|
City of Eugene Page 4 of 5
<br />LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review
<br />July 1, 2015
<br />Viewed in that way, the city has initial burden to identify the boundaries of the /WR
<br />resource site and explain the methodology it used to establish the top of bank. In turn, the
<br />applicant has the burden of demonstrating that its proposal satisfies the standards as
<br />applied by the city. Here, that means that, given the boundaries of the /WR resource site,
<br />the proposed conservation setback is consistent with the setback methodology set out in
<br />EC 9.4920. If, as here, the applicant disagrees with the city's identification of the resource
<br />site and "top of bank," the applicant has the burden of showing why the resource area is
<br />misidentified and, correspondingly, explain why the proposal meets the applicant's view
<br />of the standard. \[FN omitted\]”
<br />See Exhibit J, Alder Woods, Hearing Official Decision (PDT 07-5) (Sept. 10, 2008); and Exhibit K, Alder
<br />Woods, Planning Commission Decision (PDT 07-5) (Nov. 5, 2008), both attached hereto.
<br />In summary, the city has the burden of explaining where the line it; that begins with the city staff, not the
<br />applicant. However, because the applicant must file the initial narrative, the applicant must make the first
<br />interpretation of the law, based on the rules that apply. However, if the City disagrees with the applicant’s
<br />placement of the boundary line on the plan (that is, what the standard in the plan is), then it is the city’s
<br />burden to explain what the standard means and why it has reached that conclusion. Simply put, the plan
<br />line is city law; the city needs to justify the location it picks; the applicant has stated its position, and has
<br />explained why the UGB line on the Diagram is not a referent suitable for locating the line. The applicant
<br />looks forward to responding to the staff’s explanation of where the line is and its methodology for reaching
<br />that conclusion.
<br />3. Methodology/North Arrow – Exhibit F states that the 30th Avenue, the UGB and the Diagram’s
<br />north arrow “…were referred to by staff as ‘Referents.’” Staff does not recall advising the
<br />applicant to rely on the north arrow or how, nor does the Hearings Official or LUBA appear to use
<br />it in his analysis of the prior case. Please further explain how the applicant has used the north
<br />arrow as a referent, and how the correct mapping orientation (i.e. true north) is maintained
<br />through the process of overlaying the Metro Plan diagram with surveyed data (e.g. 30th Avenue,
<br />the UGB, and the subject tax lots).
<br />The applicant used the North arrow on the Metro Plan diagram as a referent because it is the most
<br />reliable single referent on the Diagram. The symbol on the Diagram says “N”. It does not say “Magnetic
<br />N;” it does not say “approximately N.” There is not plausible meaning for the symbol other than true
<br />North.
<br />As explained in our narrative, starting with the Metro Plan diagram and the surveyed site plan at the same
<br />scale, we aligned the north arrow of the surveyed site plan with north arrow on the Metro Plan diagram
<br />th
<br />and then aligned each sheet to get the best fit with 30 Avenue, as shown on the Diagram and as
<br />th
<br />surveyed on the site plan. The north arrow and 30 Avenue haven’t changed, haven’t moved, they are the
<br />best, and only, reliable referents found on the Metro Plan diagram.
<br />4. Transportation Planning Rule – Please address the existence (or lack thereof) of the Parks and
<br />Open Space (POS) comprehensive plan designation at the time the TSP was adopted, and how
<br />this relates to the requested TPR exemption.
<br />The POS plan designation at this location was adopted with the initial Metro Plan and diagram in 1980. A
<br />comparison of each reprinting of the Diagram in successive publications of the Plan (1980, 1987, 2004)
<br />shows the POS line moving about just a smidgen, but the text of the plan and intervening plan
<br />amendments do not show the line being changed as a policy choice. That is, there were no plan
<br />amendments to the Metro Plan diagram in this area since the initial plan adoption in 1980. The ordinance
<br />adopting the latest Metro Plan diagram includes no decision to change the location of the POS in the area
<br />of this site. Thus, the POS designation at this location has been in place since the beginning – 1980.
<br />Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540
<br />
<br />
|