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

City of Eugene Page 3 of 5 LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review July 1, 2015 “As explained above, the UGB line as depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram (and earlier maps) is approximate and generalized in this area, and the UGB line was not located with precision until the 2007 annexation decision. According to petitioners, the dashed line representing the UGB on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram is approximately th 1/20 of an inch wide, which at the one inch to 7,000 feet scale of the map represents a width of approximately 350 feet on the ground.” Second, the UGB line on the Diagram is by definition not fixed at any location – not to any location on the ground and not in relation to any other feature on the Diagram. It is a floater. This is evident from the following information in the record: “(a) The text of the Metro Plan says that the UGB shown on the Diagram at this location is generalized, and its exact location is not determined until annexation. The UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the outside edge of existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places, the UGB is determined on a case-by-case basis through interpretation of the Metro Plan Plan Boundaries Map in this Metro Plan and the following factors (see Metro Plan Boundaries Map Key).” Metro Plan at II-G-14. The UGB location became fixed at the south property line of the subject property line at the time of annexation in 2007. See Exhibit H, Boundary Commission Final Order, C EU 07-37 (Oct. 4, 2007), and Exhibit I, Staff Notes, Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (Oct 4, 2007), both attached hereto. Put differently, there is no basis for saying where on the Metro Plan diagram the actual, adopted UGB line is located. Therefore, the UGB line on the Diagram is not a “referent” for locating the POS. It has no precise relationship to the actual location of the UGB. The position of the staff, the opponents, and the Hearing Official are not relevant to determining whether the UGB line on the Metro Plan diagram is useful in determining the precise location of the boundary between the LDR and the POS on the Metro Plan diagram. Neither the HO nor the PC spoke with respect to this issue in Round I. They only said that some part of the POS is on the subject property, not where the exact boundary line is. The opponents are advocates for a position; responding in advance to positions the opponents might take is not a completeness review issue. As we explained in our narrative, the location of the LDR/POS line is an element of the plan; the meaning of the plan is a question of law; it is the city’s law; the city has the burden of explaining what the standard means; there is only one correct meaning of the law in any decision made by Hearing Official or the Planning Commission. Because there will be no City Council interpretation of where this line is, the final city decision will be afforded no deference on appeal. The City needs to guess right about what the law is (where the line is), not make policy about where it would like the line to be. The burden here, with respect to determining where this plan line is, belongs to the City, not the applicant, as was explained by the HO and the PC in the context of the Alder Woods PUD decision. There the issue was determining the location of a Goal 5 line on a plan. It was explained that the City has the initial burden under state law to identify the standards and review the application against those standards. That means the city must identify the plan boundary line and explain the methodology it used to establish it. The Hearing Official said, at page 11 para 6 of the Alder Woods decision: “The hearings official interprets this standard to require the city to identify the applicable standards and criteria, and review the application against those standards. It does not require the applicant to discern the applicability of the standards in the first instance. Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540