Council left the record open one week, until 5:00 p.m. on July 24,
2018, for submission of written testimony and provided the claimant an additional week, until
5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2018, to rebut evidence and arguments submitted. At the Council meeting
on July 23, 2018, the Council voted to extend the open record period until 5p.m. on July 27,
2018, and to extend the claimant’s rebuttal period until 5p.m. on August 3, 2018. On September
10, 2018, the Council voted to leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 2 – Exhibit A to Resolution Approving Moore Measure 49 Claim
12, 2018, and to extend Claimant’s rebuttal period until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19,
2018.
II. Summary of City Manager’s Recommendation
Measure 49 generally grants a property owner of residentially zoned land located within
an urban growth boundary the right to compensation or waiver of a land use regulation (at the
option of the government) if five substantive requirements are met. First, a claimant must own the
property subject to the claim. Second, the regulation must constitute a “land use regulation” as that
term is defined by Measure 49 and it must have been enacted after January 1, 2007, but not more
than five years before the date the claim was filed. Third, the regulation must “restrict the
residential use” of residentially zoned private property. Fourth, the regulation must cause a
reduction of the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of
Measure 49’s six exemptions.
As discussed below, the City Manager finds that the Moore claim is valid because it
satisfies the five requirements of Measure 49: 1) Claimant Elise Moore owns the property that is
the subject of the claim; 2) EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. qualifies as a land use regulation and was enacted
after January 1, 2007 and fewer than five years before the date the claim was filed; 3) EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts a previously allowed residential use on the residentially zoned property;
4) EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. reduces the property’s fair market value; and 5) EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does
not fall within one of the six Measure 49 exemptions. Therefore, this report concludes that the
claim is valid.
If a claim is valid under Measure 49, a local government must either (1) compensate the
claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the property, or (2) authorize the claimant to
use the property without application of the land use regulation “to the extent necessary to offset
the reduction in the fair market value of the property.” The Claimant requests compensation or a
waiver of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.. Accordingly, the City Manager recommends that the City Council
waive EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. as it relates to the Claimant’s property and to the extent that waiver is
needed to allow construction of a 1,200 square foot residential dwelling that complies with all
other residential development standards.
III. Analysis of Claim
A. Ownership
Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific
regulations for “owners” of real property. Ballot Measure 49 defines “owner” to include “[t]he
owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is
located[.]” ORS 195.300(18).
Based on information that the Claimant submitted (Warranty Deed 2010-033733) and
information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Manager
concludes that Claimant Elise Moore acquired fee title to the subject property on July 8, 2010.
Accordingly, Claimant Elise Moore is the owner of the property.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 3 – Exhibit A to Resolution Approving Moore Measure 49 Claim
B. “Land Use Regulations”
Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) for only those regulations that constitute
“land use regulations” as Measure 49 defines the term. Measure 49 defines “land use regulation,”
with respect to cities, as a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land
division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential
use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c). Further, land use regulations eligible for waiver under Measure 49
must have been enacted after January 1, 2007, but within five years of the date of the claim.
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. is a land use regulation as defined by Measure 49 because it is a
provision of the city’s zoning ordinance and it regulates residential uses on property in a residential
zone. This land use regulation was adopted by Ordinance No. 20541, which became effective
August 29, 2014. The Claimant filed her Measure 49 claim on January 29, 2018. Thus, EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. is a qualifying land use regulation under Measure 49 because it was enacted after
January 1, 2007, but within five years of the date of the claim.
C. Restriction on Residential Use
A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if the regulation restricts the
residential use of private real property. The specific regulation that is the subject of the Claimant’s
Measure 49 claim is EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., which limits the square footage of new dwellings built
on alley access lots. The Claimant alleges that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts the residential use of
her property because it prevents her from building a home that would have been allowed before
the regulation took effect.
Adopted on July 28, 2014 (by Ordinance No. 20541) and effective on August 29, 2014, EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. establishes the following limitations on square footage of buildings on alley access
lots:
(18) Alley Access Lots in R-1.
(a) General Standards.
1. Applicability. Except as provided in (b) below, the following standards
apply to development on alley access lots in R-1.
2. Use Regulations. Alley access lots have the same land use regulations as the
base zone except that there is no allowance for a secondary dwelling.
3. Building Size. The total building square footage of a dwelling shall not
exceed 10 percent of the total lot area or 800 square feet, whichever is
smaller. Total building square footage is measured at the exterior perimeter
walls and is defined as all square footage inside of the dwelling, including,
but not limited to hallways, entries, closets, utility rooms, stairways and
bathrooms.
Prior to the Council’s adoption of the above-quoted code provision, general R-1 zoning
regulations applied to alley access lots and allowed lot owners to build dwellings with total square
footage that covered up to 50% of the lot. Thus, prior to EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. going into effect, the
Claimant could have built a more than 2,000 square foot house on her 4,620 square foot alley
access lot. Now, however, EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. limits any structure on the Claimant’s lot to a
maximum of 462 square feet, which restricts the Claimant’s ability to construct her desired 1,200
square foot dwelling on the property. Planning staff evaluated the feasibility of the Claimant using
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 4 – Exhibit A to Resolution Approving Moore Measure 49 Claim
other land use mechanisms, including adjustment review, conditional use permits, planned unit
developments, and variances, to build the 1,200 square foot home while also complying with EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. and determined that none of those options were feasible.
Because EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. reduces the maximum lot coverage for Claimant’s alley access
lot from 50% to 10% or 800 sq. ft., whichever is smaller, thereby reducing the Claimant’s
maximum dwelling size from a 2,000+ square foot dwelling to a 462 square foot dwelling, and
because the Claimant has no viable option for constructing her desired 1,200 square foot dwelling
while also complying with EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., the City Manager concludes that EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts the Claimant’s residential use of her property.
D. Reduction in Value
A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if, in addition to restricting
the residential use of private real property, it reduces the fair market value of the property.
Claimant submitted appraisals showing the fair market value of the property one year before the
adoption of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. (July 28, 2013) and one year after the adoption of EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. (July 28, 2015). The July 28, 2013 appraisal provides a property value of $65,000.
The July 28, 2015 appraisal provides a property value of $40,000. The City Manager concludes
that the appraisals comply with the requirements of ORS 195.310 and establish that EC
9.2751(18)(a)3.reduces the fair market value of the Claimant’s property.
E. Exemptions
Finally, a Measure 49 claim is not valid if the challenged regulation was enacted before the
Claimant acquired the property or if it falls within one of the six exemptions under the Measure.
Regulations adopted to 1) protect the public health and safety, 2) prevent nuisances, or 3) comply
with federal law, are exempt under Measure 49, even if they otherwise constitute “land use
regulations” that “restrict the residential use” and “reduce the fair market value” of property. In
addition, regulations that (4) restrict or prohibit the use of the property for selling pornography or
performing nude dancing, (5) plan and rezone land for industrial zoning to be included in the UGB,
or (6) plan and rezone land already within a UGB to industrial zoning, are also exempt under
Measure 49.
EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. was enacted after the Claimant acquired the property and EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. does not fall within any of Measure 49’s six exemptions.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the analysis set forth above, the City Manager recommends that the City Council
grant Claimant Elise Moore’s Measure 49 claim. In lieu of compensation, the City Manager
recommends that the City Council waive EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. to the extent such waiver is necessary
to allow Claimant to construct a 1,200 square foot dwelling on the subject property that complies
with all other residential lot standards. The recommended waiver does not address the applicability
of any other provision that might preclude such construction.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Resolution - Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION DENYING A MEASURE 49 CLAIM FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ADJACENT TO 70 WEST 24th PLACE, EUGENE, OREGON
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 18-03-06-42, TAX LOT 2700).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. Elise Moore (Claimant) submitted a claim to the City seeking compensation or a
waiver of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. under Ballot Measure 49. Claimant alleges that the limit on
building size on alley access lots of 10% of the lot size or 800 square feet (whichever is smaller)
restricts the residential use and reduces the fair market value of her property identified as
Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42, Tax Lot 2700 and located adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene,
Oregon (the subject property).
B. Considering the requirements of Measure 49, and the materials related to the
claim submitted to the City by the claimants and others, and the Findings, attached as Exhibit A
to this Resolution, the City Council finds that the claim should be denied because EC
9.2751(18)(a)3.does not restrict the residential use of Claimant’s property.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings and the Findings attached as Exhibit A to this
Resolution, which are adopted, and the testimony and evidence in the record for this claim , the
City Council hereby denies the Measure 49 claim submitted by Claimant Elise Moore, for the
property located adjacent to 70 West 24th Place, Eugene, Oregon, Assessor’s Map 18-03-06-42,
Tax Lot 2700.
Section 2. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Elise Moore at 70 West 24th
Place, Eugene, Oregon 97405, to her representative, Bill Kloos at 375 W. 4th Street, Suite 204,
Eugene, Oregon 97401, to any person who submitted written arguments or evidence before the
close of the record, and to the City’s Planning & Development Department. A copy of this
Resolution shall also be forwarded to Lane County Deeds and Records.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 24th day of September, 2018.
________________________________________
City Recorder
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Exhibit A to Resolution Denying
Moore Measure 49 Claim
Page 1 - Exhibit A to Resolution Denying Moore Measure 49 Claim
BALLOT MEASURE 49
(ORS 195.300 – ORS 195.336)
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION
FINDINGS
NAME OF CLAIMANT: Elise Moore
PROPERTY ADDRESS: West 24th Place & Portland Alley
Eugene, OR 97405
CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Kloos
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: Tax Lot 2700 of Assessor’s
Map 18-03-06-42
ZONING: R-1 Low Density Residential
I. Summary of Claim
Elise Moore (Claimant) submitted a claim under Ballot Measure 49 for compensation or
waiver of land use regulations alleging a reduction in fair market value to her vacant property
located near the intersection of West 24th Place and Portland Alley in Eugene, Oregon. The
property is a vacant alley access lot that is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential. Claimant asserts
that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., which limits building size on alley access lots to 10% of the lot size or
800 square feet (whichever is smaller), restricts the residential use of her property and reduces its
value. Specifically, Claimant contends that she purchased the lot in 2010 to build a 1,200 square
foot house on the property and that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., enacted in 2014, limits maximum building
size on the lot to 462 square feet. She claims the regulation reduced the property’s value by $25,000
and asks the City to compensate her for the lost value or to waive EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. to allow
construction of a 1,200 square foot dwelling that complies with all other residential development
standards.
A City Council public hearing on this Measure 49 claim was held on July 16, 2018. The
claimant’s attorney, Bill Kloos, testified in favor of granting the claim. No other testimony was
received at the public hearing.
Following the hearing, the Council left the record open one week, until 5:00 p.m. on July
24, 2018, for submission of written testimony and provided the claimant an additional week, until
5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2018, to rebut evidence and arguments submitted. At the Council meeting
on July 23, 2018, the Council voted to extend the open record period until 5p.m. on July 27, 2018
and to extend the claimant’s rebuttal period until 5p.m. on August 3, 2018.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 2 – Exhibit A to Resolution Denying Moore Measure 49 Claim
On September 10, 2018, the Council voted to leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 12, 2018, and to extend Claimant’s rebuttal period until 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, September 19, 2018.
II. Requirements of Measure 49
Measure 49 generally grants a property owner of residentially zoned land located within
an urban growth boundary the right to compensation or waiver of a land use regulation (at the
option of the government) if five substantive requirements are met. First, a claimant must own the
property subject to the claim. Second, the regulation must constitute a “land use regulation” as that
term is defined by Measure 49 and it must have been enacted after January 1, 2007, but not more
than five years before the date the claim was filed. Third, the regulation must “restrict the
residential use” of residentially zoned private property. Fourth, the regulation must cause a
reduction of the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of
Measure 49’s six exemptions.
A. Ownership
Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific
regulations for “owners” of real property. Ballot Measure 49 defines “owner” to include “[t]he
owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is
located[.]” ORS 195.300(18).
Based on information that the Claimant submitted (Warranty Deed 2010-033733) and
information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Council
finds that Claimant Elise Moore acquired fee title to the subject property on July 8, 2010.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that Claimant Elise Moore is the owner of the property.
B. “Land Use Regulations”
Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) for only those regulations that constitute
“land use regulations” as Measure 49 defines the term. Measure 49 defines “land use regulation,”
with respect to cities, as a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land
division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential
use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c). Further, land use regulations eligible for waiver under Measure 49
must have been enacted after January 1, 2007, but within five years of the date of the claim.
The City Council finds that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. is a provision of the city’s zoning ordinance
and it regulates residential uses on property in a residential zone. The City Council further finds
that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. was adopted by Ordinance No. 20541, which became effective August
29, 2014. The City Council finds that Claimant timely filed her Measure 49 claim on January 29,
2018. However, as discussed in more detail below, the City Council finds that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3.
does not restrict the residential use of Claimant’s property.
C. Restriction on Residential Use
A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if the regulation restricts the
residential use of private real property. The specific regulation that the is the subject of Claimant’s
Measure 49 claim is EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., which limits the square footage of new dwellings built
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 3 – Exhibit A to Resolution Denying Moore Measure 49 Claim
on alley access lots. The Claimant alleges that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. restricts the residential use of
her property because it prevents her from building a home that would have been allowed before
the regulation took effect.
Adopted on July 28, 2014 (by Ordinance No. 20541) and effective on August 29, 2014, EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. establishes the following limitations on square footage of buildings on alley access
lots:
(18) Alley Access Lots in R-1.
(a) General Standards.
1. Applicability. Except as provided in (b) below, the following standards
apply to development on alley access lots in R-1.
2. Use Regulations. Alley access lots have the same land use regulations as the
base zone except that there is no allowance for a secondary dwelling.
3. Building Size. The total building square footage of a dwelling shall not
exceed 10 percent of the total lot area or 800 square feet, whichever is
smaller. Total building square footage is measured at the exterior perimeter
walls and is defined as all square footage inside of the dwelling, including,
but not limited to hallways, entries, closets, utility rooms, stairways and
bathrooms.
The City Council finds that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict the residential use of
Claimant’s property because EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict Claimant’s ability to use her
property for a single family residence, it simply limits the size of the single family residence
Claimant may construct. Because Claimant retains the ability to construct a single family
residence on her property both before and after the adoption of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3., the City
Council finds that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not restrict Claimant’s residential use of her property.
D. Reduction in Value
A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if, in addition to restricting
the residential use of private real property, it reduces the fair market value of the property.
Claimant submitted appraisals showing the fair market value of the property one year before the
adoption of EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. (July 28, 2013) and one year after the adoption of EC
9.2751(18)(a)3. (July 28, 2015). The July 28, 2013 appraisal provides a property value of $65,000.
The July 28, 2015 appraisal provides a property value of $40,000. The City Council finds that
appraisals comply with the requirements of ORS 195.310 and establish that EC
9.2751(18)(a)3.reduces the fair market value of the Claimant’s property.
E. Exemptions
Finally, a Measure 49 claim is not valid if the challenged regulation was enacted before the
Claimant acquired the property or if it falls within one of the six exemptions under the Measure.
Regulations adopted to: 1) protect the public health and safety, 2) prevent nuisances, or 3) comply
with federal law, are exempt under Measure 49, even if they otherwise constitute “land use
regulations” that “restrict the residential use” and “reduce the fair market value” of property. In
addition, regulations that (4) restrict or prohibit the use of the property for selling pornography or
performing nude dancing, (5) plan and rezone land for industrial zoning to be included in the UGB,
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3
Page 4 – Exhibit A to Resolution Denying Moore Measure 49 Claim
or (6) plan and rezone land already within a UGB to industrial zoning, are also exempt under
Measure 49.
The City Council finds that EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. was enacted after the Claimant acquired
the property and EC 9.2751(18)(a)3. does not fall within any of Measure 49’s six exemptions.
September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3