Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Exhibits (9-21-16)September 21, 2016 LAURELRIDGE Zone Change Application File Number Z 15-5 Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing APPLICANT TESTIMONY City of Fgjene Manning E. Ceaelopric ilt SEP 212016 File Z 15-_S Exhihit w l, Opening Remarks. 1. Hello and Introduction. 2. Through much process - hearings, testimony, exhibits, staff reports, decisions, appeals, and a LUBA remand - we find ourselves before the Eugene Hearings Official once again. 3. We direct our testimony on the central issue before the Hearings Official - that being the salient points in LUBA's findings. There are three of them. These LUBA findings, and the applicant's testimony, are as follows. Central Issue. The central issue is the location of the boundary between the Low-Density Residential and Parks and Open Space designations on the Metro Plan Diagram with respect to the subject property. Or, put another way, where on the Metro Plan Diagram is the property located? Here are LUBA's findings. First, LUBA states that "...remand is necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet 912115-04 free of the erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. Unless there is some other reason not to consider Sheet 912115-04, for the reasons stated above the hearings official on remand should make an evidentiary choice between Exhibit L and Sheet 912115-04 with respect to the matchup between the surveyed centerline and the black line representing East 30th Avenue" (LUBA Final Order, page 34). There are a couple of elements in LUBA's statement here. We address them individually. "...remand is necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet 912115-04 free of the erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. " This finding from LUBA presents a challenge for the applicant. LUBA is stating that it was an erroneous impression that LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 was based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. The challenge for the applicant is that, this sheet was based on an enlargement of a digital Metro Plan diagram. However, LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 was based on a digital copy of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram that was obtained by LHVC from staff. This may be a copy of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, but it was not a true copy of the adopted diagram. The adopted diagram is a paper diagram, not a digital diagram. The applicant's Exhibit L is based on a scan of a first-generation copy of the hard copy original in the City Recorder office. Fine point indeed, but a distinction nonetheless "...make an evidentiary choice between Exhibit L and Sheet 912115-04 with respect to the matchup between the surveyed centerline and the black line representing East 30th Avenue" ~~w Because the LHVC 9/2/15-04 diagram was based on a digital version of 1 the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, but not the paper original, the Hearings Official should consider the diagram but explain why it should not be utilized. + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS i 375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 Fax: 541.686.4577 www.schi rmersatre.com LaurelRidge Page 2 of 5 Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing - Applicant Testimony September 21, 2016 LUBA's second primary finding is that additional reference points (also known as "referents") should be used to more accurately overlay the subject property on the enlarged version of the Metro Plan diagram. LUBA states "...the hearings official erred in declining to consider evidence regarding the matchup between the surveyed city limits line and Spring Boulevard and the green finger"(LUBA Final Order, page 37). The use of city limit lines is once again surfacing. City limit lines are not on the Metro Plan diagram. They cannot be used because they are not there. Eugene staff previously stated "...the Metro Plan diagram does not show the location of the city limits line, thereby precluding its use as a referent... " (Planning Commission Appeal of Hearings Official Decision, Agenda Item Summary, October 20, 2015, Page 4). Further, the city limit lines which appeared on the applicant's zone change plan set (dated 5-15-15) were not surveyed lines. They were remnant lines drawn by staff during preparation for the original zone change application (dated 5-18-12) which were lines traced over a tax lot map pieced together during the project's initial data collection activity in 2011. Because those lines were on the applicant's drawing does not make them part of the Metro Plan diagram. LUBA further states that "...1 agree with the majority that the hearings official's choice to rely on a overlaid diagram that matches only one referent (the nearby East 30th Avenue centerline) when an overlaid diagram that matches that referent and three additional referents (the East 30th curve, the East 30th/Spring Boulevard intersection', and the green finger) is inadequately explained in the decision on appeal. In particular, the hearings official does not appear to have appreciated that an overlaid diagram based on an enlargement of the official Metro Plan diagram that matches four referents was available" (LUBA Final Order, page 39). Here, the applicant decided to find the location of the cited referents in relation to the subject property. Utilizing the expertise of a licensed professional land surveyor, Dan Nelson, PLS, Principal and Survey Manager with Branch Engineering, boundaries belonging to the following Metro Plan graphics were located. Surveyor-Located Elements (Referents) a. The centerline of 30th Avenue. b. The boundaries of Tax Lot 301 (the green finger). c. The centerline of Spring Blvd. d. The west, north and east boundaries of Tax Lot 800 (Bloomberg Park). e. The east boundary of Tax Lot 500. Updated Zone Change Plans Utilizing Exhibit L (Adopted 2004 Metro Plan Map: Rotated, Sheet ZC-4, dated 9-2-15), the approved zone change plan, and keeping the drawing at the same scale, with the same 2- degree rotation, and using the same Metro Plan diagram enlargement and the same dividing line between the two zone designations, the applicant generated an updated version of the plan. In fact, the applicant generated a series of updated plans. Four of them. These, and a brief description of each, are as follows: Sheet ZC-4A - This is the same plan as the approved zone change plan, Exhibit L, Sheet ZC-4. The relationship of the centerline of 30th Avenue with respect to the Metro Plan diagram was not altered. It is in its original location as shown on the approved There is, in fact, no intersection of 30th Avenue and Spring Boulevard. At this location, Spring Boulevard is an overpass, with 30th Avenue running underneath Spring Boulevard. Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 ch Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 9 (541) 686-4540 LaurelRidge Page 3 of 5 Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing - Applicant Testimony September 21, 2016 zone change plan. The additional surveyed elements were added with respect to the fixed lines of the subject property and the centerline of 30th Avenue. The following are the modifications made to the original zone change plan: a. The white text box in the lower right-hand corner was reduced so that all of Bloomberg Park is visible. b. The view-port (or window) of the plan was shifted eastward so that more area around the green finger and Spring Blvd is visible. C. The surveyor-located elements listed above were added. 2. Sheet ZC-4B - This is the same plan as the approved zone change plan, Exhibit L, with the following modifications: a.-c. Same as above. d. The boundary linework was aligned with Tax Lot 301, the green finger. 3. Sheet ZC-4C - This is the same plan as the approved zone change plan, Exhibit L, with the following modifications: a.-c. Same as above. d. The boundary linework was aligned with the centerline of Spring Blvd. 4. Sheet ZC-41D - This is the same plan as the approved zone change plan, Exhibit L, with the following modifications: a.-c. Same as above. d. The boundary linework was aligned with Tax Lot 800, Bloomberg Park. Results The results are interesting. First, the additional referents previously cited (30th Avenue, Spring Blvd and the green finger) were located and added to the updated plans. Additionally, though not cited by LUBA, Bloomberg Park boundaries were located. And, for the purpose of explaining the value of city limit lines, the east boundary of Tax Lot 500 (which is also a city limit line) was added to the mix. A page-by-page, side-by-side review of these four new plans shows, despite numerous statements to the contrary, that using multiple referents does not necessarily result in a more defensible alignment of the subject property on the Metro Plan diagram. No two referents work completely, let alone the "...four referents... "that LUBA said could work. Here is how they line up. To describe the results, we labeled each of the referent lines with a capital letter. On each of the four new plans, the letters A through I were used to label the referents for purposes of discussion. These are as follows. A. Centerline of 30th Avenue west segment. B. Centerline of 30th Avenue middle segment. C. Centerline of 30th Avenue east segment. D. The Green Finger. E. Centerline of Spring Boulevard. F. Bloomberg Park west property line. G. Bloomberg Park north property line. H. Bloomberg Park east property line. 1. Tax Lot 500 east boundary. What This Shows There is no perfect alignment. Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4'11 Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540 LaurelRidge Page 4 of 5 Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing - Applicant Testimony September 21, 2016 • No magic location where everything aligns. • It illustrates what we already know, that the Metro Plan diagram is an imperfect representation of reality. It is a cartoon. • It was created in the day before there were computers, GIS, AutoCAD or anything digital. • The Metro Plan diagram includes some information. • It includes land use designations (naturally), as well as some roadways, rail lines and water features. • It does not include topography, tax lots or city limit lines. • Nonetheless, the applicant sought out the location of those things (referents) which have been cited in the record as being of potential help in locating the subject property on the Metro Plan diagram. • The applicant accurately located the 30th Avenue centerline, the Spring Blvd centerline, the green finger and Bloomberg Park in relation to the subject property. • Using those, we present various potential locations of the subject property on the diagram. • None of them is perfect. None of them varies by much. The Applicant's Recommendation We have submitted maps that show 9 referents with surveyed segments. We have displayed these 9 segments on the Metro Plan diagram in four different hard copy maps. Those maps show that it is not possible to register all of the surveyed referents to the Metro Plan diagram. That is because the Metro Plan diagram is, by definition, generalized. It has some qualities of a cartoon. This supports a basic proposition: Using more referents is not necessarily helpful in fitting the Metro Plan diagram accurately to a site. That is the situation here. The Hearings Official nevertheless faces the task of fitting the diagram to the site. We suggest the approach that relies on a second proposition stated by the HO in his decision -one that was left intact by LUBA. That is the proposition that referents that are closest to the subject property are generally more reliable than using referents that are more remote. The two referents that are closest to the subject property are referents B and C regarding the 30th Avenue centerline. Referent segment B provides East-West control for fitting. Referent C provides North-South control for fitting. The use of these two referents is reflected in Map ZC-4A. This is the same as the decision of the HO remanded by LUBA. III. In Closing. 1. The applicant believes that is has presented sufficient multiple referent documentation as to the location of the subject property on the Metro Plan diagram. 2. We believe that the Hearings Official has sufficient information to make findings as to the subject property's location, and thus location of the two land use designations, on the subject property. Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4" Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540 LaurelRidge Page 5 of 5 Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing - Applicant Testimony September 21, 2016 3. We are available for questions. 4. Thank you. Enclosed: 1. Metro Plan Alignment LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5), letter and map from Branch Engineering, dated September 21, 2016. 2. Updated Zone Change Plans, Sheets ZC-4A, ZC-4B, ZC-4C and ZC-41D, from Schirmer Satre Group, dated September 21, 2016. Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540 (,Branch ENfGIN EERIN G= Since 1977 September 21, 2o16 Rick Satre Schirmer Satre Group 375 W 4th Ave #201 Eugene, OR 97401 RE: METRO PLAN ALIGNMENT LAURELRIDGE ZONE CHANGE (Z 15-5) Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. i1-o68:2d Dear Rick, Enclosed is a cd with an AutoCAD drawing suitable for developing a relationship between the site and the "Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram". To create this drawing, boundary lines away from the site were calculated and incorporated into our previous survey work. Prior to calculating the new data, I needed to establish accuracy tolerances. In situations like this, engineering and surveying tolerances are often determined on the principle of the answer only being as accurate as the least accurate measurement. During the meeting on March 30t', you provided us with a plotted drawing titled "Zone Change: Metro Plan Diagram on Subject Prop." sheet ZC-4, and subtitled "Exhibit L Adopted 2004 Metro Plan Map: Rotated", revision date 9-2- 15. Since the new data is for refining this drawing, I based my accuracy tolerances on it. The Metro Plan Map used as a background in this drawing has visible pixilation, with each pixel scaling at 15 feet. The lines and boundaries between colors are all several pixels across. This means that a survey line has a range of about 45 feet (aka 22.5 feet) where it could fall and still be considered as aligning with the Metro Plan Map as shown on this drawing. By standard engineering and surveying principles, I could adopt 22.5 feet as an acceptable tolerance. However, since this work will be reviewed by a variety of non-technical people who may not understand this as being an acceptable tolerance, I elected to set a tolerance of a 1/2 pixel (7.5 feet or 3.75 feet). The following is a discussion of the accuracy for each calculation. 3oth Avenue, centerline The centerline of 3oth Ave was calculated using centerline monuments set by the County Surveyor during the slide repair project in 1997. The monuments were recovered in good condition and matched the survey data shown on the survey. The accuracy of the road centerline location is better than can be measured with our survey equipment, being less than o.o1 feet. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER 310 51h Street, Springfield, OR 97477 1 p: 541.746.0637 1 f: 541.746.0389 1 www.branchengineering.com Metro Plan Alignment September 21, 2016 Tax Lot 3oi, all boundaries (the green finger) A number of deed and survey records provide data for portions of the tax lot boundaries and a few records provide data for the entire boundary. The records are from a wide range of years and some of the deeds appeared to have not been written by a surveyor. Even so, comparing distances in common between the current deed for the tax lot and other records found all the distances to vary by no more than 0.4 feet. Several monuments for the southern portion of this tax lot were found during the boundary survey of the site. However, most of the monuments were in the area of the 19go's slide and construction work and were previously found to not have a good relationship with monuments that were outside the slide and construction work. There were several ways to blend the record information with the most reliable monuments. The largest difference between possible solutions was 1.25 feet. The line work provided is an average of these solutions to give an accuracy of 0.8 feet in the area of the monuments after accounting for the difference in solutions and variation in record distances. A small error in the area of the monuments will increase as it is projected over the relatively long distance to the north end of the tax lot. Therefore it is reasonable to expect an accuracy of 2 feet for the line work provided at the north end of the tax lot. Both these accuracies are within tolerances. Spring Boulevard, centerline The plat of Spring Terrace PUD shows Spring Boulevard in relation to the 30th Avenue right-of-way. However, because of the complexity of calculating relative angles from curves, it was decided to determine the centerline via field located monumentation. GPS was used to locate city centerline monumentation. Based on a variety of factors, the GPS equipment establishes a precision measure to each point. It should be noted that, from a technical perspective, there is a difference between accuracy and precision. Of the eight points located, all but one had a precision of 0.05 feet or better. One point had a reported precision of 4.6 feet. After comparing the relationship of the located points to their record positions, it was determined the centerline provided has an accuracy of 0.05 feet. Bloomberg Park, North, West, and East boundaries The survey and deed information reviewed show that the west boundary is the section line and imply the north boundary is the section centerline. The section centerline was previously determined as part of the boundary survey for the site, so is known to the same accuracy level as required by ORS for a monumented boundary survey and well within the tolerances of this work. Without doing field work, several options were available for office methods of calculating the west boundary. The largest difference between methods was 4 feet. The line provided is an average of these two solutions to give an accuracy of 2 feet which is within the tolerances. The east boundary is described as beginning at the Northwest corner of DLC # 43. This monument was surveyed and used to calculate the east line per the deed and other record surveys. The difference Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 3 Metro Plan Alignment September 21, 2016 in the deed versus the field measured distance is 0.15 feet. This matches other survey records in the area and is well within tolerance. Tax Lot 500, east boundary The east line of Tax Lot 500 was recently surveyed and monumented. The boundary survey for this site relied on many of the same monuments as the Tax Lot 500 survey. A comparison of the monuments between the surveys showed that they matched within accepted survey standards for modern surveys and are therefore well within the tolerances of this work. The monuments for the east line of Tax Lot 500 were not searched for during this boundary survey. The east line of Tax Lot 500 was calculated by holding the angular and distance relationship of that line to the monuments that were found. Based on professional experience with similar circumstances on other projects, the line provided can be expected to have an accuracy of o.i feet at the south end and 0.5 feet at the north end. Please feel free to let me know if there are any questions about the material in the drawing or this letter. Sincerely, Daniel A. Nelson, PLS Principal Branch Engineering Inc. Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 3 of 3 i I Hearings Official C/O Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Recsivedi in P iNic Flearing City of Fugene Plannino & Developmeni SEP 212016 File # Z IS-5- Exhibit # Z RE: Laurel Ridge Remanded Zone Change (City file Z15-5) Hearing Statement from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens LHVC appeals to the hearing official that on remand he/she takes into consideration the LUBA Report 2015-091/092 and in particular pp. 35-40. LUBA establishes the credibility of LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 which clearly shows the location of the Parks and Open Space acreage on the Environ-Metal land. This configuration was achieved as demonstrated in two presentations on record: 1. In Public Testimony - Opponents Post-Hearing of 9/2/15 Gunnar Schlieder shows how to develop maps that establish the POS boundary on the Environ-Metal parcel including the oft referred to Sheet 9/2/15-04. The argument that he didn't use the appropriate Metro Plan has been negated and put to rest. This is addressed in "Testimony Rec'd at Planning Commission Appeal PH 10-20-2015 Exhibit #6" and reiterated in the LUBA document. 2. The use of the Eugene City Limit line was addressed in "Testimony Rec'd at Planning Commission Appeal PH 10-20-2015 Exhibit #4". This is part of the argument to appeal to more than one referent and to allow the use of other site specific maps. LHVC concludes that the HO should rule that sheet 9/2/15-04 is the determinant for the POS boundary on the applicant's property which sets aside approximately 40 acres for that purpose. It seems appropriate to question the designation of the northern section of this property since many issues regarding the zone change were brought up. Several submissions of record were made such as (01 Public Record Pages 1-204 Misc. 10/23/2015 pp. 74-78). It doesn't seem reasonable to designate a zone when the acreage and demarcation of a property are unknown. The northwestern portion contains extensive so-called riparian corridors and is the headwaters of Laurel Hill Creek which can be seen in the Eugene Stormwater Master Plan, Volume IV. The City of Eugene has gone on record as wanting to protect such areas from development. Considerable time and money has been spent on surveying for upland wildlife habitat and riparian corridors. These designations should be honored and these sensitive environments preserved. Kathleen Dixon/Weltzin Blix 2295 East 29th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97403 (Laurel Hill Neighborhood) September 20, 2016 Hearings Official c/o Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 P 1,i u E in Public I-Jearing City of Eugene Planning & Development SEP 212016 File # Z 1 S-~ Exhibit # I Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 EC 9.8865 (1) The first HO, Ken Helms, denied the applicant's request for a zone change and the proposed PUD for failure to comply with EC 9.8320(1), and the associated TIA and Standards Review applications on September 17, 2013. He limited his findings to determining compliance with 9.8865(1) for the zone change and EC 9.8320(1) for the PUD application, stating "it is the HO practice to avoid issuing advisory decisions opining on all the criteria that might be applicable to a given application where denial of the application is required based on a threshold criteria such as EC 9.8865(1)." Obviously, it would prejudice the rights of both applicant and opponent to not have the actual boundary or acreage before determining the zone change, PUD, TIA, and Standards Review. The dispute in this case is the location of that boundary. LHVC was instructed to stick to that point. On September 24, 2015 the second HO, Fred Wilson, writes, "Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865 provides the criteria for approval of a zone change.(3) EC 9.8865(1) provides in pertinent part that the "proposed change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan." The dispute in this case is whether the applicant's proposed zone change is consistent with the boundary between LDR and POS plan designations on the Metro Plan diagram. There is no dispute regarding whether the remaining zone change approval criteria in EC 9.8865 are satisfied. I have reviewed the staff report and it thoroughly analyzes the remaining zone change approval criteria and explains why they are satisfied. I therefore adopt and incorporate those findings in this decision." While we remain somewhat ignorant of this process, it seems like a big jump from the ruling of the first HO. It seemed clear the boundaries needed to be determined before a zone change could be considered, there were many serious issues regarding the zone change brought up by citizens and neighbors, many on record. The first HO stated that this designation not only applies to POS but includes other privately owned lands in response to Metro Plan policies such as the South Hills ridgeline. All of the property is above 500' and is protected by a number of Refinement Plans, backed by neighborhood plans, studies, programs and policies consistent with, and making up the framework of the Metro Plan, addressing issues that are unique to this specific geological area (and, payed for with taxes and grants from state and federal government). One of the major concerns mentioned in the Record was that there were dangerous soil conditions and no safe access as stated in the transportation plans for decades and backed unanimously by the County Road Commission and a safety review board (No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Bv., Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor to 1-5.). We still do not know the exact acreage or the boundaries of the property but it is not true that there were no other issues to consider in a zone change except to decide the boundaries and acreage. Things like watershed, trees, animals, land instability, access, and the orderly extension of services are a few mentioned in the Record. In fact, page 74-78 of the Record has some missing pages and I would like to resubmit the letter and the 10 missing pages (the letter was done in haste and should have been edited; but, all submitted, verifiable, and on time). I doubt the Planning Commission or LUBA were ever given the full set of copies for the Record. Kathleen Dixon Weltzin Blix 2295 E. 29th Av. Eugene, Oregon 97403 September 9, 2015 Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official % Gabe Flock, Erik-Berg Johansen; Planning Department City of Eugene 99 W. 10th Av. Eugene, Oregon 97401 j Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 9.8865 The proposed zoning change is not consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. We also wonder;what happened to the purpose of the refinement plans; about the order of the extension of urban facilities and services; and the applicable siting requirements that arent consistent. The turning of the map! is important to take notice of because it represents what gets lost when we consider codes and ordinances constantly rewritten to get around the very research, policy, codes; and ordinances put in place to protect us, the real issue. It's what gets lost inside the misread map that is important. Government meetings are ruled by Robert's Rules of Order that have us appeal to common sense when there is doubt. The concern is with their interpretation and use of the overlay map, along with the honesty and integrity of the process. Bill worked as a physicist at Los Alamos, an architect, taught for 30 rears at LCC, and has done large monumental sculpture for government here and in Japan. I worked for the Architecture and Engineering Department of UC Berkeley's Lawrence National (Radiation) Laboratory and for NWNG, a utility, and wrote the ordinances and policy for the art programs for the City of Eugene; both of us issued Q Clearances; and we've lived at the NW corner of the applicant's property for -45 years. The property in questio~ has been studied to exhaustion, it is why POS has been able to acquire land there, it is in desperate need of being protected, it directly effects our water quality all the way to Portland. With one sister having worked for the City's planning department and another retired from the County tax assessor's office we've followed the development of codes to protect the water and wildlife in the ridgeline over the years. City services were not to have gone beyond the Ridgeline in the earlier Metropolitan Plan. It should be an easy question, "At what point did the City decide to extend services beyond the Ridgeline?" The property is outside the UGB on these maps; constrained and documented by geological restraints, unstable soil, and ridgeline; Metro Map attached. We weren't informed of a City Annexation, nor the first UGB change over 36 years ago, and we're just NW of the property and still don't have sewer service. About 30 years ago the power company was putting in lines down our driveway, which was built, graveled, maintained and used only by us. The City had no application on file, the County had ro application, until it was finally traced to the McDougal's, owners of the current applicant's properly. It now serves development on the opposite ridgeline and the valves were !~ecently enlarged twice. The explanation was that people up on the hill needed more jpressure. In both cases we asked about future development and were told by EWEB and the City, who came out for meetings, there were none they were aware of. Looking at planning records, unannounced at the time, tells another story. The Metro Plan has become the guiding document but it would never exist without the plans and policies that it originated from. City Ordinance 2295 states it is adopted as policy and refinement of the Metropolitan Plan for the south hills area and are to be used in making land-use and other decisions in that area. It is also stated the ridgeline of the south hills marks the most southerly extension of the urban service area. We realize codes and ordinances written over it take precedent and the 2004 map is what matters; but, how dol you negate geological data, soil conditions, steep slopes and a ridgeline? Isn't Laurel Hill Creek, Augusta Creek and its' tributaries through this very narrow ridgeline areal to the Willamette River, protected by federal law as an important water resource? The, amount of time and money involved to go through five stages of review to previously turn down the application at each stage says a lot about how people feel about this area. Citizens, City, State End Federal Government have millions of dollars into studies, plans, policies, and ordinances advising and requiring protection of the area. 30th Avenue, the only route in has a long history of the neighborhood law suits, advisory road committee and county commissioner's warnings of the dangers, and finally law that "No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g. Spring Bv., Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor to 15". Laws change for the economy, but over safety and major natural resources? It is on the FEMA Hazards Map for landslides and soil problems right at the area where you exit 30th at Spring Bv., it is how Frontage Road came about. Roadwork traded for later use as a Frontage Road if developed; but the north lane of 30th fell again in heavy rain and had to be repaired again at great cost to all of us. i Aerial photos with the UO show the area was densely tree covered and after years of spray, rock and gravel debris being brought in for repairs the trees began dying down the valley to the Willamette River. The coyotes, bobcats, foxes, frogs, birds, owls and wildlife lessened, andIagain were worsened by the Ribbon Trail as they believed it was an oak savannah andl took more firs and orchard trees for trail. It was and still manages to be significant Goa15 area although codes that existed in the past seem unacknowledged, changed but not compatible or with notification. It is in several studies, a significar overlay and we are area; their stated la Boundary Commis: office not long ago. The property is steel City, County, and Fe, people because of tt watershed that makE considered a buffer, the Willamette Valle, should be changed t development or greE obvious that this is o att: Metropolitan Eugene-Seri Landslide K Road work (12) ildlife corridor, and water resource area. There is a fire protection luired to pay the State for being heavily forested, a hazardous fire use was vacant, forest, on the Lane County Local Government in 2007, the agriculture crop was listed as fir trees with the forest ridgeline protected by millions of dollars in studies that we, the leral Government have paid to protect the air, water, wildlife and combination of dangerous soil, steep slopes, vegetation, and up our ridgeline. It was never intended for building being s it would destroy the quality of air, water and beauty that exist in as proved repeatedly through results of these studies. The Zone Natural Resource or whatever would protect it from economic J. If we use our own studies to determine how we grow, it is ie of the last places you would put development. showing geological restraints, unstable soil, ridgeline d Transportation Improvement Program Areas m rvACCnc°'m~mE>sa ~m ® I l l t e l i f .Z .r o-m s-a w w r.e r-e-w or C rr ~ e-a N o-~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -B 1 rn O G7 z e-•c Z '-e r m M -4 M--4ma a mM mI.4 ..-167-erne r' 7DLnCr~- r~~O m r-mra (A"r -v - o"' -1 N 'o z m r n 3vcma7m :C. A --I a~-O Z r A►~ mrrn.., z r 5e = r m m to O N (A- M= -4 -1m G") = a C CA r A n r• _C ` 03 rri t! ? m rn m A a !7 0 to rState 5 C a z rn G H rn m 2 m ]a rn H 0 cn 9m 'M In ,x A m a*tl~ r a rn A PAR =Am z En ~ag, 2 CMJ am an a r p C-2 C -==am - Q sus - CD =1 3m - do frn< amp gm mgm z A 3 m z E - - h - -N m m m 3 m? 4' M CD 0 om NQ-~~d ~ r TN ST 310 H a. m W m C m K a V- A ° N O 8'O O N o O. N N m 3m 3 m c 0! _ I G m = = n -0 I'D -"zNU sr sr Z v `~ID 0 _ fO o Q y N o f m rc w c" C 'o spry'- 35TN T op° m m S m 3 m. r-' ° tl1 (p CD 3 9 , y _ ,N~ o = D _ I<D !$*di~~k CD CL s' T' 0 31, -o m w c0 N ~r FV M-m °.0 :30R° 01Om rJ\ p C fl. 42ND ST 5 n C N N D- d j H 3 m m C C ~G d m m 7 m V„ CL y WI 1 c N. 3° m m 6° O O O N Q. M~Ei3 0) m ".t 3 CD a~ w-y 4M ST CD M.a~ :01 0 A a ° ~N+ N O N T~ n a O~ Q \ 0 y ~ ~i m?m~-T°'N~aT N I~1w1 N T,h N m ''m0 O m O S C cis seTri sr Vip v O o c 3? m o (~~1 C/) Co Co Qs3o•m~NSOp p 1 r yr:~l., n- m m 42 m N 0 3s a nN®mBOa CD ~.a° \ v O i x '7~ N~ 0- N. N D- N m PCD m Sm Qom a O + o ll _ w a3 m_3_v H ~3m° s }L iD m N ip -1 O Q `C ~..r q vvm°-_ onmm n m D,~ Q °yt-s ^I N O N m M y n m Ilk* CD Q ai m -0 c~ ei v -0 m c C 0 ~ = Q m A Ci n m S m Ci U) 3 0 0 m v '13 -bet, c ~ ID O 0 N m 0 O y O 7 d a' (D ~T. 3 0 l- 07 CL =r 0 (n c 00 L. m D 7 N 0 n (D rD 3 cr 0 ID ' .f f _ ~ y ~ = N C= r_ Q N ((n _ i i m a ® ° 0 4 j m C 7 1 _ ~ ~ m o s • o H 3 c m m Rp- z Z - N + ' y ` 3 RD tC m m m 7 ~?m O r m O GIMA c~ • s d Z ` y~ 9 m a 1'7 RRY A W _ 1 1~ ~ y i • ~ ~ v ~ m ` . • m i OANEBO ~iL` L iLRI - ti, r `M1 • '••--61 ~ ` • ~ n ELSEN RD r - • • ~!4" V A ~ Illil d ply y r ~S tL _ BAILEY > a m f m < Z - 5` C SENE RD a AMEN y ~ f < ~ W FI ~ m o ~ f 9 a y X , T O D = O ° 4 ~t• ^ CRY VIEW StAA 1a ~t • - ^V • ~ - LRFI r - e ~ ` CHAMBERS yF Yak D~~ r O JffFER50 S7~ d' ~'k m z m a/ \ Dj r < NO m 1 E m • . ~ HI V O 99" ~ LYARD Sr NST i O m dY0 • ~ ~ 1 s: • f' -~rHU 3 m NOTfYN m CAKWAY R m • m S ATE < < ~ O r Z AGA CA B RO ~9 SA ° v° _ G qp > •]I6 mT 1 I-5 ~ 4w, IS O&PERSO. C'ArEY~AYSr wM "RV y ,y` z Yaa • I~w , a~NO~ L~ 5TH ST _ - Ali` y ~ ~ O m m ~ j 7 O m N d~ y m -CD _ ° O^ d ~ m = m FE N y y_ m = f~ m m C 0 O~ 2 m BC _ 1 ti O P O f. O m N Z< N C O lr r ?l 3 v m m p x m H m 7 C] ® ® n a ('I P © s m p i p- O- i 28 H ~0 3 c rc - Z• 0:t - ~ C W D O p C .T "2ND Sr _ v o c 3 y 0 ' P 11 rSI s® e d r ECO -y o y m1 n W o s rt rt L" ro 'd o x a O aC -J C rr z V+ m a* `K no W a a s . r o . Q In y) M m s< ° o sn n J 3 3 c m ° - m o o o ro W m r a rt 1 0 +n rt rt Ib rt ro e -s ° °m o = a toC a Cw s ` -0 W rt ? m rt a me C CL s< o m ro •S O % c rt n m La ? X m m rt U3 I m v kw CL L4 1 s9 ro " o~ a 1 a ' o e 1 ° n i J• ' ~ r+ r m C f n =W l6 CA S< LA S p w r i ° 16 * 1 ~F 'S rt 'S I N w r 'T O Q. ° ~ W N d d O N * t D 1 X °h a c0 t m m r -f ~ 0 • W -t W x < w @ n co rr m -t -o rr a < M e C+ Do W 7 s g m ~Cr _-0 4'k Ln c a c+ m D c m o c o o a ° t m W n I p s < t a n a ~ p 3E W ? 3 @ 1 m rt a m r n O Cr !O S r► m ~C GGG... {n AE p~ C+ . s C+ S 3 -7=O o8 ® im m o m a a O 3 rg N C m w C Ip n f -.a y a C O+ fm tS LA m L} C+ at to CI+ I ro ft p m m - 1 ~ N n c 1-t ~ o O s %C ~ c p W at ca o ~ rt 3 c O S ° n C a ° o n c 13 0 m m a m m OI w C+ 10 m r+ m to ' C C rf O rF K oo m x -~v o rrt a bl ra e+ n 2 N . 3 rt Of CL 'S a - m rt f a 6 0.0 M3 VI N + Cr ado t° m 9 i b rtN n V rr ro Exi sting Problems ro®r " c x Fut ure Overloads o ro -w ro ae, m Re- oute Arterial r► Tra ffic C i r x Tru ck Traffic x x con ' struct to city D ac x x St d d In a ar s c rt l 3 mp k x x " ement cycle t+ L =s ai Col lector for Fut ure Development• • D w r iO r d 0 S v 0 -a m m m b Z O S V7 S n O G m n --1 w s Goal 5 Water Resourcesi Conservation Plan, Section 111 ' Significant Goal 5 Ripari an Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites T y, within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary Tile 3 -Southeast Eugene October 24, 2005 o nu o.s ~ NORTH ~ ' 4 ® Urban Growth Bounda ry Eugene City Limits L 2 West Eugene Wetland Boundary - Significant Riparian Corridors 3 Tax Lots Significant Wildlife Habitat Sites lo s =aa AGkTiST L=- ~ .jam POI-1 w INUM _ W LVD HZ NDEiZSDT 7 1 ~ J ittllj 1, -LL OOD SL D ♦ H DE J - , c C _ >a rop!o, AI .4 11, go Ul. I 0 d ❑ 3 O y, K m I c 0 fn N fn G G G p = Q CL C: M* C O r0+ cc C O O O p N O CD 3 o m ? m 9 3 3 0~ d m CL m r ° o > 7 > w n m 1 w -n < r+ o CA n G) m m m n w N 0) N o n1 (D CD F) o :3 A C010 CD M 0) 0 CD CL o m n? o d rn + o 3 n 3 CD o c 3 a) 20 N c > _ O W > > ^G Z* o O Z ~~n i z ED 7 ou 7 W O r w .r. w U) O 9 -n CD CD O CD d C 3 N' Co 01 r* r+ O- n r m y. m U) D CD CL :3 Eca v o ~ N C Q m CA to Ili I K/ F----- _R m N L d O D c~ m i Z m 0 1 k W< CL fGNl m a < -.v s -n±. a 3 7' N ~.y ''QGID N OC C -0 - C n C D N <D N N O m ywdIN <[l~ CD w m N < d a C N d a ~ o ~ mo y 0 o, - m d r 0 yco~0~nmc~pc m° rr O M ~ tr o a m„ o Co d m r~ m AmO m o 0~,°=,Moi3 D ~co =r Q) S co C O (np H-'~OHfAN N O dO 01 m 0 N NN7 N <3a~*0'yod co o "oa'=-cOg c O CC - m -O m ~ a~0 ~ C co Q , S~ ~Z 0 in ~ r z CD 0) 3 N d a n S 7 7 CD N W _N MM-953~ 19 l MMM MIMID m co 7 C 0- 7 r C m * ~ CD O CD ) CD :3 m 3 m m CD r L7 O s 2 = C13 0) N `~G N 0) :3 < CQ CD CND L T C N to nl c oo o c a n- 0 CL CD v -4 CD < , Z CD O D -9 FIT 19 CD O N I II- The end of the September 01h , 2015 Dixon/ Bllx letter regarding the 'aUrei Ridge Loire vhange `-15-5 (EC 9.8865) indicates the 12 attachments (10 missing from the record) listed below which are relevant to the current zone change: 1. Eugene-Springfield Urban Service Area and Criteria as adopted by Lane Council of Governments 1971 (Legend) 2. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAMI, Legend); FEMA Grant 3. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAMI) 4. Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Improvement Program: Errata (refers to 30th Avenue at Spring Blvd Project); No through access will be allowed from this Interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Blvd, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley nor to 1-5. 5. Table 9: Non-Corridor Street and Highway Projects; 38. 30th Avenue-Spring Boulevard Interchange (Existing Problems); No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Boulevard, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor 1-5. 6. Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section III Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; October 24, 2005 7. Draft Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; Southeast Eugene Area 8. Laurel Hill Basin Slope and Topography, LCOG 9. Laurel Hill Basin Highly Erodible Soils, LCOG 10. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Water and Drainage System Features, LCOG 11. Laurel Hill Basin Soil Runoff Potential, LCOG 12. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Cover Erik, Upon examination of the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record on the Planning ebsite I notice that 10 attachment pages are missing from the letter submitted by Katie Dixon and me on September 9th, 2015. The end of the two and a half page letter regarding the Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 (EC 9.8865) indicates 12 attachments and you had acknowledged and written us that 15 pages were received and accepted assuring us there was plenty of time for the entire submission to be reviewed by the Hearings Official. We're now assuming they must not have been seen by the HO and would like to know if they can be added to the record (with the letter) before it goes to LUBA? Is there a reason why they were omitted? The attachments (2-12 missing from the record) are listed below and are relevant to the current zone change: 1. Eugene-Springfield Urban Service Area and Criteria as adopted by Lane Council of Governments 1971 (Legend) 2. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAMI, Legend); FEMA Grant 3. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAMI) 4. Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Improvement Program: Errata (refers to 30th Avenue at Spring Blvd Project); No through access will be allowed from this Interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Blvd, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley nor to 1-5. 5. Table 9: Non-Corridor Street and Highway Projects; 38. 30th Avenue-Spring Boulevard Interchange (Existing Problems); No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Boulevard, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor 1-5. 6. Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section I I I Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; October 24, 2005 7. Draft Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; Southeast Eugene Area 8. Laurel Hill Basin Slope and Topography, LCOG 9. Laurel Hill Basin Highly Erodible Soils, LCOG 10. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Water and Drainage System Features, LCOG 11. Laurel Hill Basin Soil Runoff Potential, LCOG 12. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Cover Thanks for any help in understanding why the information didn't make it to the record. XFINITY Connect wbblix@comcast.net + Font Size - Re: Omissions from the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record From : wbblix@comcast.net Subject : Re: Omissions from the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record To : Katie Dixon <kmdixon@comcast.net> Re: 01 Public Record Pages 1-204 (10/23/2015); Page 74, 15 pages (no new information) Hi Erik, No "record objections" were submitted by the neighborhood's legal representation because by the time you verified that ten pages had not been included our attorney had already done his work based on the information you presented to the Hearing's Official, the Eugene Planning Commission, and the Neighborhood Organization. We believed that the letter and attachments had been added to the record and were seen by the Hearing's Official, the Eugene Planning Commission, and our lawyer because you had called and confirmed that all 15 pages had been found in the fax room the next day, along with our older fax (rejected 9/2), because no one uses the fax machine and Ws in a back room. You apologized and said the Hearing's Official had plenty of time to review it. Our fax record verified 15 copies went through okay and were received at your fax number, along with the emails you and Gabe had both sent verifying you had received the letter and the attachments. When we inquired again about the record seeming short you explained it would be added at the end. While the letter of September 9th was written in haste and should have been edited, it states the points related to POS and the Zone Change in the first paragraph. It is in the best interest of the Public, and it was meaningless without the backup of the city and county documents attached. I apologize for the inconvenience that being last minute at a busy time creates. I can't give an oral argument due to a pretty severe daily migraine problem and Bill is still recovering from major surgery so we didn't do a great job, but the process is near impossible for citizens to participate in. After 45 years of living here and knowing the many studies to protect this area, we care about the Zone Change as it is forever and this regards a riparian corridor and forested ridgeline directly above the Willamette River. Since you caught your mistake and shared it with the city attorney, we would appreciate it if you would get the missing documents into the record and on to LUBA before the Hearing. Thank you, Katie Dixon & Bill Blix attachments: September 9, 2016 letter and list of missing documents copies of the 12 original attachments (full pages, many in color) email attachment (3 emails) LR o change ai.pdf B LR zone change a3.pdf 2 Fri, Feb 12, 2016 02:32 PM ;3 attachments Fro : "BERG-JOHANSEN Erik" <Erik.Bergci.eugene.or.us> : kmdixon@comcast.net, wbblix@comcast.net c: "FLOCK Gabriel" <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:37:33 AM Subject: F: Laurel Ridge Zoning Application Z-15-0005[1] f. _E :f± f i GU We checked the fax room again and located the letter and attachments you sent via fax, t will forward your testimony to the Hearings Official immediately - he will have plenty of time to review the materials before a decision is made. s ~ td ~"s eaS, Er, Berg-Johansen i Assistant fanner Pic.nnina Division 1 City of E00, ene 99 West 10th Avenue i Eugene, OR 97401 From: FLOCK Gabriel < _ hrl_.m . Inn g r u np._ r i! > Date: September 11, 2015 8:42:09 AM PDT To: Kathleen Dixon <mIn mie> Subject: RE: Hearing's Official Hi Katie, So sorry you've been having difficulty with the process of submitting your testimony. Frankly we don't usually get faxes much anymore but we were able to get the latest submittal and will make sure it goes to the Hearings Official. Its been a very busy few weeks for me with a variety of staff out of the office, but that's no excuse. I hope we can maintain good relationship in spite of this, and stay in touch. Thanks and say hi to Bill for me. GF From: "BERG-JOHANSEN Erik" <Erik.Berg@ci.eugene.or.us> To: wbblix@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:34:09 AM Subject: RE: Motion to Strike Hi P3ili, You can certainly change wording and replace one attachment with another. Have you consulted with Mr. Malone Vet? The letter from you and Katie will be a part of the record. Thanks and talk soon. Eriis Received in PubiiC Hearing City of Eugene Planning & Development SEP 212016 Sean T. Malone Attorney at Law 259 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 200-G Eugene, OR 97401 File 4 Z. I S-,_ Exh0'r-i 1'%_ 3 Tel. (303) 859-0403 Fax (650) 471-7366 seam-nalone8@hotmail.com September 21, 2016 Via Hand Delivery Eugene Hearings Official Harris Hall - Lane County Public Service Building 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene OR 97401 Re: Testimony re remand in LUBA No. 2015-092 and -091 On behalf of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), please accept this testimony regarding the issue on remand. In the above-referenced LUBA cases, LUBA disagreed with Environ-Metal's sole assignment of error, and LUBA sustained two of LHVC's assignments of error, as explained in the staff report. LHVC previously submitted a memorandum and series of maps submitted by Gunnar Schlieder, referred to as LHVC 9/2/15-01 through -05. When considering both assignments of error that were sustained by LUBA, the reasonable choice is to adopt map 9/2/15-04, which relies upon multiple referents ((1) East 30th Avenue centerline, (2) East 30th curve, (3) the East 30th/Springfield Boulevard intersection, and (4) the green finger). LUBA all but gave its stamp of approval to LHVC's 9/2/15-04 map when it stated: "I agree with the majority that the hearings official's choice to rely on an overlaid diagram that matches only one referent (the nearby East 30th Avenue centerline) when an overlaid diagram that matches that referent and three additional referents (the East 30th curve, the East 30th/Spring Boulevard intersection, and the green finger) is inadequately explained in the decision on appeal. In particular, the hearings official does not appear to have appreciated that an overlaid diagram based on an enlargement of the official Metro Plan diagram that matches four referents was available." LUBA Slip Opinion at 39. Simply put, adopting Map 9/2/15-04 is a reasonable way to delineate the line between plan designations, and LUBA has already implicitly given its approval of map 9/2/15-04. For this reason and those provided in LUBA's opinion, I respectfully request that the hearing official adopt map 9/2/15-04 as the most accurate delineation of the line separating the plan designations. Sincerely, rz- can T. Malone Attorney for LHVC Cc: Client L qoo eoc a got sloe `ooso~ so3s~ dVw " ' a= aoai 3anvi o § y @sµr 'Cr anon o~ ~ d021d lO3f 8f1S NO WVaJVl4 NVId Oa13W :3EJNVHO 3NOZ s . s ° V s° N x W ° ~J u 1: s w ~W 00 pa xH ~#w o » mwa I I I I I I I ~ r: $ M s mss= - - O mew ~3ew ma.rNw ¢_a Z s s= c I I I m I I I I ~ I I m: L rc oiwa ¢m~ ~Tuday m azzl U yz~ ~fl7rcN 0 N z i i C s s s ~ a s € s ~ x U 8 J 4fDU~ W LLC~2. o~ a W H F cQ G Q J IL C F W a a 0 N N 0 W d 0 Q Z Fu gs d F o a W ~ 19 ~ 6 Z 6 W Q W a W Z 0: L3 z O g w° y~z j~ soc a o s 3 4 ~ i t 910ioo ol-10 11 dvw - 3oaiani3 i i 'doad 1o3rans NO wvaDdia 021131:30NVHO 3NOZ OIL" F k W ° Nz =3 rl, s , I w I ^o Ora ~ I °oa M rc 3~a k U~~ m m m g ~ s ar ¢m UOw LL m: 3 ~ 3oxr.o3w,z ~M F i K g~g 8 ~ sue ssn srv V ~ ~ °g g= o S o 3w z S° a ~e~~3 H 7. Z a J L ~ s G w x F W I I ~ I I I n o I L LL s=Wa ~o Iva~S~ eU °'°sc~z« spa U Aim I W Z LL 2 W W d' O F D W F a wW W W W ~ ~ a ~ soc~a 1o~ stogy °ooso~ so3e~ avw I e ` Z x a do F aooia~aanvi s xsvn ,non 3n1Y8 n3Wn;H,S N G i doad 103rans NO WV la N`dld OH13W :30NVHO 3NOZ g N s w F ~w ~rc xOxa G~ ~fW $Irc °OQ M~ o mom T .0 Hi No N I z ^~w a;'w m«~= ors I J I I 1 I ~ I 1 1 1 W m 4 = ~ i 6 ~ 3 € ~ n =wood m s e m m m ¢mU~wU- J G W Q O IL a J O L o: W O O N 4~~0 ~~~f•$v EOL'8 LOL SlOI `OOSOb•£0-86 dtlW ' ~ a T ~ 3JORIl321l1tl1 1 .~~WS •d021d 103f ells NO W`dt ovia § Lacso4 NVId Oa13W :30NVHO 3NOZ ° N N003N0 ' 3N37f13 C~~ m ag 311V.10£ a (S-S LZ) 37NVHJ 3NOZ 374121 13'Nn 'l ~i~ o o o dVVY IISIHX3 _ a e x a° € fz~ y8 e i C e. ~gw a _ "a x 5 a' oooo. MKS.oo / /j am o~e,i Ks I I - 8) n Hearings Official CIO Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97441 .~l►X Received in Plliblic Hearing City of Eugene. Plannina, & Developmeol SEP 212016 File Z 15-5- Exhibit 7- R E: Laurel Ridge Remanded Zone Change (City fife Z15-5) Hearing Statement from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens LHVC appeals to the hearing official that on remand he/she takes into consideration the LUBA Report 2015-0911092 and in particular pp. 35-40. LUBA establishes the credibility of LHVC Sheet 912/15-04 which clearly shows the location of the Parks and Open Space acreage on the Environ-Metal land. This configuration was achieved as demonstrated in two presentations on record: 1. In Public Testimony - Opponents Post-Hearing of 9/2/15 Gunnar Schlieder shows how to develop maps that establish the POS boundary on the Environ-Metal parcel including the oft referred to Sheet 912115-04. The argument that he didn't use the appropriate Metro Plan has been negated and put to rest. This is addressed in "Testimony Rec'd at Planning Commission Appeal PH 10-20-2015 Exhibit #6" and reiterated in the LUBA document. 2. The use of the Eugene City Limit line was addressed in "Testimony Rec'd at Planning Commission Appeal PH 10-20-2015 Exhibit #4". This is part of the argument to appeal to more than one referent and to allow the use of other site specific maps. LHVC concludes that the HO should rule that sheet 912115-04 is the determinant for the POS boundary on the applicant's property which sets aside approximately 40 acres for that purpose. It seems appropriate to question the designation of the northern section of this property since many issues regarding the zone change were brought up. Several submissions of record were made such as (01 Public Record Pages 1-204 Misc. 10/23/2015 pp. 74-78). It doesn't seem reasonable to designate a zone when the acreage and demarcation of a property are unknown. The northwestern portion contains extensive so-called riparian corridors and is the headwaters of Laurel Hill Creek which can be seen in the Eugene Stormwater Master Plan, Volume IV. The City of Eugene has gone on record as wanting to protect such areas from development. Considerable time and money has been spent on surveying for upland wildlife habitat and riparian corridors. These designations should be honored and these sensitive environments preserved. Kathleen Dixon/Weltzin Blix 2295 East 29th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97403 (Laurel Hill Neighborhood) September 20, 2016 Hearings Official c/o Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 nuL;uiveo in Public Hearing Ci[y of Eugene Planning & Development SEP 2 1 20 1G Fite Z 19-5- Exhibit Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 EC 9.8865 (1) The first HO, Ken Helms, denied the applicant's request for a zone change and the proposed PUD for failure to comply with EC 9.8320(1), and the associated TIA and Standards Review applications on September 17, 2013. He limited his findings to determining compliance with 9.8865(1) for the zone change and EC 9.8320(1) for the PUD application, stating "it is the HO practice to avoid issuing advisory decisions opining on all the criteria that might be applicable to a given application where denial of the application is required based on a threshold criteria such as EC 9.8865(1)." Obviously, it would prejudice the rights of both applicant and opponent to not have the actual boundary or acreage before determining the zone change, PUD, TIA, and Standards Review. The dispute in this case is the location of that boundary. LHVC was instructed to stick to that point. On September 24, 2015 the second HO, Fred Wilson, writes, "Eugene Code (EC) 9.8865 provides the criteria for approval of a zone change.(3) EC 9.8865(1) provides in pertinent part that the "proposed change is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan." The dispute in this case is whether the applicant's proposed zone change is consistent with the boundary between LDR and POS plan designations on the Metro Plan diagram. There is no dispute regarding whether the remaining zone change approval criteria in EC 9.8865 are satisfied. I have reviewed the staff report and it thoroughly analyzes the remaining zone change approval criteria and explains why they are satisfied. I therefore adopt and incorporate those findings in this decision." While we remain somewhat ignorant of this process, it seems like a big jump from the ruling of the first HO. It seemed clear the boundaries needed to be determined before a zone change could be considered, there were many serious issues regarding the zone change brought up by citizens and neighbors, many on record. The first HO stated that this designation not only applies to POS but includes other privately owned lands in response to Metro Plan policies such as the South Hills ridgeline. All of the property is above 500' and is protected by a number of Refinement Plans, backed by neighborhood plans, studies, programs and policies consistent with, and making up the framework of the Metro Plan, addressing issues that are unique to this specific geological area (and, payed for with taxes and grants from state and federal government). One of the major concerns mentioned in the Record was that there were dangerous soil conditions and no safe access as stated in the transportation plans for decades and backed unanimously by the County Road Commission and a safety review board (No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Bv., Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor to 1-5.). We still do not know the exact acreage or the boundaries of the property but it is not true that there were no other issues to consider in a zone change except to decide the boundaries and acreage. Things like watershed, trees, animals, land instability, access, and the orderly extension of services are a few mentioned in the Record. In fact, page 74-78 of the Record has some missing pages and I would like to resubmit the letter and the 10 missing pages (the letter was done in haste and should have been edited; but, all submitted, verifiable, and on time). 1 doubt the Planning Commission or LUBA were ever given the full set of copies for the Record. Kathleen Dixon Weltzin Blix 2295 E. 29th Av. Eugene, Oregon 97403 September 9, 2015 Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official % Gabe Flock, Erik-Berg Johansen; Planning Department City of Eugene 99 W. 1 Oth Av. Eugene, Oregon 97401 Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 9.8865 The proposed zoning change is not consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. We also wonder!what happened to the purpose of the refinement plans; about the order of the extension of urban facilities and services; and the applicable siting requirements that aren't consistent- The turning of the map is important to take notice of because it represents what gets lost when we consider codes and ordinances constantly rewritten to get around the very research, policy, codes and ordinances put in place to protect us, the real issue. It's what gets lost inside the misread map that is important. Government meetings are ruled by Robert's Rules of Order that have us appeal to common sense when there is doubt. The concern is with their interpretation and use of the overlay map, along with the honesty and integrity of the process. Bill worked as a physicist at Los Alamos, an architect, taught for 30 years at LCC, and has done large monumental sculpture for government here and in Japan. I worked for the Architecture and Engineering Department of UC Berkeley's Lawrence National (Radiation) Laboratory and for NWNG, a utility, and wrote the ordinances and policy for the art programs for the City of Eugene; both of us issued 0 Clearances; and we've lived at the NW corner of the applicant's property for --45 years.; The property in questioin has been studied to exhaustion, it is why POS has been able to acquire land there, itl is in desperate need of being protected, it directly effects our water quality all the way to Portland. With one sister having worked for the City's planning department acid another retired from the County tax assessor's office we've followed the development of codes to protect the water and wildlife in the ridgeline over the years. City services were not to have gone beyond the Ridgeiine in the earlier Metropolitan Plan. It should be an easy question, "At what point did the City decide to extend services beyond the Ridgeline?" The property is outside the UGB on these maps; constrained and !documented by geological restraints, unstable soil, and ridgeline; Metro Map attached- We weren't informed of a City Annexation, nor the first UGB change over 30 years ago, and we're just NW of the property and still don't have sewer service. About 30 years ago the power company was putting in lines down our driveway, which was built, graveled, maintained and used only by us. The City had no application on file, the County had no application, until it was finally traced to the Mcaougal's, owners of the current applicant's property. It now serves development on the opposite ridgeline and the valves were :recently enlarged twice. The explanation was that people up on the hill needed more ;pressure. In both cases we asked about future development and were told by EWES and the City, who came out for meetings, there were none they were aware of. Looking at planning records, unannounced at the time, tells another story. The Metro Plan has become the guiding document but it would never exist without the plans and policies that it originated from. City Ordinance 2295 states it is adopted as policy and refinement of the Metropolitan Plan for the south hilts area and are to be used in making land-use and other decisions in that area. It is also stated the ridgeline of the south hills marks the most southerly extension of the urban service area. We realize codes and ordinances written over it take precedent and the 2004 map is what matters; but, how dolyou negate geological data, soil conditions, steep slopes and a ridgeline? Isn't Laurel Hill Creek, Augusta Creek and its' tributaries through this very narrow ridgeline area, to the Willamette River, protected by federal law as an important water resource? The, amount of time and money involved to go through five stages of review to previously turn down the application at each stage says a lot about how people feel about this area. Citizens, City, State and Federal Government have millions of dollars into studies, plans, policies, and ordinances advising and requiring protection of the area. 30th Avenue, the only route in has a long history of the neighborhood law suits, advisory road committee and county commissioner's warnings of the dangers, and finally law that "No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area g. Spring Bv, Laurelwood} or Laurel Hill Valley, nor to 15". Laws change for the economy, but over safety and major natural resources? It is on the FEMA Hazards Map for landslides and soil problems right at the area where you exit 30th at Spring Bv., it is how Frontage Road came about. Roadwork traded for later use as a Frontage Road if developed; but the north lane of 30th fell again in heavy rain and had to be repaired again at great cost to all of us. Aerial photos with the UC show the area was densely tree covered and after years of spray, rock and gravel debris being brought in for repairs the trees began dying down the valley to the Willamette River. The coyotes, bobcats, foxes, frogs, birds, owls and wildlife lessened, and again were worsened by the Ribbon Trail as they believed it was an oak savannah and took more firs and orchard trees for trail. It was and still manages to be significant Goal 5 area although codes that existed in the past seem unacknowledged, changed but not compatible or with notification. It is in several studies, a significant overlay and we are r area; their stated Ian Boundary Commissii office not long ago. The property is steE City, County, and FE people because of 1 watershed that mak considered a buffer the Willamette Valle should be changed development or gre obvious that this is i ildlife corridor, and water resource area. There is a fire protection luired to pay the State for being heavily forested, a hazardous fire use was vacant, forest, on the Lane County Local Government in 2007, the agriculture crop was listed as fir trees with the forest ridgeline protected by millions of dollars in studies that we, the eral Government have paid to protect the air, water, wildlife and combination of dangerous soil, steep slopes, vegetation, and up our ridgeline. It was never intended for building being y it would destroy the quality of air, water and beauty that exist in as proved repeatedly through results of these studies. The Zone Natural Resource or whatever would protect it from economic I. If we use our own studies to determine how we grow, it is e of the last places you would put development. att: Metropolitan Mab showing geological restraints, unstable soil, ridgeline Eugene-Springfield Transportation Improvement Program Landslide Hazard Areas Road work (12) rvaccnnrn~°n~cs ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! .Z Q r+www w.~.nw w w C w H w FN I l l l l i l l l I V1 ~7A~G ~~76 ~~G7 mr~aaa~at~ C~nCOp ~C7ffC ~~►*1d , ~ r rn7vClw r rn&;a t:) p cn r- rn r- M w r M ►y w i•.l 0 rn r p•I A to o " r yw R7rr7w 70r r N w~ x 3 l r r ] x GG T 1 ~ r* [ ~ tC7 1 to n ' rrrt xr a w Cl rn ra M A A ` e 5 Iq hers tat All 3 ~ un mm x n 71. r*I b r a rn ~ah4'A a, wa-i rn rn -C pia x ~sr r~rT m "2NOSr 1--w 42ND sr :y 4m ST it I K I S$TH ST A i e r 1 _ N to m- 5 O d m ' Sr i C QP ❑v i p' -nN n N C m? Q C A 3 q~ m Nag L~ -o ~ w an n S 7t7 m N 3 3-0 0m ~ r S 5.',- 3 r5r ~o "7'F 0 m raW _ arnmm6 0~aa~i N N Q m mac m 3 dN~ a` ON ip w' 3mm~~,NCCm ~m0m CL v a::$7 p 4 Z, r 3 a o y m 7 C Ny CLa; MIR C CL ,r ' mNm ~~-aka d_' ~c_3 o°1nc N N go CD c--- a- n r.r ~ i Q 10 3 C. 9 C 4 3: RE 9 rV ' m W N 7 m G O- E A m N m ~ ~ G] _ E•' n3'mn m'~-m cm G7 N t r Q~3am~N?~Q p r r ao "mn3~~mj y a-mi.maOmw~ O !it m s_ m y cr m + m 7 H a10~mn i m 3 0 a3q-•N4 m iv y n~.~°G~]~ m + H m m ci wvni a m Q Q m s m ® 0 m c n n a o ❑ m N 7 g 0- 0 m ter.. DE [i n = m [i CA ° a n ~ ~ ~ w rn N [a U7 v C m ~ 67 c, ~ j N d ^J H N U) O N ~ OI S7 En N N N S C d_ p~j SS CL N m (D ff m m n In C C N rr 6 (0 N *i m co cv = ■1 Vor mm L~. ~ 1 s~ A m C ~ ~ - ~ f1f m rL .fin 3 1 N ID m n r• `y t i 7 n 0 H ter. 9 i ourEep - YEIq ~ ~ H~ • . 1 NR6 E ' i O A ~~w~A k HALFT • AVE~ s 2N s Ro t t m ~ o ~ 2 a CFrV VIEW SP* r _ ~pn1A l' m •r CNAYEERS ° . , G° al L p v~ c cc) „L ~s Ftl~rARp y-t a PAn N57 c nA ,Om- 4 . t•. 29 ~ Q4K"NY R O c w . .p0~ ATE mra, • r m /r ■ /ltSl ~.,[T CAB ~7 J •r, R AY 7 ~ IS 57 _ a 09 61W ST I-V _ = e m ° u H w m H m a b c ter. `M; sc caH~~'omm~= •l ~ ~ am ~o-raa y 3 a= w 0 9 p r ar H n m =m S W ~ a +I 7 R 9 G o y 12 3PR~ p P 7 "wo ST U_ ST Z n'C ^d p - A _ n _ O p a p C 7 G 7 O 'mac art-, tF F F a O ;3' R4rD+ Y C+ W Z 7 C -9 n C2. <Q Mrce o n P LA * Ln r 40 en ~ ~ C N ~ ~ 3 -T 3E I rF rV ~c o c to ro IE 7 r► P Cr G 4 m tla, .+N CL (D ro ya+ a en m r► a I ro =r r+ LC w P a m n 4 n c 21CL Cr o Z =x 16 i m a a C7 rr c P e+ rT d O m. x LA o N n ~ a co r r h N . ^+1. aQ r+ CA Li 9 n + mor+ A 7 Q M:3 Q N l9 ~ ~ A 3 ~r ~ r► N_ 3 C + eT r n r-r _ m 4 3 fp ~ 1 mac w1 d ~ M a~ 7 41 A CP Co. O N C D A S+ f rT It V yr 3 O 7^ 0. C M ro c w ~ Z ~ w x (A c ! f ~ L W Gr v Ln R r~ r D P M c m rt a w Lli .~i d O 1 ar rt ~A tA O P i tx+ 7 0 Q 01 01 e-r YP ~ ID W~ ~m ro rr 7C m m b ro .A fY 1~ m cp R ~ ro n o G 2 ~ + M n d ! n 7 }p 'c n D C ro rF w G} A d 9 A ~6 c rrt ro N C ro o 1 N 0 I ~ I ~ w '•c rp r -s N m n rr O v c rp ul N x x x L W N O .q A~ A u7 7 rv v n w I ~ 'rl Q x x O b r W C CL 0 C P CM a CL W r3 r+ O S y A r+ ro m rD ro ~ Q r a ro C m L~ 7C7 ~ D r4 LA _r ro F 2,'< r► 4p ~a O 1 W 4 rn SD A t rp 7 ro c W ac ac x aK x a•[ se x ac K rn 4 G7 P i rD n r.l Q [6 n z r G 7 Existing Problems Future Overloads a Re-knute Arterial ro Traffic c. La N I Truk Traffic Construct to City Standards n 7 Implement Bicycle Collector for Future Develo a m m U3 i a ~c v 0 rM m M C X Q W M C-) H Lit .t;• ~6 G~~.'8a r.rm E42 r.,rn E42 ~~uovsar _ - - F1 wrrr-ax~a3 n E4 . )kW A E42, . iI wmxx~ ~ ~ ~ Q . Wrrri,uE. EIH fF E42 LT. u , •..".~M6Y E42 ° ~ WsIMAV_^ w ~ I _ ..:wrrrMaor" E40 E30 E40 WfATNAW. .vt Q E30 ~ ~ m - - t ramvr " X78 8 E78~ ~ E38 A _ E38 H E A r r E 'F" 38 G S _ -".varnrASC. j { E38 E 'wxni.yr.•~ _ S ~E78-R _ H 3 .-U wnrrr.a~s F30 . %E37 R E3 D a E81 E37A} x 376. . E37R9 " E38 6 37 R E3 75 _ E3TC.. _ E83 ~ . " _ . E8fi~ - E37-T . Y 9p . ~ ..x. ti.1~""I FlCW.11g £iv1/ AYE V37 a 3 N-4Z 37 E37 E t1~ arnav E56 Euxe[+~.::. - - z _ E86j' E86.e_cHa E3 R 37EE88 - - - , 37 E E37 F - E37 E37 ❑ E371 E37M f~. E37G _ J E7+1 E37M r E37 J _ E37d E37e E37 E ?K E37 L J E37 Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section III Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary Tim 3 - Southeast Eugene o uzs n s . October 24, 2005 NORTH , 4 i Urban Growth Boundary Eugene City limits 2 West Eugene Wetfand Boundary - Sign'rffcan! Riparian Corridors A 1 Fax tots - Significant Wildlife Habitat Sites ".4 CD u Cl) T fl3 !MIL m `ter:--,,~~ ~ - M 03 flI R] mew-'yr}'' s 1l7 .~••ir•rt-~- L 0 JCL', ~ry - _ C r oo'~ T ~ p r .Y<:~-- tom: CL cr M CD CD rw J C~' m _n C3 CD C) A- • rs r W •R - .•`7.i .rte ~ -'Z~"~'. .~"~~:^'~W ti'.•c. m_ 7T -77 W. rn - a W~ - Rm- - = fl AGATE S3 co 14 -000 SLVD f , 7~ I 1 --LL, 4 7 I f T ! ~ ~ I Y H s+ .d ELI a ay z BL , s 9 ~ < 0 ■ ® ❑ a _ 0 0 N m c O w ❑ w ❑ w 4 te ~ ~ ~ 2p ° C) 3 , O ~ m LD CD N C, 3 r 0] Q] os F m D Q N ~ m _ o € 0 -0 3 Z) m :3 G7 2 0 a a. Q. a 'n r11 cr C C C, v 0 9 D - C) N w y A N N C rC ' Q D o 7 o . r [ m a A W c o w e ar Q Q- m c C} 0 m C 0 Y r 3 as N rt ° W W im t: + 7 3 v CL a w F-1. 0 e z -00 rn o co 3 fu CL d 4 CL D N '9 Q co on o w 7 o rrl 7 C N n Q. * # d1 D D D N r 0. 0) im C CC -46 CD W 0 CD CD P-P 3 n-1 P+ I Q CD N vim to It, ® 07 L ~ ADD 0 1-4I ~i r--~ r H DE (Tn O C 0 I M-1 ° 2 m mnsC a r 'm; EL n CA M 3 Q w, o- Cr 5- MID ro FIF 2"D 0 C, CD m c D*) O r` C (D CD ?n0mvtnin o to G7 2 C F) two 0. "'L 00, r- CD r- N c G] ❑ m m er-i v 0 r •C ~ ~ fA LS CL zr CL co > (n c r+ CD my N a C 7 ❑ ■ % 'n 0 (D CL CD 0 ao0o a j3 CL N N N N C > -97F m o Q m ra Q i,7 CCD iD W :3 112) N ■ ~ - ni 'r G1 ll~- The end of the September 9th, 21 015 Dixon/Bfix letter regardingthe Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 (EC 9.8865) indicates the 12 attachments (10 missing from the record) listed below which are relevant to the current zone change: 1. Eugene-Springfield Urban Service Area and Criteria as adopted by Lane CounciI of Governments 1971 (Legend) 2. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAM1, Legend); FEMAGrant 3. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDO/DOGAMI) 4. Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Improvement Program: Errata (refers to 30 h Avenue at Spring Blvd Project); No through access will be allowed from this Interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Blvd, Laureiwood) or Laurel Hill Va11ey nor to 1-5. S. Table 9: Non-Corridor Street and Highway Projects; 38. 30th Avenue-Spring Boulevard Interchange (Existing Problems); No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e .g.' Spring Boulevard, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor I-S. 6. Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section III Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; October 24, 2005 7. Draft Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; Southeast Eugene Area 8. Laurel Hill Basin Slope and Topography, LCDG 9. Laurel Hill Basin Highly Erodible Soils, LCOG 10. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Water and Drainage System Features, LCDG 11. Laurel Hill Basin Soil Runoff Potential, LCDG 12. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Cover Erik, Upon examination of the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record on the Planning website I notice that 10 attachment pages are missing from the letter submitted by Katie Dixon and me on September V', 2015. The end of the two and a half page letter regarding the Laurel Ridge Zone Change Z-15-5 (EC 9.8865) indicates 12 attachments and you had acknowledged and written us that 15 pages were received and accepted assuring us there was plenty of time for the entire submission to be reviewed by the Hearings Official. We're now assuming they must not have been seen by the HG and would like to know if they can be added to the record (with the letter) before it goes to LUBA? Is there a reason why they were omitted? The attachments (2-12 missing from the record) are listed below and are relevant to the current zone change: 1. Eugene-Springfield Urban Service Area and Criteria as adopted by Lane Council of Governments 1971 (Legend) 2. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDOIDOGAMI, Legend); FEMA Grant 3. Landslide Hazards Area (SLIDOIDOGAMI) 4. Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Improvement Program: Errata (refers to 30'" Avenue at Spring Blvd Project); No through access will be allowed from this Interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g_, Spring Blvd, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley nor to 1-5. 5. Table 9: Non-Corridor Street and Highway Projects; 38. 30th Avenue-Spring Boulevard Interchange (Existing Problems); No through access will be allowed from this interchange northerly to existing streets in the Fairmount area (e.g., Spring Boulevard, Laurelwood) or Laurel Hill Valley, nor 1-5- 6. Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, Section I I I Significant Goal 5 Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat Sites within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; October 24, 2045 7. Draft Goal 5 Riparian and Upland Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; Southeast Eugene Area 8. Laurel Hill Basin Slope and Topography, LCOG 9. Laurel Hill Basin Highly Erodible Soils, LCOG 10. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Water and Drainage System Features, LCOG 11. Laurel Hill Basin Soil Runoff Potential, LCOG 12. Laurel Hill Basin Surface Cover Thanks for any help in understanding why the information didn't make it to the record. XFINM Connect Re: Omissions from the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record wbblb4comcast,net Font Size - From : wbblix@comcast.net Subject : Re: Omissions from the Laurel Ridge 01 Public Record To : Katie Dixon <kmdixon@cwmcast.net> Re: 01 Public Record Pages 1-244 (10/2312015); Page 74, 15 pages (no new information) Hi Erik, No "record objections" were submitted by the neighborhoodrs legal representation because by the time you verified that ten pages had not been included our attorney had already done his work based on the information you presented to the Hearing's Official, the Eugene Planning Commission, and the Neighborhood Organization. We believed that the letter and attachments had been added to the record and were seen by the Hearing's Official, the Eugene Planning Commission, and our lawyer because you had called and confirmed that all 15 pages had been found in the fax room the next day, along with our older fax (rejected 912), because no one uses the fax machine and ilfs in a back room. You apologized and said the Hearing's Official had plenty of time to review it. Our fax record verified 15 copies went through okay and were received at your fax number, along with the emails you and Gabe had both sent verifying you had received the letter and the attachments. When we inquired again about the record seeming short you explained it would be added at the end. While the letter of September 9th was written in haste and should have been edited, it states the points related to POS and the Zane Change in the first paragraph. It is in the best interest of the Public, and it was meaningless without the backup of the city and county documents attached. I apologize for the inconvenience that being last minute at a busy time creates. I can't give an oral argument due to a pretty severe daily migraine problem and Bill is still recovering from major surgery so we didn't do a great job, but the process is near impossible for citizens to participate in. After 45 years of living here and knowing the many studies to protect this area, we care about the Zone Change as it is forever and this regards a riparian corridor and forested ridgeline directly above the Willamette River. Since you caught your mistake and shared it with the city attorney, we would appreciate it if you would get the missing documents into the record and on to tU13A before the Hearing. Thank you, Katie Dixon & Bili Blix attachments: September 9, 2016 letter and list of missing documents copies of the 12 original attachments (full pages, many in color) email attachment (3 emails) Fri, Feb 12, 2016 02:32 PM g3 attachments LR acrm change al.pdf LR zone change a3.pdf _~2 ~ From: "BERG-JOHANSEN Erik" <Erik. Berg@ci.eugene.or. us> To: kmdixon@comcast.net, wbblix@comcast.net Cc: "FLOCK Gabriel" <Gabriel.Flock@ci.eugene.or.us> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:37:33 AM Subject: FW: Laurel Ridge Zoning Application Z-15-0005[11 lip •.f~ ~U :J.r. We checked the fax room again and located the letter and attachments you sent via fax. i will forward your testimony to the Hearings official immediately - he Neill have plenty of time to review the materials befor@ a decision i5 made. •i i is i-i ii5. Erik Berg-Johansen { Assistant Planner Planning Division i city of E(Agene 99 West 19¢h Avenue J Eugene, OR 9749' .541.682.54371 From: FLOCK Gabriel cGahriel.FInnIcna ni lPtinpne. or i msa Date: September 11, 2015 8:42:09 AM PDT To: Kathleen Dixon <i -;L`tJ Subject: RE: Hearing's Official Hi Katie, So sorry you've been having difficulty with the process of submitting your testimony. Frankly we don't usually get faxes much anymore but we were able to get the latest submittal and will make sure it goes to the Hearings Official. Its been a very busy few weeks for me with a variety of staff out of the office, but that's no excuse. i hope we can maintain good relationship in spite of this, and stay in touch. Thanks and say hi to Bill for me. GF From. "BERG-JOHANSEN Erik" <Erik.Berg@ci.eugene.or.us> To: wbblix@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:34:09 AM Subject: RE: Motion to Strike Hi kill, You can certainly change wording and replace one attachment with another. Have you consulted w!th Mr. Malone yet? The letter from you and Katie will he a part of the record. Thanks and talk snon. E ;L- INN City of Euciene. PlannlrQ & DevelWrnent Sean T. Malone Attorney at Law 259 E. Fifth Ave., Suite 200-G Eugene, OR 97401 SEP 2 12016 File Z 1S-S- Exhibit 3 Tel. (303) 859-0403 Fax (650) 471-7366 seanmal o ne 8 @hotmai 1, co m September 21, 2016 Via Hand Delivery Eugene Hearings Official Harris Hall - Lane County Public Service Building 125 East 8"' Avenue Eugene OR 97401 Re: Testimony re remand in LU13A No. 2015-092 and -091 On behalf of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), please accept this testimony regarding the issue on remand. In the above-referenced LUBA cases, LUBA disagreed with Environ-Metal's sole assignment of error, and LUBA sustained two of LHVC's assignments of error, as explained in the staff report. LHVC previously submitted a memorandum and series of maps submitted by Gunnar Schlieder, referred to as LHVC 912115-01 through -05. When considering both assignments of error that were sustained by LUBA, the reasonable choice is to adopt map 912115-04, which relies upon multiple referents ((1) East 30`h Avenue centerline, (2) East 30"' curve, (3) the East 30th/Springfield Boulevard intersection, and (4) the green finger). LUBA all but gave its stamp of approval to LHVC's 912115-04 map when it stated: "I agree with the majority that the hearings official's choice to rely on an overlaid diagram that matches only one referent (the nearby East 30th Avenue centerline) when an overlaid diagram that matches that referent and three additional referents (the East 30'h curve, the East 30`h/Spring Boulevard intersection, and the green finger) is inadequately explained in the decision on appeal. In particular, the hearings official does not appear to have appreciated that an overlaid diagram based on an enlargement of the official Metro Plan diagram that matches four referents was available." LUBA Slip Opinion at 39. Simply put, adopting Map 912115-04 is a reasonable way to delineate the line between plan designations, and LUBA has already implicitly given its approval of map 912115-04. For this reason and those provided in LUBA's opinion, I respectfully request that the hearing official adopt map 912115-04 as the most accurate delineation of the line separating the plan designations. Y, Malone Attorney for LHVC Cc: Client