LHVC Response 9-9-15 (Schlieder)

Mr. Fred Wilson September 9, 2015 Page 3 "The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Lane Council of Governments' regional geographic information system..." (Emph. Added) Even then (2004), LCOG produced the map from digitized GIS maps. It was not hand- drawn even at that time. The applicant would (and I'm sure does and will) argue that maybe LCOG changed digital boundaries in this vicinity surreptitiously between 2004 and now. But detailed review shows that is not the case. The digital version used by the applicant is identical to the scanned version of the printed 2004 diagram that LHVC was provided with by City Planning staff (submitted in our 9/2/15 packet). On the other hand, the poor quality of their "highest-resolution" scan allows the applicant to try to slide things around to their advantage. This is even more true because in their latest version, they have now eliminated the City Limits and UGB in the areas where those lines are not coincident with their property boundary. The applicant's audacity in reducing their few "referents" even more is astonishing. The applicant claims that they are limited in their choice of referents by LUBA's decision. Nonsense! LUBA placed absolutely no limits on the number of referents that can or should be used to determine the location of the POS line on the parcel. LUBA touches on the use of some referents on Page 16 (starting at line 20): "Admittedly the Metro Plan Diagram and the annexation map are at different scales, but the common referents provided by the East 30th Avenue right-of-way, the curve and the two intersections are sufficient to determine, even without reference to the UGB line, that at least some portion of the southwest corner of the subject property is within the POS designation. Based on those referents alone, the city could easily conclude that some portion of the southwestern corner of the subject property bordering the East 30th Avenue right-of-way is designated POS." In other words, LUBA decided that the determination of presence of POS in the southwest corner of the property was possible by use of four referents alone. LUBA made no statement whatever limiting the number of referents for determining the actual extent of the POS designation on the property. Any reputable land use consulting firm tasked with this determination would use the maximum number of possible referents to constrain the limits of the POS on the subject property. Schirmer-Satre decided that the absolute minimum number of referents (one) is more to their liking. Moreover, even using only the 30th Avenue center-line, after recently removing the City Limits and UGB from their survey map, the applicant's registration of 30th Avenue is still abominable, especially in the westernmost area (see attached Figure with an enlargement of the pertinent portion of the applicant's map).