Planning Commission <br />October 23, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />This case presents an issue that has not previously been before the Planning Commission. <br />Le., given that the blobby Metro Plan Diagram controls the designations, where exactly, on the <br />ground, is the dividing line between two designations on a property that is split-designated? In <br />making that call, the parties take differing positions about what information can be used in <br />locating that line. Because the Planning Commission has not had to resolve this issue anywhere <br />else in the City, LUBA has not had occasion to address this issue either. Accordingly, there is no <br />legal guidance from LUBA directly informing your decision whether to allow information that is <br />not on the Metro Plan Diagram to assist in locating the property, or the line separating <br />designations, on the Diagram. <br />The issue is not well briefed by either of the parties: the applicant merely claims that the <br />Commission can't use non-Diagram sources, and the appellants merely claim that the <br />Commission can. <br />The applicant asserts, without much in the way of legal analysis, that the Planning <br />Commission is stuck with the Metro Plan Diagram. The Hearings Official agreed with the <br />applicant. The hard copy of the 2004 adopted Metro Plan Diagram must be the underlying basis <br />for the Commission's decision; nobody asserts otherwise. Applicant's position appears to be <br />that, once the subject property is superimposed onto the Metro Plan Diagram, no further <br />reference to anything non-Diagram related is allowed. <br />There is support for applicant's position. The I I x 17 version of the 2004 Metro Plan <br />Diagram is the only officially adopted version of the Diagram. Enlarging the Diagram, as <br />suggested by LUBA, and superimposing the subject property on that enlarged map, is necessary <br />to determine where the line is. However, resort to outside sources must be limited because the <br />HO's charge was to interpret the diagram itself and thus determine the appropriate location for <br />the line between two designations, as that line is depicted on the Diagram. The Planning <br />Commission can only adopt a different line than the one approved by the HO if it first <br />determines that the HO erred. <br />That said, there is also support for appellants' position. As appellants point out, LUBA <br />suggested on more than one occasion that reference to information outside the Metro Plan <br />Diagram might be appropriate in some situations. Indeed, because the Metro Plan Diagram is <br />not parcel-specific, and does not indicate property boundary lines, both parties have <br />superimposed a land survey drawing of the subject property on a blown up version of the 2004 <br />2 "Because none of the city's comprehensive maps in this area are property specific, references to <br />other maps in the record are necessary to locate the boundaries of the subject property." LUBA <br />opinion at page 16; PC Record at 1242. <br />"It may be possible to scale up the digital version of the map, overlay it with property lines from a <br />digital database, and determine the precise plan designation boundaries on the subject property <br />with reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is not possible, the city and petitioner will have <br />to do the best they can with the tools at their disposal." LUBA opinion at page 21; PC Record at <br />1247. <br />City of Eugene . 125 E. 8th Ave. . Eugene, OR 97401 . 541-682-8447 ■ 541-682-5414 Fax <br />www.eugene•or.gov <br />{00183489;1 1 PC Agenda - Page 4 <br />