Supplemental Materials (7-2-15) - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Eugene Page 2 of 5 LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review July 1, 2015 Finding: The City of Eugene has addressed the need to protect open spaces, including those areas of significant vegetation with its Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan (Ordinance 20351) which established streamside protection measures. In addition, Eugene’s Planned Unit Development ordinance includes in its General Criteria provisions a requirement to “minimize impacts to the natural environment” (EC 9.8320(4)). The proposal is in compliance with Metro Plan Policy C.21 as it includes a request to include in the zone change request the application of the Planned Unit Development overlay zone (/PD). With this, any future land use application seeking development approval will need to address PUD criteria, including that in regards to the environment. To expand on this policy, the applicant would point out that it is not a relevant standard for this site- specific zone change application. First, it is a “consideration” not a mandatory standard. Second, it is a directive to the local government; it is not intended to be relevant to a zone change application. Third, this application is not related to “planning for development.” It is just an application for zoning to match a previous ultimate policy choice that this land should be LDR. Fourth, it is not related to “regulating development.” No development is proposed in connection with this application. In summary, this policy does not apply to this application. 2. Methodology/UGB – In the 2012 Laurel Ridge Hearings Official Decision (Z 12-2), the Official states that “…the UGB and 30th Avenue are sufficient reference points upon which to locate the subject property” (page 8). Please further explain the applicant’s position as to the use of the UGB as a referent, in light of the Hearings Official’s clear statement noted above. If the applicant believes the UGB as shown on the Metro Plan diagram is not an appropriate referent, please clarify that reasoning in more detail (i.e. why the applicant disagrees with the Hearings Official, staff and opponents use of the UGB as a referent in the prior case), and why it is included on plan sheet ZC-4 (Diagram on Subject Prop.). The applicant should also provide an explanation of its position in light of LUBA’s extensive discussion about the UGB as a sufficient reference point. In summary, the relevant question is locating the boundary line between the LDR and the POS on the subject property. The location of the subject property is known precisely, because it is surveyed. The location of the UGB is known precisely on the subject property because it was reduced to a metes and bounds line at the time of the annexation, as anticipated by the text of the Metro Plan. The generalized UGB line on the Diagram is not accurate with respect to the LDR/POS line. In Round I for this property, the UGB line on the Metro Plan was used to determine that some part of the property inside the UGB was intended to be POS. The UGB line on the Metro Plan was not used in Round I to determine where the boundary line is located. That is the sole issue in this application – locating the LDR/POS boundary line. The UGB dashed line on the Metro Plan diagram is not a useful referent for determining the exact location of the boundary line for several reasons. First, as LUBA noted, the UGB line on the Diagram is generalized and is about 1/20 of an inch wide. That makes it about a 350-foot line at the scale 1”=7,000’ of the Metro Plan diagram. 1 LUBA slip op 15 line 5: 1 The full list of decisions in Round I is: Hearing Official Decision, Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-15 (Sept. 17, 2013), aff’d th Eugene Planning Commission (Oct. 14, 2013), , __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. aff’d Environ-Metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene 2013-098, Jan. 29, 2014) , 263 Or App 714 (A156190, June 11, 2014). ,aff’d without opinion Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540