Item 3: Measure 37 Claim (Wiper)

Home Browse Search

ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: Charles Wiper, Inc. Measure 37 Claim (M37 06-4) Meeting Date: January 28, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Gabe Flock www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-5697 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a public hearing on a Measure 37 claim submitted by Charles Wiper, Inc. (Claimant) for property located at 3900 Willamette Street (Rest-Haven Memorial Park). This public hearing, and the proposed th action scheduled for February 11, is being held as a result of a December 26, 2007 order of the Lane County Circuit Court requiring the council to act on Claimant’s Measure 37 claim by February 11, 2008. BACKGROUND On December 1, 2006, Claimant filed a Measure 37 claim. As detailed in the attached report, Claimant has identified, as regulations reducing the value of its property, Eugene Code Chapters 6 and 9, the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), all relevant refinement plans, all relevant studies and reports, all implementing regulations and standards, and all restrictions and conditions included in the Conditional Use Permit currently applicable to the subject property. Several Measure 37 claims, including this one, were scheduled for a public hearing before council in May 2007. Shortly before the date of that hearing, the Legislature both amended Measure 37 to extend the time for acting on Measure 37 claims, and referred to the voters a measure to revise Measure 37. That referral – Measure 49 – was approved by the voters in November 2007, and became effective on December 6, 2007. However, on December 26, 2007, the Lane County Circuit Court entered an order requiring the City Council to adopt a resolution approving or denying Claimant’s Measure 37 claim, and to do so by February 11, 2008, based on Measure 37 as it existed on May 30, 2007 (i.e., pre-Measure 49). The City Manager is recommending that the claim should be denied. This recommendation is based on several factors, which are described in more detail in the attached report and recommendation from the City Manager. The major factors include the following. First, many of the regulations that are the subject of the claim are not “land use regulations” as that phrase was defined in Measure 37. Second, to the extent the claim identified “land use regulations” that met Measure 37’s definition, the claim failed to show either (a) that following the passage of Measure 37, the City has enforced those regulations against the subject property; and/or (b) that the regulations both restrict the use and reduce the value of the subject property. Third, the Claimant is legally bound by the terms of a Conditional Use Permit which restricts the use of the subject property independent of the City’s land use code. Finally, the owner voluntarily dedicated the property to cemetery use and state statutes, which were not included in the claim, prohibit the use of property dedicated for cemetery use for anything other than cemetery use. F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080128\S0801283.DOC