Salem Political Snark

Giant Sequoia in NE Salem at risk from developer's tree variance request

The City of Salem is unduly proud about being awarded a Tree City USA designation, given that more than 3,400 cities have that title, which doesn't require very much:

Become a Tree City USA Community

1. Maintaining a tree board or department.
2. Having a community tree ordinance.
3. Spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry.
4. Celebrating Arbor Day.

Where Salem has fallen short historically is the folks at City Hall not doing enough to protect street trees from being cut down for no good reason and allowing developers to remove trees that should be preserved.

The most egregious example of this was Public Works Director Peter Fernandez engaging in a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president to allow five beautiful, healthy trees on State Street to be removed in 2013 for (you guessed it) no good reason. 

That caused a lot of outrage among tree lovers in our city, which is why I called my tell-all report of this travesty Outrage: Salem's U.S. Bank tree killings. Thankfully, nothing this bad has happened since, but smaller tree outrages have popped up over the intervening years.

Hopefully the tale of a Giant Sequoia growing on land slated for development in the area of Center Street and 23rd Street NE will have a happy ending.

My wife and I learned about this yesterday, Saturday, from Delana Beaton, a board member of the Northeast Neighbors (NEN) neighborhood association, who shared this image with us in the course of a meeting of a monthly discussion group we're a member of, along with Delana and her husband, Russ.

Unfortunately, the deadline for submitting comments on the housing development plan by Portland's Green Light Development ended at 5 pm last Friday. However, my wife, Laurel, emailed City of Salem Planner Aaron Panko anyway about her concern that the developer has requested a variance on the requirement to protect the critical root zone of the Giant Sequoia and four other trees.

She just heard from Panko that her comment can't be considered, since it was received after the deadline.

So what my wife and I are going to do, which I recommend anyone else concerned about the variance request should do, is use the Green Light Development contact form on their web site to send a message directed to Tim Lawler, the developer's representative on this project, expressing concern about the variance request. Here's how it's described on the City of Salem project application. 

A Tree Variance to allow encroachment greater than 30 percent into the critical root zones for five trees dedicated for preservation.

I'm going to ask Lawler why the variance is necessary.

More bluntly put, why the heck can't Green Light Development comply with the City of Salem requirements for protecting valuable trees like the Giant Sequoia? They're almost certainly going to make a lot of money from this development. Why not make sure the Giant Sequoia and four other trees are adequately protected during construction, instead of risking their health by requesting the variance?

Bush Park baseball stadium expansion moves forward with Parks Board vote

The Salem Reporter is doing a great job keeping our community informed about plans for improving the Willamette University baseball field at Bush Park, which would host summer games for a new Salem for-profit team that would join the West Coast League.

Yesterday a story was published about a Thursday meeting of the Parks Advisory Board where the baseball project moved forward. Here's an excerpt from "City parks board advances plans for Spec Keene Stadium."

Members of Salem’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Thursday voted in support of an updated agreement with Willamette University advancing plans to use a stadium adjacent to Bush’s Pasture Park for a for-profit summer baseball league.

The agreement would allow Willamette University to encroach slightly on the city park for improvements at the university-owned Spec Keene and McCulloch Stadium.

Following concerns raised by neighbors, the board recommended a final agreement including a requirement Willamette offer shuttle service and other measures intended to address concerns about parking and impact.

Willamette and Salem Baseball plan to use the stadium as the home field for a new team in the West Coast League that includes the Portland Pickles. The team would host about 27 games each summer. The university would also update the softball stadium at 501 14th St. S.E.

The plans include added accessibility, new fencing and a new field light pole. The project received $3 million in taxpayer money from state legislators earlier this year, primarily because the development will allow local high schools to use the field for free. Lara Tiffin, who directs athletics for the school district, said high schools will use their own fields when the weather’s nice, but the turf fields will be a benefit when it’s rainy.

Neighborhood opposition is having an impact on the project, though I suspect that this won't be enough to derail the stadium improvements. 

After all, there's been quite a bit of buy-in from the City of Salem, Willamette University, the Salem Baseball Club, and the Salem-Keizer School District. 

In December 2023 a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by the City of Salem, Willamette University, and the Salem Baseball Club. In January 2024 the West Coast League announced that a Salem team would be added, name to be determined later, since Salem Baseball Club is just a placeholder. (Hopefully the name will be more appealing than Portland Pickles, a current league team.)

Friday, the West Coast League happily announced the addition of its 17th member in Salem, Oregon, opening play in 2025. The Salem Baseball Club will join the Springfield Drifters, Bend Elks, Corvallis Knights, and Portland Pickles as the league’s fifth Oregon-based team.

“When you look at a map,” said WCL Commissioner Rob Neyer, “adding another team in the Willamette Valley is an easy call for us. We were simply waiting for the perfect situation, and with the Salem Baseball Club, that’s now exactly what we’ve got.”

The Salem Baseball Club name is a placeholder until a new team name, logo, and mascot are determined and unveiled to the public. SBC will play its home games at Willamette University’s ballpark in downtown Salem.

A March 2024 Salem Reporter story, "Fans abound for stadium upgrade but critics worry about impact on Bush Park," noted that the for-profit team will use unpaid college players for the summer league. 

State legislators recently earmarked $3 million from taxpayers to pay for upgrading the stadium.

University officials propose to replace grass with artificial turf, install new and taller field lights, open more entryways and add field netting.

The university then would turn over the stadium for the summer to Salem Baseball LLC. The company is led by Luke Emanuel, a Salem native who worked eight years as director of baseball operations at the University of Oregon.

Emanuel’s company bought the Salem franchise for the West Coast League and wants Keene Stadium to be its home field. The league features college players who are between school seasons.

As Emanuel envisions the scene, up to 1,500 fans would settle into stadium seats for 27 home games a season. They’d have access to concessions, including beer, and likely pay no more than $10 for a ticket to a game, Emanuel said.

...The request came with a host of endorsing letters. The Salem-Keizer School District’s coordinator of athletics said high schools expect to rent the fields “on a regular basis.”

The Boys & Girls Club of Salem Marion and Polk Counties said it anticipated using the ball field for summer camp, flag football and fundraising tournaments. The Family YMCA of Marion & Polk Counties said the project would “provide space for youth and adults to participate in multi-sport camp programs.”

Upgrading the fields would help Salem’s economy, Travel Salem said in its letter.

“The positive ripple effects of this investment will be felt through increased tourism, local business engagement, and the overall enhancement of Salem’s reputation as a sports destination,” the organization wrote.

As I said in my first blog post about this project, this is one of those issues where proponents and opponents each have valid arguments for why the stadium expansion and summer use by Salem Baseball LLC should either move forward or be stopped in its tracks.

The stadium expansion does seem like a done deal, since most of the money for it has been raised. However, it requires approval by the Salem Council, given that part of the expansion would be on Bush Park land.

If that happens, seemingly use of the stadium by Salem Baseball LLC would be a matter decided between the LLC and Willamette University, which owns the stadium. But I could be wrong about this.

Expanded baseball field in Bush Park draws opposition and support

"If you build it they will come." Most people think this was a famous line in the movie Field of Dreams, as regards a baseball field, but actually the line was "If you build it he will come." One person, not lots. 

Here in Salem, there's both a lot of anxiety and a lot of excitement over a proposed expansion of the Willamette University baseball field into Bush Park (yeah, its official name is Bush's Pasture Park, but few use it). Opponents worry that if the stadium is built, they will indeed come, causing noise, parking, and other problems for the neighborhood.

A story in today's Salem Reporter by Abbey McDonald, "Neighbors question public benefit, impact as Spec Keene Stadium plans advance," starts off this way:

A procedural vote Thursday that would advance plans to develop an existing baseball field adjacent to Bush’s Pasture Park for professional play has become a rallying point for Salem residents opposing the project over concerns about parking, noise and neighborhood impacts.

Salem’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is scheduled to vote in a 1 p.m. meeting on an update to the city’s agreement with Willamette University for the university’s use of Spec Keene Stadium, McCulloch Stadium and Bush’s Pasture Park.

The update is a step in the Willamette University and Salem Baseball plan to use Spec Keene Stadium as the home field for a new home team in the West Coast League that includes the Portland Pickles.

The plan for the stadium includes installing synthetic turf, new lights, an adjusted entryway and field netting at John Lewis Field, according to a report from Parks Planning Manager Rob Romanek. The plans also include added accessibility, new fencing and a new field light pole. 

The project received $3 million in taxpayer money from state legislators earlier this year, primarily because the development will allow local high schools to use the field.

Though the stadium is owned by Willamette University, its location is surrounded on three sides by Bush’s Pasture Park. That has brought questions from some neighbors about the impact large sporting events and new equipment would bring to the historic area.

The well-researched Salem Reporter story has many more details about the stadium, including how it will be used by local high school teams who lack synthetic turf on their own fields. 

This is one of those issues where it's easy to sympathize with both those who think the stadium is a great idea, and those who think it is a terrible idea. The Salem City Council has to approve the plan, since it involves some parts of Bush Park. They'll have to consider the pros and cons, then make what likely will be a tough decision for most of the councilors.

My wife, Laurel, is opposed to the stadium, believing that it will harm the character of Bush Park. She shared with me a message from Joan Stembridge, who is one of those leading the opposition. 

Dear Friends and Neighbors and Interested Salem Residents,

 

I am offering each one of you the opportunity to sign your name onto public written testimony that I will be sending to the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB) very soon.  The Board is meeting next week. (Thursday, 6/13/24)  The Board advises the Salem City Council.

 

The issue is this:  Willamette University and the City of Salem want to expand the footprint of Willamette University's baseball stadium further into Bush park for the purpose of having a for-profit summer league college level baseball team to take up residence in Bush Park's John Lewis Field.

 

The for-profit team would play evenings in June, July and August.  With a home season of at least 27 games....  With the games starting around 6pm and going possibly late in the evening when the park is now closed.

 

The owner of the team hopes there will be at least 500 cars of fans coming to each game.... which will completely overwhelm the 420 parking spaces in Bush Park. 

 

Bush Park is a well loved and heavily used park, especially in the summer months when families and friends from all over Salem come to enjoy evenings of picnics, walking, jogging, and free play.  This is why I am so concerned about the idea of a baseball business moving into Bush Park.  Those Salem residents who want to drive to Bush Park for a relaxing family evening will likely be "out of luck".

 

Please read the written testimony.  And, if you are wanting to support keeping Bush Park as a inner city oasis of beauty for the whole community to enjoy, please respond back to my email with your name and Ward number or your neighborhood association name.  (If you are in doubt, please just give your address and I will find your ward/neighborhood association information.)

 

If you have friends and neighbors who enjoy Bush Park and would be concerned about having the summer evenings usurped by a for-profit baseball business, please send my testimony to your friends and let them know they would be welcome to sign on to my letter to the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

 

I will also be sending this letter on to the City Council, as the Salem City Council will be voting on this proposition in the future.  It will be educational for the City Council to know how residents all over Salem feel about having Bush Park taken over by a private business.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

Sincerely,

Joan Stembridge, Ward 2

Here's some images of the stadium that were in the Salem Reporter story, courtesy of Willamette University. 

I love Oregon's land use system. But it will survive some legislative tweaking.

On this Valentines Day it seems appropriate to express my love for Oregon's land use system. It dates from 1973, shortly after when I moved to Oregon in 1971 to attend graduate school at Portland State University.

So yeah, I guess Senate Bill 100, which established the land use system, was intended in part to protect our state's farm and forest land from Californians like me. A Department of Land Conservation and Development web page summarizes the bill.

Oregonians in the 1960s and '70s became concerned as they watched rapid population growth begin to take place around the state. Lawmakers responded with Senate Bill 100, which Governor Tom McCall signed into law in 1973. At that time, farming and timber harvesting were the state’s largest industries and many Oregonians thought eventual development of land for new homes and industries would displace these economic engines. SB 100 tied local planning to a set of guiding statewide principles. The new law created the Land Conservation and Development Commission to craft the rules that guide the system. May 2023 marks the 50th Anniversary of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program.

Whenever you leave the city limits of an Oregon town and are instantly into a rural environment, rather than the sprawl that surrounds cities in most other states, you can thank our land use system's provision of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). And those who have worked tirelessly to protect the proper use of UGBs, notably 1000 Friends of Oregon and associated groups like Friends of Marion County.

Those supporters of the land use system, and the current approach to expanding UGBs, were pleased when the 2023 legislature adjourned without passing a controversial bill, HB 3414. It was aimed at expanding affordable housing and failed by one vote. I wrote about this in "Here's the dumbest thing Oregon Republicans did this legislative session."

Stupidity isn't limited to one political party, for sure. There's plenty of dumb moves made by both Democrats and Republicans. 

But I've got to give the award for the most egregious display of political cluelessness in the Oregon legislative session that concluded yesterday to four Republican senators and one independent, who I assume was Brian Boquist, as he used to be a Republican.

For even though the six-week walkout by Senate Republicans had ended after Democrats agreed to water down two bills dealing with abortion and gun control, those five senators didn't attend the last day of the session yesterday, Sunday, June 25.

As the Oregonian reports in "Oregon bill to accelerate housing development with change to urban growth boundaries fails by 1 vote," their absence doomed House Bill 3414, a Republican priority.

A contentious bill to increase Oregon’s supply of affordable housing failed Sunday by a single vote in the waning hours of the 2023 legislative session as five lawmakers who might have supported it remained out of the building.

House Bill 3414, introduced at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek, sought to accelerate housing development by streamlining planning and permitting, allowing variances to a variety of building requirements, and establishing a new state office to hold local jurisdictions accountable for meeting their communities’ housing needs.

The key, controversial provision added in recent days also would have allowed cities to expand their urban growth boundaries by up to 150 acres to accommodate more housing, provided some of it was highly affordable, without the usual process.

...The bill had unanimous support from Republicans present for the vote Sunday, but fell one vote short of the 16 it needed to pass the Senate on a day when four Republican lawmakers and one independent were absent following their walkout this session. Ten Democrats in the Senate also opposed the bill.

This was a golden opportunity for Republicans to pass a bill that weakened Oregon's land use system, which is much beloved by Democrats and environmentalists who favor strong urban growth boundaries that protect farm and forest land from unnecessary development. 

But I guess the four Republican senators and one independent were so enamored with their previous walkout -- which was the longest in Oregon history and the second longest in the nation -- that they couldn't resist staying away from their legislative duties until the session ended.

In the short legislative session happening this month, Governor Kotek is making another try at passing affordable housing bills. Once again, the most controversial part of them is granting cities a one-time shot at expanding their Urban Growth Boundary. 

The good news is that the 150 acre maximum expansion has been reduced to 50 or 100 acres, according to a 1000 Friends of Oregon report on the status of HB 1537.

What it does: The base bill of Governor Kotek’s housing bill, SB 1537, includes two provisions we strongly support: creation of the Housing Production Accountability Office and revolving loan funds for housing. It also initially included good infrastructure investment tools, some of which have since been wrapped into SB 1530 and are no longer part of SB 1537 now that the dash-9 amendment is adopted. 

SB 1537 also has a flaw we can’t support: provisions that would override land use and environmental laws. SB 1537 would allow cities to expand their UGBs by at least 50 or 100 acres for residential and other uses, without following land use laws, to allow private developers to build homes primarily for people with higher incomes. (That UGB expansion acreage is down from 75 and 150 acres thanks to the dash-9 amendment, which reflects effective advocacy work by community organizations and individual Oregonians). 

The bad news is that it appears likely that some sort of exemption of UGB expansion from land use laws will pass the legislature. However, the way I see it, Oregon's land use system has undergone many changes during its 50 year history. Most have been good. Some have been bad.

So even if some tweaks are made this year, our pioneering land use system will survive and hopefully prosper. Nature is continually changing. Our approach to preserving farm and and forest land must change also, or it will become so rigid, it won't be able to adapt to changing political and societal conditions.

South Salem Office Depot kicks out farm stand and food trucks

Office Depot acted like a corporate jerk when it kicked out a farm stand and two food carts from their vast and mostly empty south Salem parking lot.

A Statesman Journal story, "Where did the food carts at the South Salem Office Depot parking lot go?," describes the bullshit reason for this decidedly unneighborly act of corporate asshole'ness.

The departure was fueled by an order from Office Depot's corporate office claiming the food trucks and stands were taking up too many parking spots, food cart owners said. This left staff of the South Salem location, who confirmed the move, to force Don Chuy's Tacos, Cary's Bakeshop and Nanneman Farms Fruit Stand off the property.

Today around 2 pm I took some photos of the Office Depot parking lot, which supposedly is so jammed to overflowing that there's absolutely no room for the farm stand and food trucks.

That's a big fat corporate lie.

The shady side of the parking lot where the fruit stand used to be had one car in it, with just a few cars nearby.

I recall that the food trucks used to be on the other side of the Office Depot parking lot. It was completely empty.

The middle of the parking lot did have some cars in it. But even here, there were plenty of empty spaces.

And on the side of the building, there's a huge parking area that had precisely zero vehicles in it. 

So a lack of spots for parking definitely wasn't the reason Office Depot kicked out the farm stand and food trucks. 

That leaves me to speculate that the Office Depot corporate office just wanted to be mean.

OK. Now I want to buy my office supplies from anywhere other than the South Salem Office Depot. Amazon. Fred Meyer. A store in Outer Mongolia. 

Since Office Depot wants its parking lot as empty as possible, I'm glad to oblige by not having my car take up one of the spaces. If the farm stand and food trucks return, so will I.

Salem City Council reverses itself and approves Meyer Farm subdivision

Some Salem progressives are deeply irritated at fellow progressives on the City Council after Monday night's 4-3 approval of a revised Meyer Farm subdivision application , which followed a 5-2 denial of the application on February 28.

The Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook page has an image that sums up how opponents of the subdivision are feeling today.

They're justified in feeling this way. 

One reason is how City of Salem staff turned a subdivision denial into an approval by working with the applicant on a revised application, even though opponents figured that what staff should have been doing is preparing a Final Order of the denial.

This gave the developer, Portland based Kehoe Northwest Properties, time to turn a loss into a win. Opponents of the subdivision likely are wondering what occurred outside of public view to result in a City Council vote against the development becoming a vote for the development.

However, when we look at how the votes changed between February 28 and March 28, there's less room for anger at city councilors altering their position on the subdivision -- while still providing considerable justification for outrage.

Particularly at several progressive members of the City Council.

On February 28 there were eight members of the council, conservative Jim Lewis having resigned his seat. Those voting to approve the subdivision were Chuck Bennett and Jose Gonzalez. Those voting to deny the subdivision were Tom Andersen, Trevor Phillips, Jackie Leung, Chris Hoy, and Vanessa Nordyke. Virginia Stapleton was absent.

But prior to the denial, at the February 28 meeting there was a motion to approve the subdivision with some conditions. Hoy, Bennett, and Nordyke were in favor of the motion. Andersen, Leung, Phillips, and Gonzalez opposed the motion.

Yesterday, March 28, all nine City Council positions were filled, since Micki Varney, a progressive, had been selected to fill Jim Lewis' seat. This time Jackie Leung was absent, a crucial absence, because there were only four votes to approve the subdivision application: Bennett, Gonzalez, Stapleton, Hoy. Three councilors voted to deny the application: Nordyke, Andersen, Phillips. 

Varney abstained. A Salem Reporter story says:

Councilor Micki Varney, who was appointed to the council last week to serve the remainder of Jim Lewis’ term, abstained because she hadn’t had a chance to review testimony, City Attorney Dan Atchison said at the meeting. Councilor Jackie Leung was not in attendance.

Wow. Micki Varney didn't start off her council appointment at all positively.

It's mind-boggling that Varney didn't take the time to review testimony on probably the most important land use decision that will come before the City Council this year. It also doesn't look good that the City Attorney apparently was the one to explain why Varney abstained, not Varney herself. 

So if opponents of the Meyer Farm subdivision are looking for someone to blame for the subdivision's approval, Micki Varney would be Culprit #1. If she had voted against the revised application, the motion to approve it would have failed on a 4-4 tie. 

Culprit #2 has to be Jackie Leung, another progressive, who voted against the subdivision on February 28. Unless Leung has a really good explanation for why she missed Monday's meeting, the ire of subdivision opponents should be focused on Leung, along with Varney. 

(I like both Leung and Varney. I've supported their City Council campaigns. But I've got to call them out on this issue, because to me failing to vote on an important issue is worse than voting in a way I disagree with. Democracy belongs only to those who show up.)

NOTE: Initially I had it as Leung and Nordyke rather than Leung and Varney. I wrote this post late at night and my proof-reading obviously was lacking, being excessively focused on turning on our TV and starting to watch the 4th season of "Yellowstone." Great series by the way.

Virginia Stapleton was absent on February 28, so her position on the Meyer Farm subdivision wasn't known, making it not much of a surprise when she voted to approve it yesterday. Chris Hoy was in favor of a modified subdivision plan on February 28, so it wasn't a huge shock when he voted in favor of a modified plan on March 28. The Salem Reporter story says:

Hoy previously made a motion during a March 1 meeting [actually, it was February 28] to modify the planning administrator’s decision, telling the applicant to preserve significant trees on 10 lots by dedicating them as open space or incorporating them into the homestead lot. He also called for relocating a pedestrian path on Hilfiker Lane to ensure it didn’t impact trees. That motion failed.

At Monday’s meeting, he said he believed the new application got “very close” to his previous motion.

“I think it's the best outcome we can hope for given the difficult situation,” Hoy said.

Likely this isn't the final word on the Meyer Farm subdivision. Members of the Meyer family who don't want to see the farm turned into a housing development are engaged in a legal challenge regarding ownership with the family members who do favor development. 

That's one way the subdivision could be stopped. An appeal to LUBA, Land Use Board of Appeals, is another way. There appears to be some valid grounds for appeal.

Meyer Farm subdivision rejected by City Council, but city staff are trying to keep it alive.

Ah, the games City of Salem staff like to play, even when they seem illegal, or at least, decidedly improper. 

Last Monday night the City Council voted 5-2 to reject an application to build a 139 single-family lot subdivision on the beautiful property in south Salem known as the Meyer Farm.

I wrote about this last October in "Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed." Neighbors, along with others concerned about the proposed development, formed a Facebook group, Friends of The Meyer Farm.

I've followed their persistent, thoughtful, energetic efforts, finding them impressive.

Fighting a subdivision is a David versus Goliath exercise. The developer has way more money, and the City of Salem tends to favor development, since more houses means more property tax revenue for the city.

So it was a pleasant surprise to read a Salem Reporter story, "Salem City Council denies proposed subdivision on historic farm citing concerns about tree removal." 

The Salem City Council denied an application by a developer to build 139 single family lots on the historic Meyer Farm in south Salem.  

In a 5-2 vote, the council voted in favor of denying the planning administrator’s approval of the project, citing concerns over the removal of significant trees on the property.  

Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Jose Gonzalez were in favor of approving the administrator’s decision. Councilor Virginia Stapleton was absent and Councilor Jim Lewis has resigned. 

The planning administrator approved the tentative plan submitted by Portland-based developer Kehoe Northwest Properties on Nov. 3.  

The plan has drawn vocal opposition from the community with members concerned about the loss of Oregon white oaks, traffic and the degradation of open space.  

Not so pleasant was a video of part of the City Council meeting shared on Facebook where Dan Atchison, the city attorney, jumps in after the 5-2 vote to say, among other things, that the developer, Kehoe Northwest Properties, can submit a revised application at the next council meeting on March 14.

This sure seems to be either illegal or highly irregular.

What the hell is going on here? The City Council had just voted to reject the subdivision application. An order to that effect should be prepared by city staff and presented to the council for a vote at the next meeting.

If Kehoe Northwest Properties wants to appeal the decision, that's their right.

But Dan Atchison shouldn't be acting like he's the attorney for the developer. He's the attorney for the City of Salem. He's supposed to represent the interests of the City of Salem, which now includes supporting the City Council rejection of the subdivision application. 

The Friends of the Meyer Farm folks see what Atchison did as wrong. And some of them are highly familiar with how land use decisions are handled by the City of Salem. A member of the group says:

If you listen to the recording of the Council vote (see above) you will then hear the City Attorney say "The Applicant has the right to modify the application and propose conditions on the 14th." That statement is alarming and sounds illegal. 

It isn't true that the only controversial part of the proposed development was how significant/protected white oaks and other trees on the property were being handled. (Mostly by being cut down.) Atchison seemed to be suggesting that all Kehoe Northwest Properties has to do is make a few changes to its tree preservation plan and, bingo, a revised application can be approved at the next city council meeting.

In a comment on a Statesman Journal story about the subdivision rejection, "Controversial plan to build homes on South Salem Meyer Farm property halted," Peter Meyer, a member of the Meyer family, said:

As would be expected, Mr. Kehoe would say he thought the deal was done. But it's not. Aside from the many serious environmental (cutting down protected trees) and transportation (terrible traffic) issues with his proposal, he doesn't even have title to the property, which is something the City Council should take seriously.

He clearly knows -- there's a paragraph about it in his Preliminary Sales Agreement -- that ownership of the farm has been in litigation since August of 2019 and continues to this day. A majority of the Henry Meyer Trust (which owns the property) beneficiaries do not want to sell the farm and a majority of Henry Meyer's descendants do not want to sell it. The Council made the right decision by refusing to commit the City's good will and resources to this bogus proposal. --peter meyer

To summarize: the city planning department wanted the application to be approved. But the City Council disagreed, voting 5-2 to deny the application. Now City of Salem staff are required to assist in carrying out the City Council order that rejects the subdivision application. The council has no staff of its own. The job of city staff is to carry out City of Salem policies and priorities. Now that includes working to carry out the rejection of the development application, not trying to undermine that decision.

UPDATE: Roger Kaye of Friends of Marion County, a land use advocacy organization, asked an attorney with 1000 Friends of Oregon about whether the Meyer Farm application could be amended by the developer. This was the response Kaye got:

Without having attended the Council meeting or read its decision, it looks like ORS 197.522(3) would not apply if the denial constitutes the city's final decision on the application. Did the council issue a written final decision or specifically state during the vote that the vote was for a final decision?

 

If, so it seems that returning with an amended application would not be consistent with ORS 197.522(3). However, on the flip side, if the council voted to deny the current version of the application but to allow the applicant to return with an amended application prior to the final decision, returning with an amended application would be ok. 

 

ORS 197.522 is pretty commonly used to allow modifications to applications. While it's possible that an applicant could have a closed door meeting with staff to amend the application, there's nothing unlawful about that as long as the amended application goes through the public land use process for the final decision. 

 

Hope this helps!

Take a few minutes to help save 30 beautiful acres in Salem

If you love trees and open space -- who doesn't? -- please consider taking a couple of minutes to help save the 30-acre Meyer Farm property near Trader Joe's in south Salem from being turned into a subdivision.

Back in October 2021 I wrote a blog post about this, "Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed."

If you drive past Trader Joe's on Hilfiker Lane SE, on your left you'll see a surprising urban sight: thirty acres of beautiful undeveloped land. 

Unfortunately, there's a decent chance that before too long this property will become thirty acres of much less beautiful developed land.

But not if a group of people devoted to seeing the land remain as natural as possible succeed in their effort to stop the planned subdivision. Consider joining the Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook group if you share their goal.

On Monday, January 10, 2022, 6 pm, there's a Public Hearing scheduled for the subdivision application (SUB 21-09) as part of a City Council meeting. The councilors will receive testimony from citizens and vote to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed subdivision at the Meyer Farm.

Requested action(s). Do one, or both, of the following:

1. Tell the City Councilors why you think this proposed subdivision should be denied by submitting your written testimony to the City Registrar by 5:00 p.m. on January 10 by email to [email protected]. You can also submit paper copies at the mailbox outside the City Recorder's office at the Civic Center, 555 Liberty St. SE, Room 205, also by 5:00 p.m. prior to the meeting.

2. Provide virtual comment live via Zoom at the Public Hearing on January 10. In order to testify at the hearing, you will need to sign up between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. the day of the hearing at https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/Public-Comment-at-Salem-City-Council-Meeting.aspx. A meeting link will be sent to all persons who signed up to testify.

I'm a member of the Friends of the Meyer Farm Facebook group. These are some of the issues the group has identified which argue against approving the subdivision application. You can mention the issues in your public comment/testimony urging denial of the application.

Traffic. There's concerns about how neighboring streets and intersections will be affected by the traffic generated by the proposed subdivision.

Trees. A tree inventory submitted as part of the development application appears to be out-of-date and incomplete. So there's no way to tell how many trees are planning to be removed, and how many saved.

Wildlife. Fourteen local wildlife species that need the Meyer Farm to survive are protected by local, state, and federal law, along with their required habitats.

History. The Meyer Farm has significant historical value, being one of the last original parcels from the Land Donation Act of 1850. Ownership of the farm can be traced back to the original claimant, Joseph Waldo.

Heritage. A barn that Joseph Waldo built in 1854 is still on the property. It qualifies to be listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. 

Thirty-acre Meyer Farm property in south Salem may be developed

If you drive past Trader Joe's on Hilfiker Lane SE, on your left you'll see a surprising urban sight: thirty acres of beautiful undeveloped land. 

Unfortunately, there's a decent chance that before too long this property will become thirty acres of much less beautiful developed land.

But not if a group of people devoted to seeing the land remain as natural as possible succeed in their effort to stop the planned subdivision. Consider joining the Friends of The Meyer Farm Facebook group if you share their goal.

The Statesman Journal has done some good reporting on plans for the Meyer Farm. Family intrigue is involved. Here's some excerpts from "Subdivision, tree removal proposed for historic 30-acre  Meyer Farm in southeast Salem."

A proposal to turn nearly 30 acres of pastoral land in southeast Salem into a 138-lot, single-family residential subdivision has been filed with the city, and the public comment period ends at 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 1.

The property in question, 4540 Pringle Road SE, is known as the Meyer Farm. A five-minute walk from one of the busiest thoroughfares in town, it features mostly open space with a large oak grove, a creek and views of the Cascades.

...Geoffrey James, land use chair for Morningside, posted its concerns on the "Friends of The Meyer Farm" Facebook Group page.

The group, created in April 2021, wants to save what it identifies as a historically significant urban farm, which includes an 1854 barn and a 1915 farmhouse. It is the last remaining parcel from Joseph Waldo's Donation Land Claim of 1852.

Complicating the proposal is the fact that the Henry A. Meyer Revocable Living Trust, which owns the property, has been mired in a trust dispute in Marion County Circuit Court for more than two years. The next scheduled proceeding is a status check hearing on Monday, Oct. 4, in Judge Thomas Hart's courtroom.

Henry Meyers' descendants, including five living children, have been split on selling the property, and complaints of trust mismanagement have surfaced.

The trustees were removed and the court appointed a successor trustee, attorney Michelle M. Morrow, around October 2020. Morrow's attorney, David L. Carlson, signed to authorize the filing of the subdivision application.

It's decidedly weird that what sounds like a caretaker trustee, Michelle Morrow, decided to take the side of the Meyer family that wants to develop the property, entering into an agreement with a Portland real estate developer, Martin Kehoe of Kehoe Northwest Properties.

This seems to almost guarantee a legal battle between Morrow, Kehoe, and the Meyer family members who favor the 30 acres becoming a subdivision, and the Meyer family members who want the land to remain much as it is -- perhaps becoming a city park.

I've recently started watching the streaming series Succession, which is about the intense family struggle to determine who gets to carry on the legacy of Logan Roy, a man in his 80's who founded the huge business that may or may not be wrested out of his control.

It'll be interesting to see whether the Meyer Farm saga reaches anywhere near that level of family conflict. 

Another Statesman Journal story, "Future of historic SE Salem Meyer Farm hinges on trust dispute, subdivision approval," describes the twists and turns of family control of the property. Excerpts:

Descendants of Henry Meyer have been fighting over the future of the farm for more than two years, split on whether to sell the land or maintain their father and grandfather's legacy for future generations.

...The trust was supposed to be dissolved 20 years after his death — Henry died May 30, 2000, at the age of 84 — but began to unravel before then.

At the time, it was managed primarily by Tim Meyer, one of the sons, an international banker and co-owner of Salem-based Kettle Chips. He was a co-trustee helping plan for the dissolution in 2018, outlining options that included transferring the farm and trust assets to a family-owned LLC, according to one sibling.

Most of the siblings served as a co-trustee at one time or another.

Tim died in April of that year before he could implement any plan, and successor trustees allegedly made plans to sell the farm without consulting all siblings.

Peter Meyer, another son of Henry's who lives in New York, filed a petition in August 2019 in Marion County Circuit Court alleging the successor trustees abused their discretionary authority and engaged in "reckless misconduct" and "willful wrongdoing" in violation of the trust. The petition asked that they be removed and cease and desist all activities to sell the property.

Exhibits filed with the court include a redacted July 2019 letter of intent for the purchase and sale of the farm for a projected 240-unit single-family development for $5.75 million.

Multiple objections, counterclaims and cross petitions have been made in court since.

The court removed the trustees, with no finding of fault or liability, and named a new successor trustee in late 2020, an attorney not related to the family. Up until that point, the trust had been managed by descendants of Henry.

Even though the family drama adds some special spice to the Meyer Farm issue, the backdrop against which it will play out is familiar.

The 30 acres is within Salem's urban growth boundary. Oregon's pioneering land use system uses that boundary to protect farm and forest land near cities that otherwise would be overtaken by unfettered development.

(Witness Phoenix, Houston, and many other cities with a checkerboard style of sprawl caused by developers seeking cheaper land outside the city limits.)

So progressives like me are faced with a quandary about proposed subdivisions such as this one. We support dense urbanization because this is the most efficient use of scarce land inside an urban growth boundary.

But we also have a fondness for nature, and compassion for neighbors of the Meyer Farm who enjoy  having all that nearby open space.

I speak as someone who has lived on ten acres in rural south Salem, about six miles from the city limits, for the past 31 years.

Nature is tremendously healing. My wife and I can walk out of our back yard onto trails that lead through our natural property, across a small creek, past a stand of large trees, to a nine-acre community lake.

It's wonderful to have all this close at hand. It helps keep me as (questionably) sane as I am.

I want city dwellers to also have easy access to semi-wild spaces like the Meyer Farm. There has to be a balance between dense urban development and making sure enough natural open space remains for people living in a city to enjoy.

The Meyer Farm property is special, maybe totally unique in Salem, given its size, beauty, and history. It shouldn't become a subdivision unless strong efforts to preserve it as a natural area end up failing.

Here's a screenshot I made of a satellite image of the Meyer Farm property using Google Maps on my iPhone. The 30 acres is the undeveloped square in the center of the image. 

Comparing the image above with the proposed subdivision map below, you can see that most of the trees on the property would be cut down.

Open space is shown in the upper left of the subdivision map, so much of that dense stand of trees apparently would remain. Of course, Friends of the Meyer Farm are arguing that all of the trees should be saved by leaving the property natural. Or as natural as possible, if it were to become a park.

Costco approval was bad decision by Salem City Council

Today the Statesman Journal published an excellent opinion piece by Lora Meisner and Bill Dalton about the City Council's approval of Costco's relocation to a Kuebler Boulevard location adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

As you can read below, Meisner and Dalton argue that City of Salem staff and city councilors, with the exception of Jackie Leung, failed to stand up for the broad public interest -- siding instead with PacTrust (owner of the property) and Costco (the main tenant on the property).

Meisner and Dalton are very familiar with this issue, including the decision by LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) that the City Council had to take into account before issuing their approval of the Costco relocation to the PacTrust property. So I trust what they say in their opinion piece.

All I'd add is this. 

I heartily agree with them that the City Council is way too deferential and unquestioning of city staff. Over and over, I've observed that even when citizens present solid evidence that what city staff are saying is either untrue, or not the whole truth, city councilors typically side with the staff.

It's hard to figure out why this happens. My best guess is that because city councilors are unpaid volunteers with no staff of their own, they are heavily dependent on City of Salem employees. 

So it's sort of like a hostage situation where staff are the ones in control, and the city councilors figure that if they want to get out (politically) alive, they need to cooperate with their captors. Otherwise city staff can make things difficult for a councilor who wants to get something done that requires the willing support of staff.

That said, when the City Council fails to exercise the limited power that it has, city staff become emboldened and push harder for their own point of view. Thus weakness begets more weakness. 

I'm hoping that when newly elected members of the City Council are sworn into office next January this situation will change. It isn't healthy when our local elected city councilors, who are the go-between their constituents and City of Salem staff, kowtow to staff as they did with the Costco relocation.

Here's the opinion piece.

PacTrust's Costco a 'wholesale' disruption

On Sept. 28, the Salem City Council voted 6-to-1 (thank you, Councilor Jackie Leung for her courage and support) to approve PacTrust’s application to build Costco on its site on Kuebler Blvd. The “we-had-no-choice” plea councilors used to justify their decision, prompt this follow-up.

Having been involved with this PacTrust proposal since 2018, we feel an obligation to inform Salem residents that the city staff, city attorney and ultimately the majority of city councilors did not have taxpaying resident’s "backs" regarding this development. In fact, to us it is obvious that the city failed its citizens at every turn:

• • Failure by city staff and attorney to formalize the conditions noted  ("Neighborhood-friendly shopping center," "No Big Box store," "No gas station"…) when rezoning was approved in 2007
  • Failure to include traffic as a major concern in the testimony submitted by the city to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
  • Failure by the city to express "preservation of the grove of trees" (especially the mature heritage white oaks) as another major issue related to the PacTrust site plan
  • City Council and staff failure to engage with PacTrust/Costco (ca. 2019/2020) in any meaningful effort to identify a potential win-win site plan, one that might have addressed the multitude of concerns residents identified during public meetings, council hearings and written input.

And, ultimately, the mayor and councilors — except Leung — chose to ignore the "openings" offered by LUBA (and subsequently the Oregon State Court of Appeals) for the city to further address the traffic and tree issues. Here are three more ways the city failed us:

• • Affirmed and accepted the city staff’s endorsement of the woefully inadequate and outdated traffic data submitted by PacTrust
  • Used the developer’s own written arguments in rejecting other site plan alternatives; 
  • Basically quoted the testimony written by PacTrust as the basis of the “findings” it formally adopted in approving the Costco-development proposal.

So what can be done now?  With regard to the PacTrust/Costco development, maybe not much.

However, as Salem moves forward, consider these three things:

1. 1. Council needs to formally incorporate all the protective conditions and restrictions — including those offered by developers — in re-zoning and development-related actions   
   2.  City staff needs to make the safety and quality of life — neighborhoods and its residents — its top priority, rather than merely taking every step possible to facilitate development.
   3.  Our publicly elected city councilors need to "ride herd" on city staff to ensure developers adhere to all city rules, regulations, guidelines and codes.

We feel saddened and frustrated that — whether because of (largely baseless) threats of legal action by a developer, and/or sheer exhaustion — our city council took the easy road.

The results: A poorly-planned development with an oversized neighborhood-unfriendly commercial center and fuel depot with massive future traffic jams will be shouldered by our south Salem residents and neighborhoods, ultimately at the expense of all of Salem and its taxpayers.

Lora Meisner is a civic activist who has been involved in flooding and development issues in south Salem. You may reach her [email protected]. Bill Dalton is civic activist and advocate. You may be reached [sic] at [email protected]. Both authors were appellants who originally challenged the PacTrust development.