HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant's Response to Planning Memo (09/28/16)October 5, 2016
.,Received
Eugene Hearings Official OCT 05 2016
c/o City of Eugene
Planning and Development Department City of Eugene
Planning Division y gene
99 West 10th Avenue Planning Division
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5)
Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
Dear Eugene Hearings Official,
We are submitting this as the applicant's rebuttal testimony.
uoisiAia 6uiuueld
aueBn3 jo Apo
910Z 9 0 100
pania~a~.
Applicant's Response to the Eugene Planning Memorandum, Dated September 28, 2016
1. Metro Plan Used by LHVC.
Staff admit that the Metro Plan diagram that they gave to LHVC was from a paper copy that staff
utilizes for everyday use. Staff gave LHVC a digital scan of that paper copy. There is no
documentation on the record as to what was the source of this paper copy, or as to how many
generations from the adopted Metro Plan diagram was that paper copy, or was that paper copy a true
version of the 2004 adopted Metro Plan diagram. It is well-documented that the version available on
the city and LCOG websites is an altered Metro Plan diagram, incorporating various Metro Plan
diagram amendments which have occurred since the diagram was last adopted.
The applicant, on the other hand, through a public records request, obtained a first-generation copy
from the actual adopted Metro Plan diagram. The adopted Metro Plan diagram is a paper copy,
Exhibit C of the ordinance which adopted the diagram in 2004. It is pixelated because the adopted
Metro Plan diagram itself is a paper copy of average resolution.
2. Use of the City Limits Line.
Staff presented two arguments under the heading "Use of the City Limits Line." The first argument is
in regards to the use of city limit lines. The second argument is in regards to a set of three diagrams
which staff generated to underline their assertion that city limit lines can be used. The applicant
addresses both of these arguments below.
A. Use of City Limit Lines.
Staff admit that city limit lines are not on the Metro Plan diagram. Staff then quotes LUBA "...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 applicant adds that LUBA also stated "If there is some reason to regard the centerline
matchup as a reliable referent, while regarding the city limits line matchup as an unreliable
referent, neither the Hearings Official nor Environ-Metal identify it. "
Regarding the first LUBA citation above, there are two key words we should not I . NEW %3.
overlook. These are "consider" and "surveyed." LUBA said that the Hearings
Official should consider evidence. LUBA did not require use of the evidence.
LUBA also referred to surveyed city limits. LUBA did not cite the use of any old
city limits line. - loop" 109
+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS +
I . I
375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401
PLANNERS + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 Fax: 541.686.4577
www. sch i rmersatre. corn
LaurelRidge Page 2 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5 2016
The applicant agrees with LUBA, the Hearings Official can consider city limit lines, but points out
that the Hearings Official is not required to use city limit lines.
As for surveyed city limit lines, the applicant has previously stated that the blue dashed line on
the original zone change plans (Sheets ZC-2, ZC-4, ZC-5 and ZC-6, dated 5-15-2015) was a line
traced over tax lot maps which were received in a GIS format from the Lane Council of
Governments (LCOG). The only portion of that blue dashed line which is surveyed is the
segment coincident with the subject property boundary. As for Note 2 on those 5-15-2015 sheets,
that note is referring to a 6.27.2011 survey. That survey did not include the city limit lines which
are not coincident with the subject property.
As the applicant documented in its open record testimony from September 28, 2016, city limit
lines on the record for this application have been located with the use of tax lot maps and tax lot
maps are inaccurate.
Regarding the second LUBA citation above, it has been documented, and not contested, that the
centerline of 30th Avenue is a reliable referent. Therefore, the Hearings Official can give
appropriate evidentiary consideration that the 30th Avenue centerline is reliable. As noted herein,
and in prior testimony, the Hearings Official can also give appropriate evidentiary consideration
that city limit lines are an unreliable referent.
B. Three Diagrams.
To augment their assertion that the city limits line shown on the applicant's original zone change
application diagrams (notably ZC-2 and ZC-4), staff generated three exhibits - diagrams is which
they "took measurements."
1. Figure 1 from City Submittal, dated September 28, 2016.
In the first measurement, on the applicant's diagram ZC-2, staff measured "...the distance
between the western property boundary and the far western reach of the city limits line
(directly west of the subject property)..." Staff states that that measured distance is
approximately 850 feet. In response, the applicant notes that it doesn't matter what that
distance measures. The referenced city limit line is not a surveyed line. As documented
elsewhere on the record, the city limit lines west of the subject property are lines traced off of
a GIS-based tax lot data set obtained from Lane Council of Governments early on in the
applicant's process of analyzing the subject property. In summary, staff's first measured
drawing is faulty and cannot be used.
See marked-up Figure 1, attached, containing applicant comments. The city limit line
referenced is actuality the east edge of the green finger. Measurements taken from the
surveyed referents result in two different measurements indicating that the lines are not
parallel and that the GIS data is inaccurate.
2. Figure 2 from City Submittal, dated September 28, 2016.
In the second measurement, staff utilized a copy of an exhibit from the subject property's
annexation application from 2006. This exhibit contains topography, tax lot lines and other
miscellaneous information. Staff measured the distance between the lines on this exhibit
representing the subject property and the same city limit line referenced above west of the
subject property. Staff states that the distance is 850 feet. In response, the applicant
contacted the consulting engineer who generated the original 2006 annexation application
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, UK a r4U1 • too 1) 000-404v
LaurelRidge Page 3 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5, 2016
exhibit. The engineer provided the original CAD file of the exhibit. The engineer also
explained how the exhibit was generated.
"The boundary on my map was generated from County Map data, and the
topography is from aerial mapping sources. We did not order a boundary
survey or a topographic survey, thus no legal description of the boundary
was prepared."
In other words, none of the data on that map is surveyed. See marked up Figure 2, attached,
containing applicant comments. Also see attached full size submittal (Figure 4) that is a map
created from the original AutoCAD file obtained directly from the engineer. The applicant's
surveyed data was overlaid onto the engineer's not surveyed GIS data. The inaccuracy of
the GIS/LiDAR data is obvious.
The engineer also provided a copy of the aerial photo, with topography and tax lot lines, and
a copy of the tax lot map both of which were used in generating the annexation application
exhibit.
Importantly, the annexation exhibit which staff utilized was NOT generated with surveyed
data. At that time there was no survey of the subject property, and, even as today, only tax
lot maps were utilized to locate those lines on the map. In summary, staff's second
measured drawing is faulty and cannot be used.
3. Figure 3 from City Submittal, dated September 28, 2016.
Staff then made a third measurement. Here, staff obtained GIS map data of the west end of
the subject property and measured the distance from the property's western boundary to the
same line as the aforementioned traced city limit lines. Not surprisingly, staff measured the
distance as 850 feet. In response, the applicant reviewed this third figure from staff and
notes the following.
• In the lower right-hand corner of staff's Figure 3 is the note "For General Reference
Only."
• Across the top of this figure are the words "Graphical Representation" and "Local
Government GIS Data."
See applicant's marked-up Figure 3, attached.
The applicant asks, if the figure is for "general reference only", and was generated with "local
government GIS data", how valid is the information, and the measurement, on this particular
drawing? The applicant sought to verify the validity of this GIS data and discovered that the
accuracy of GIS data cannot be verified. Every "local government" which supplies GIS data
includes a standard disclaimer. Four local government GIS sources were consulted and four
local governments provided their standard disclaimer language. A copy of each of these is
enclosed with this letter (Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9), but each is summarized below.
Figure 6. City of Eugene Disclaimer:
"GIS Disclaimer
The maps and data available for access from the City of Eugene are provided "as
is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness or
completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness,
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4" Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 4 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5 2016
merchantability, and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the
user accessing this information.
The City of Eugene makes no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the use of
the maps and data available for access at this website. There are no implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The user
acknowledges and accepts all inherent limitations of the maps and data,
including the fact that the maps and data are dynamic and in a constant state of
maintenance, correction and revision. Any maps and associated data for access
do not represent a survey. No liability is assumed for the accuracy of the data
delineated on any map, either expressed or implied. "
Figure 7. Lane County Disclaimer
"Any user of this digital product accepts no warranties and expressly waives any
implied warranties as to fitness, merchantability, design, construction, condition,
specifications or performance.
The County of Lane disclaims, and shall not be held liable for, any and all
damages, loss or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, that arises or
may arise from this product or the use thereof by any person or entity.
The user of this digital product hereby agrees to, and shall, indemnify, hold
harmless, and defend the County of Lane against any and all claims, causes of
action, losses, damages, attorney fees, expenses (including any attorney fees
incurred by the County of Lane) that may be sustained or asserted against the
County arising from, or in any way connected to, its use by the user, and any of
the users, officers, employees, agents, assigns, and successors.
Current configurations and/or designations for specific parcels should always be
confirmed with the appropriate jurisdiction (s).
Permitted Use:
The digital data are for the use of the user only in its lawful business activity and
for no other purpose whatsoever, and are not to be redistributed. User can
provide read-only access to the product by other persons through the means of
the Internet or Intranet provided the following Lane County disclaimer is made
available to the Internet user.
"The information provided by Lane County, Oregon has been developed to
support county business. This product is for informational purposes and may not
have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying
purposes. Lane County is not responsible for possible errors, omissions, misuse
or misinterpretation.
Figure 8. LCOG Disclaimer:
"...the digitally compiled Geographic Information System data provided under this
agreement is provided "as-is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or
implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of fitness for a particular
purpose. The relative accuracy and absolute accuracy of this product are not
guaranteed by LCOG."
Schirmer Satre Group . 375 West 4'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 5 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5. 2016
Figure 9. RLID Disclaimer:
"RLID contains maps in a variety of forms. For example, maps appear on every
detailed property report (DPR) as well as on the comp sales report and in Lane
Maps.
The information on these maps was derived from digital databases in the
regional geographic information system (GIS). Where feasible, the GIS data on
which these maps are based is maintained and published in a timely fashion in
order to keep it in synch with the other data content in RLID. Care was taken in
the creation of these maps, but they are provided "as is". LCOG cannot accept
any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data
or the underlying records. Current designations (e.g., zoning) for specific parcels
should be confirmed with the appropriate jurisdictions. There are no warranties,
expressed or implied, accompanying these maps, however, notification of any
errors will be appreciated. "
In summary, staff's time and effort attempting to document the validity of using the city limits line
was not a wise decision. In the first figure, the city limits line is not a surveyed line. In the second
figure, there is nothing surveyed. In the third figure, the use of GIS data is very well documented
to not be reliable.
3. Using Multiple Referents.
Eugene staff define the process of using map referents as "The procedure used to bring data layers
into alignment via known ground location control points..." Staff further emphasizes plurality of
"control points"- that multiple referents could help in locating a map referent. The applicant doesn't
disagree. Multiple referents could help. However, the applicant points to two discrepancies in staff
assertions.
The first discrepancy is that the definition that staff utilizes is the reference to "known ground
location" control points. As has been documented, the much-cited city limit lines west of the
subject property are not surveyed lines. There is no known ground location of those lines.
They were traced over non-surveyed, "as-is", tax lot maps. Given this, any claim staff has
made, or will make, regarding the use of the city limit lines to assist in locating the subject
property on the Metro Plan diagram is in error.
The second discrepancy is the conflict between two statements in staffs narrative regarding
"accuracy." In the first statement, staff says that accurately registering a map image (i.e.
the Metro Plan diagram) to map data layers can only be accomplished by using multiple map
referents (or control points)." Staff then says that although multiple referents in this case do
not align it is still "...preferable to use multiple map referents even if they do not line up with
100% accuracy."So, what is staff saying? They profess the need for accuracy but if
accuracy is not possible, as it's not in this case, then something less than accurate is okay.
Can't have it both ways. They certainly did not make a case that multiple referents are better.
Applicant's Response to the LHVC Submittal, Dated September 28, 2016
1. Applicant's Allegation 1: The LHVC Metro Plan Diagram vs. Applicant's True Copy.
In response to LHVC comments regarding the True Copy, see our statement above under
"Applicant's Response to the Eugene Planning Memorandum, Dated September 28, 2016, 1. Metro
Plan Used by LHVC."
Schirmer Satre Group 9 375 West 41h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 . (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 6 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5. 2016
In response to LHVC comments regarding pixels, please refer to the enclosed letter from Branch
Engineering, dated October 5, 2016.
In response to LHVC comments regarding the 1,200 dpi resolution of their copy of the Metro Plan
diagram, please note that staff says that the resolution was 600 dpi.
2. Applicant's Allegation 2: It is Impossible to Use More Than One Referent at a Time.
LHVC presented two arguments under the heading "Applicant's Allegation 2: It is Impossible to Use
More Than One Referent at a Time." The first is in regards to what was used and how they created
the diagrams in their September 28, 2016 submittal. The second is in regards to how the various
referents can, or cannot, align. The applicant addresses both of these arguments below.
A. LHVC's Maps Included with their September 28, 2016 Submittal.
LHVC used a scan of a copy of a PDF of the surveyor's map. They then overlaid that onto a scan
of a copy of a PDF of the applicant's map. They then "adjusted" that overlay by changing the
scale and rotation, creating a diagram another generation removed from the original. They then
added another scan of a copy of a PDF onto this new drawing, moved that new layer around,
creating another diagram another generation removed from the original. Really? So how
accurate is this? Scans? PDFs? Adjusting, scaling and rotating? Ever see the movie
'Multiplicity?' Everyone knows that a copy of a copy is not as sharp as the original. Successive
generations result in distortion and degradation.
B. How the Various Referents Do, or Do Not, Align.
After scanning, overlaying, scaling and rotating, LHVC stated that there is no perfect alignment.
(Gosh, that's just what the applicant said.) LHVC then stated, just as staff said, that if you can't
have accuracy, then it's okay to settle for something less.
3. Letter from Jan Wostmann.
The stated purpose of Jan Wostmann's September 28, 2016, letter is to get on the record a city staff
estimate of the POS acreage. As stated in the letter, the city used GIS data. It is fine that this
acreage calculation is now on the record. But it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant, first, because it has been
demonstrated that GIS data is not accurate and, second, because acreage is not a criterion for zone
change approval.
4. Letter from Sean Malone.
There were six sections to Mr. Malone's letter. Each is addressed (as A through F) below.
A. The applicant is incorrect to continue to allege that LHVC map 9/2115-04 is based on the
electronic version.
Mr. Malone's letter opens with a series of statements regarding the Metro Plan diagram used in
LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04. See the applicant's statement above under "Applicant's Response to the
Eugene Planning Memorandum, Dated September 28, 2016, 1. Metro Plan Used by LHVC."
B. LUBA directed that the Hearing Official to consider the city limits, Spring Boulevard, and the
"green finger."
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 7 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5, 2016
Mr. Malone then reminds everyone that LUBA directed the Hearings Official to consider the city
limits lines. As stated above, a key word here is "consider." LUBA directed the HO to consider
the city limits. LUBA did not mandate that the city limits lines be used. As has been stated
repeatedly, and demonstrated conclusively, the city limit lines west of the subject property, those
which are the subject of this discussion between all parties on the record, are NOT surveyed
lines. They are lines traced from tax lot maps which were obtained as GIS data from other
sources, including the city and LCOG. GIS data is not accurate. The city limits were not
surveyed. They cannot be used.
C. The applicant's new maps (ZC-4A through D) are not responsive to LUBA's remand.
Mr. Malone then states that the goal is accuracy, not perfection. In response, if one wants
accuracy, then one must rely on actual surveyed data. Not GIS data, not traced linework, but
actual, verified, documented surveyed data. The applicant is the only party on the record which
has submitted surveyed data. The subject property boundary has been surveyed. The location
of all of the cited referents have been surveyed.
D. LHVC's prior submitted map and newly submitted map are the most accurate maps before the
Hearing Official.
The applicant has previously documented, in great detail, how the LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 is NOT
accurate. This documentation was included in the applicant's open record submittal dated
September 28, 2016. For convenience, a portion of that testimony is repeated here. (Refer to the
applicant's open record submittal, dated September 28, 2016, for the full text.)
Excerpt from Applicant's Open Record Submittal, dated September 28, 2016:
B. A COMPARISON OF LHVC 912/15-04 AND ACTUAL SURVEYED DATA
This document lists the inconsistencies on the map LHVC 912115-04 which opponents assert is the
more accurate location of the boundary between the two land use designations.
LHVC 912115-04 (what makes up this original exhibit)
• Adopted 2004 Metro Plan scanned by the City of Eugene from a book they have in the office
that contains the Metro Plan (not scanned from the original document kept on file at the city
recorder's office).
• Schirmer Satre Groups ZC-2 (dated 5-15-2015).
Note: We have no direct knowledge of the methodology used to assemble this sheet however
what we do know is LHVC did not have access to an ACAD version of the surveyed line work.
They would have had to make a copy of the line work from the paper or PDF plans submitted
initially which necessarily makes the data a raster images (pixelated, less clear).
This non-A CAD (pixelated /raster) version would then have to be merged with the scan of the
Metro Plan.
The inherent accuracies in that methodology are evident when taking a close look at this sheet.
2. What We Found (letters on drawing correspond to the following comments)
Drawing ZC-4F
• When the drawing is scaled so that the bar scale in the lower right comer of the title block is
at exactly 1 "=200' then other lines within the drawing are not accurate.
Graphic Scale: 1 " = 200'
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 8 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5, 2016
A. North Property Line measures 3925.405' when in fact the survey indicates it is
3898.68'.
B. South Property Line measures 3189.69' when in fact the text on the line is 3164.95'.
Drawing ZC-4G
When the drawing is scaled so that the north property line (A) measures the same as the
survey text (3898.68) then the south property line (B) and the bar scale are not accurate.
Graphic Scale: I"= 198.44'
A. North Property Line measures 3898. 68' and the survey indicates it is 3898.68'.
B. South Property Line measures 3167.78' and the text on the line is 3164.95'.
Maps are only as good as the data used and the accuracy with which they can be assembled (or
not).
Sheet LHVC 912115-04 also contains inaccuracies because of the nature of the medium used to
assemble the maps. It is not that LHVC intentionally created maps that were inherently
inaccurate. There are simply limitations to accuracy based on limitations of the data used.
There is nothing more accurate than having original vector data (mathematical calculations from
one point to another creating a line) vs. raster (images made up of pixels as contained in Bit
Maps, PDFs, JPEGs and paint programs).
Vector graphics are resolution independent. Here is a picture that explains their accuracy better
The 4 plans submitted by the applicant at the public hearing on 9.21.16 (ZC-4A, ZC-4B, ZC-4C
and ZC-4D) are examples of plans that used a raster image for the Metro Plan (the official
adopted plan is on paper and therefore could only be a raster image) merged with the surveyed
referents (ACAD vector data).
It is the most accurate method of merging the Metro Plan with the surveyed referents.
Schirmer Satre Group . 375 West 41" Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 9 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5. 2016
We submitted a metes and bounds description that corresponds to the line that separates the
two land use designations. It was included in the applicant's open record submittal from last
year's hearing process regarding this zone change application. See Exhibit O, dated 8-31-15.
End of Excerpt from Applicant's September 28, 2016, Open Record Submittal.
E. LHVC's maps are consistent with the applicant's SA7.0 map.
Mr. Malone's citation of the "Notes" from Sheet SA7.0 provide sufficient documentation that Sheet
SA7.0 was constructed from inaccurate data. Specifically, this is as follows:
Sheet SA7.0 Notes
Accuracy
1.
Lot 70 1 property line based on a 6.27.20 II draft
The data described by Note 1 is the ONLY
survey by Branch Engineering. Other lot lines
surveyed data on the entire sheet.
based on RLID [Regional Land Information
Database) database.
2.
City limits and urban growth boundary digitized
GIS digital information obtained from LCOG.
manually based on 6.3.20 II LCOG [Lane
Council of Governments) map.
3.
LiDAR data received from LCOG on 7.5.20 11
GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The
and processed to align with survey in note 1.
data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment
and scale was modified to fit the other date as the
overall data assembly was occurring.
4.
Goal 5 data acquired digitally and processed to
GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The
align with survey in note 1.
data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment
and scale was modified to fit the other date as the
overall data assembly was occurring.
5.
2009 aerial photo acquired from USDA NA IP
GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The
program and processed to align with survey in
data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment
note 1.
and scale was modified to fit the other date as the
overall data assembly was occurring.
As the applicant has previously stated, Sheet SA7.0 was generated very early on in the project. I
was one of the first assemblages of in-process information, compiled as the information was
obtained. The purpose of Sheet SA7.0 was to begin to illustrate a general picture of the property
and its conditions. Sheet SA7.0 was not generated for the zone change application. It has never
been part of the zone change application. Oh, and Sheet SA7.0 also used the incorrect Metro
Plan diagram. Sheet SA7.0 did NOT use the adopted Metro Plan diagram.
F. The surveyor information submitted by applicant provides little to no new information.
Really? No new information? To the previously generated subject property boundary survey and
301h Avenue centerline the applicant's surveyor added the surveyed locations of all of the cited
referents, including the green finger, the centerline of Spring Blvd and Bloomberg Park.
There was plenty of new information in the surveyor's map.
What Mr. Malone should have said is that neither LHVC nor Mr. Malone presented any new
information at the hearing on September 21, 2016. (Nor did they submit any new information in
their open record submittal of September 28, 2016.)
Applicant's Conclusion and Recommendation
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4'' Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 . (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 10 of 10
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony
October 5, 2016
Again, GIS data is NOT accurate, the much-cited city limit lines west of the subject property are NOT
surveyed lines, and applicant drawing SA7.0 is NOT accurate, did NOT use the correct Metro Plan
diagram, and is NOT part of the zone change application. (By the way, in the world of surveying, GIS
means "Get It Surveyed.")
The city has NOT submitted any surveyed data of their own. LHVC has NOT submitted any surveyed
data of their own. Only the applicant has submitted survey data; data which accurately locates multiple
referents in relation to the subject property.
The city and LHVC have relied on tax lot maps and city limit lines, neither of which are on the Metro Plan
diagram and neither of which are surveyed information.
The only reliable data on the record which locates the subject property on the Metro Plan diagram is the
applicant's data, the applicant's Exhibit L, which was previously approved by the Hearings Official, and
upheld by the Planning Commission. As the applicant stated last week, the applicant believes that the
Hearings Official got it right the first time, that the applicant's Exhibit L, Adopted 2004 Metro Plan Map:
Rotated, dated 5-15-2015, revised 9-2-15, is the best representation of the subject property's location on
the Metro Plan diagram. The applicant believes that, with the additional documentation provided during
this remand hearing process, that the Hearings Official can reach the same conclusion.
This remand hearing is all about the boundary line between two land use designations. To date, with the
record now closed, neither the city nor LHVC have submitted a boundary line, nor a legal description of a
line. Only the applicant has done so. This is further evidence that the Hearings Official can approve the
applicant's zone change application, declaring Exhibit L as the correct alignment of the subject property
on the Metro Plan diagram.
This concludes the applicant's rebuttal testimony. In advance, thank you for your consideration of this
material.
Sincerely,
M. Sa~r&
Richard M. Satre, AICP, ASLA, CSI, Principal
Schirmer Satre Group
Enclosed:
Figure 1. Applicant-annotated Figure 1 from City of Eugene Memorandum to the Eugene Hearings
Official, dated September 28, 2016.
Figure 2. Applicant-annotated Figure 2 from the same memorandum.
Figure 3. Applicant-annotated Figure 3 from the same memorandum.
Figure 4. A to-scale full size plot from the actual CAD file used to generate Figure 2, showing the then-
consultant's GIS and LiDAR data in comparison with actual surveyed data.
Figure 5. Letter from Branch Engineering, Metro Plan LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z-15-5), dated October
5, 2016.
Figure 6. City of Eugene GIS Disclaimer.
Figure 7. Lane County Digital Product Disclaimer.
Figure 8. LCOG Disclaimer.
Figure 9. RLID Disclaimer.
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 . (541) 686-4540
COL 8 toL slol'oo-ovco-n ;;w
®
9
N
390IM13unwi
.~<.<
Ala3doad 103rens
V
w..eeo.~a~3'.oe
~
:3JNbHO 3NOZ
d~on. 3n... n3.n.. ~s
• LnN
VI
U-
(n Z
ww
(n w
z
Tv
fl- 2
U) H
W
W
QQ(n
J00
M ~ ~
QQQ
0
0
U
J
E
O
U) -0
z o
J O_
. ~ W
co
Q O j
J 0 co N
~ L O O
0(Dzz
. .
w
0 U)
Z Z
Q Z W
W I o
(n~W~
H
FM- Q0
Q
w°
Oz c
w N
~wfr F-
p LL w
ll
wQ0(n
H J Z
U) 3: <
2 2 (50
1-(nQZ
r
`
Q
l.._..~ 00
_ _..I
N CA
w
N
W
r ~
° W
0 6
°O
ra
0
Xea
F#N
W
° 2 w
°oa
mwa
venx zo ~F~
z ~0 SQO
zm
Fo is~u
o R zo ~;€W I-z
z
a s ~
l
0
w F-
Zb- O
z
U) H W
W w Q
wZOw
wF-(ow
J co C (n
w
w
w
v7_~~
wzwIII
z0wrr
J 0 M Q
a) W CL
CO Q
Q
UJUWO
Z co Z)
(z~-0D0
UUQ(nm
C
7
v/ -
-0 0)
N Q~ O
J
~ ~ 7
a~ m (n c
c
w
s=~o
z O
a)
wa
F
(n (n :3
E
co (D
°aZ
a
wOgQ
'
'O(D- c N
h o~~;M
~ I
C L
O
a mfua«
/
N J (Z
~
o - a'rn a
i
LO
OD -j CL (1)
/
I
V
\
a
oo;--
LO
00
1
1
1
_I
~
V
O
a~ o
C 'y
LLJ
O)
O .s
C'
va
N
7
ILL
0
LU U)
~0
Q x
cn
Wcr -
SO O
S
w
U u)
Z
Q Z
U) Z w
w=
U) Er w
IDF-
Q Q
~2w
!4-wor
o-T LL
WQo
F- J
J
D
T-OQ
0
LLJ C/)
(n F- -
a)
1 5,
Q -e CV
0 US
Cf) Cc O
('3LL-C~
L 1 • R~ o c6-c5:-1>5 iv cr= as, Irs • OOS;EXa00V S;1adOJd IIIH s313I.IpOOH
q-n37W8 V3153'n n9 ,q
_ ul
7\I 'sa aNiT= --INUIMXI(7
a eq J%_ o , aaaBn3 N
jb~
- ~'l1(, 114~~t
F~.'~ f1,1 //l l/'"(j j~ ~j i/ 1f~1 ~i//1/ i
r / 1 ! . ~ \
.
\ ! i + + S1 It
ji~O
• Wit: ~ ~ -
I,~AkS
~.(;/~~i J.?i%
Val ~ , , II ''~~~~~~~~;/f~/~/~%~r lll1( +,I y~f\\'~\ ~ f 1 ` f 1. '•J ~If `-`t
4 j1 I ~r ,1.~ I.~•
"Ilt
1,4:1l,•\~\~ +l}~`~;~\~ - ~~`~h, r %=?;,~==-1t~~~11' ~q 111 ' f ~~':if_ ~
: ~y •'t~~\ j y ~ y I r~~4 li/r .:;111ir1~~ ~ ~ /r/~~' `~J _ - \l{ l; ° ~
\ \ i ~ 1, ~r i ~ r ~ 1, l,';','tid/'•'/ rl ~I - _ ~,1~t\ i~ ,1;".' I~' 1
~ 'n•rr`~•'''.~` A V,
r~
1'
/ f q ~ / !i:, iii /lie-'~' f`/r~!•%~~~'~' ~ j / I 11`~ .a..~ ;r -r i, ~ ~ s'
/ 17'' 1• r/: /~J r/ ;n:T r~ y II 1. fi-.~~ • ,.I ~ 1/•
! . .~,t `F~• ,:1\~~ ~I,'r)~l jli/~~1/yl~'' ~If ~~11,r-- - :6-.' ~ 1~~j~/~i^~~' 1 ~l~ ~flf I
it 1~ it / I` ~ i
/l~'r % U Ila~~il `.•ii.~i / 't~: - t I,l~,.~-- - i-~-.r- -'.;f'rr ~:r
i.'•%%~~/%r~/~J/,JI I ~r`~~:r j~~l ~ ,
' is ~C / r, i ` ( i r 1. ~ ~ 1 ~ / • r r ,r ; \ r.
~l`y1), 1//r '1 9tJi JI l 1 i1 f/1 r l!' •L~{t
I'lll~ `l•: r/~~/~/R/~f,~~~ SS \ 1 I~P' ~r \J~f~:. - u ~__Y
1 I t ~I 1, t t 1 ~i +
151 Hi.l`c/ /
%1 x \k I
V 11
'NQ I IH
1~r1,1.
/f1
(D C:
h\\~' C 0 CI:
'l5 7ov~~d~; T y~ \h ,y _ ~ ~ ~ = i ;-•rr F r/ /~Y% ~ ' , ~~~1~ ~1 ~
ICU:
LO :3 C:
.10c) co E o
_Cy +Jrir'f'~~/. •;~I`;'+':, t I V I C
O.1 I _ ` T I T , I ~/f)1(f r':1 , 111 1 ~ ~ ~
~ ® ~r 1 • r
-.IY-..Ll - .C) , .f f!~~1 /',111 r•r /
o 00 Jr 1, ~I: dty L V v..
ALP' a) CO
CZ)
C11
it M O Q) c
•a a- O C15
c`; J 20CE:
M
fD
L
L1..
cu
'U)
V
-1--0
c
E
c
L
0
0
U
J
c
O
-cu
c
cn
N
U_
s
(6
fLn
V
rn
c
s
U
C
N
N
J
W
U co p
z Z
Q Z W
C/) W 2 0
o2 L)
C/) 2 W a0
2-) F- 0
H U) Q Z
LL w F-
0 2 W
oo
c
H W CC: t-
M: W
W
cl t-
LL
w Q cl CQ
IrH1: Z5
JZ
cn Q O
w3: Z
un
F- 11
0 U0
A
2
H(AQZ
r
LLJ-
o
:EJ
~
U)
Ln
N
C:)
Lo
-1-.
T- -ct E
o`ro
w
co u.
L)
i
o
- -
I~-
SPRING BLVD
(Do
o
W
7
c
_
°
v a
o~
r
c
O
N
U
O C
N N
N
O 4-
N
E
OL
CD
a) c
(D
O
LL
C)
O
O
10
Lr)
~o
LO
N
0 O
N
cn
J +r
O
X
U Icu
U
a-
J
U M
+
` 3 co
4 VJ J
® I
Figure 5
Branch
HotINEERING=
Since 1977
October 5, 2o16
Rick Satre
Schirmer Satre Group
375 W 4th Ave #201
Eugene, OR 97401
.,Received
OCT 05 2016
RE: METRO PLAN ALIGNMENT City of Eugene
LAURELRIDGE ZONE CHANGE (Z 15-5) Planning Division
Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. 11-o68:2d
Dear Rick,
This letter provides information for your use when merging and/or comparing Branch
Engineering's survey data with data from other sources. The survey data referred to is our map
dated September 20, 2016 titled "Exhibit Map Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z15-5)"•
Scaling Accuracy
When taking a measurement from a paper map, the effect of the drawing's scale needs to
be taken into consideration. A large scale drawing (such as 1"=20') will support more accurate
measurements than a small scale drawing (such as 1"=1000'). This is due to a number of probably
very obvious factors, the most important of which is the eye's ability to discern fine measurements.
In the context of the application submittals to date, this is relevant to both Mr. Schlieder's
assertion in his September 28, 2016 letter that I incorrectly scaled the pixels at 15' instead of 17.5'
and the city's measurement of 850' from site to city limits in their September 28, 2016 letter.
The city took measurements from a paper copy of "Zone Change: Subject Property", sheet
ZC-2, dated May 15, 2015. This drawing has a scale of 1"=200' which means that 1'=0.005". By
my measurements on this map, the property line scales as having a width of 15' and the city limits
line a width of 5'. It is well known that on the ground neither of these lines has a width so the first
potential for inaccuracy is estimating the center of the two lines. Once this is done to the best of
the person's ability, the second opportunity for inaccuracy arises: the resolution of the naked eye.
I do not know the scientifically accepted value for the resolution of the naked eye, but I have
personally never felt able to accurately identify a measurement of less than half of the distance
between ticks on an engineer's scale; for 1"=200' half the distance between ticks is 5'.
A similar conversation exists around the scaling of pixels from the drawing titled "Zone
Change: Metro Plan Diagram on Subject Prop", sheet ZC-4, dated May 15, 2015. The drawing has
a scale of 1"=200' which means that 1'=0.005". This is the same scale as the map discussed above.
As mentioned there, I do not know the scientifically accepted value for the resolution of the naked
eye; I rather doubt the naked eye can discern 0.0025" for the 0.5' accuracy Mr. Schlieder seems
to feel capable of. Put another way, Mr. Schlieder apparently feels able to accurately identify
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER
310 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 1 p: 541.746.0637 1 f: 541.746.0389 1 www.branchengineering.com
Metro Plan Alignment
October 5, 2016
fractions of 1/20th the distance between measurement ticks which, for 1"=200' scale, are 0.05"
apart on an engineer's scale.
GIS
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is primarily an inventory database in visual
format. As such, it is intended to be conceptual, not exact, so will have a lower accuracy than
many other data sources. This is well represented by the City of Eugene's GIS disclaimer, located
at https://www.eu-gene-or.90V/1',I.r,2/--Mal)s-and-GIS-Disclaimer, which is copied here:
GIS Disclaimer
The maps and data available for access from the City of Eugene are provided "as is"
without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness or completeness. The
burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability, and fitness
for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user accessing this information.
The City of Eugene makes no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the use of the maps
and data available for access at this website. There are no implied warranties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The user acknowledges and accepts
all inherent limitations of the maps and data, including the fact that the maps and data
are dynamic and in a constant state of maintenance, correction and revision. Any maps
and associated data for access do not represent a survey. No liability is assumed for the
accuracy of the data delineated on any map, either expressed or implied.
Comparisons
Using comparative measurements between two or more data sources can be an
informative exercise but does not always provide conclusive evidence. Although the same
measurement may come from both sources, it doesn't guarantee the accuracy of any source; it
simply shows that they are based on similar data and have similar levels of accuracy.
Please feel free to let me know if there are any questions about the survey data or this
letter.
Sincerely,
Renee Clough Digitally signed by Renee Clough
Date: 2016.10.05 10:12:52 -07'00'
Renee Clough, PLS, PE, AICP
Principal
Branch Engineering Inc.
Branch Engineering, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
/laps and GIS Disclaimer I Eugene, OR Website
Maps and GIS Disclaimer
Figure 6
.-Received
OCT 05 2016
GIS Disclaimer
The maps and data available for access from the City of Eugene are
provided "as is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy,
timeliness or completeness. The burden for determining accuracy,
completeness, timeliness, merchantability, and fitness for or the
appropriateness for use rests solely on the user accessing this
information.
The City of Eugene makes no warranties, expressed or implied, as to
the use of the maps and data available for access at this website. There
are no implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. The user acknowledges and accepts all inherent limitations of
the maps and data, including the fact that the maps and data are
dynamic and in a constant state of maintenance, correction and
revision. Any maps and associated data for access do not represent a
survey. No liability is assumed for the accuracy of the data delineated
on any map, either expressed or implied.
Contact Us
City of Eugene
125 E. 8th Avenue
2nd Floor
Eugene, OR 97401
Ph: 541-682-5010
Fx: 541-682-5414
_.hare
ittps://www.eugene-or.gov/1352/Maps-and-GIS-Disclaimer
City of Eugene
Planning Division
9/30/201(
Figure 7
LANE COUNTY INFORMATION SERVICES
DIGITAL PRODUCT DISCLAIMER and PERMITTED USE
Any user of this digital product accepts no warranties and expressly waives any implied warranties as to
fitness, merchantability, design, construction, condition, specifications or performance.
The County of Lane disclaims, and shall not be held liable for, any and all damages, loss or liability,
whether direct, indirect, or consequential, that arises or may arise from this product or the use thereof by
any person or entity.
The user of this digital product hereby agrees to, and shall, indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the
County of Lane against any and all claims, causes of action, losses, damages, attorney fees, expenses
(including any attorney fees incurred by the County of Lane) that may be sustained or asserted against
the County arising from, or in any way connected to, its use by the user, and any of the users, officers,
employees, agents, assigns, and successors.
Current configurations and/or designations for specific parcels should always be confirmed with the
appropriate jurisdiction(s).
Permitted Use:
The digital data are for the use of the user only in its lawful business activity and for no other purpose
whatsoever, and are not to be redistributed. User can provide read-only access to the product by other
persons through the means of the Internet or Intranet provided the following Lane County disclaimer is
made available to the Internet user.
"The information provided by Lane County, Oregon has been developed to support county business. This
product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal,
engineering, or surveying purposes. Lane County is not responsible for possible errors, omissions,
misuse or misinterpretation."
Signed:
User/Agency:
Please return a signed original of this form to:
Lane County Information Services
Attention: GIS
3040 N. Delta Hwy.
Eugene, OR 97408
Date:
Received
OCT 0 5 [Oio
City of Eugene
Planning Division
"Received Figure 8
OCT 0 5 2016
DIGITAL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATe
ORDER FORM & LICENSE AGREEMENT ]ty of Eugene
Planning Division
Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) is providing the requested digital GIS data for the exclusive use of the
requestor, for the specific project described below. This geographic information is part of a geographic data base
that is confidential and exempt from public disclosure under ORS 190.050. No further distribution or second party
use of this data is authorized without the written approval of LCOG.
Complete this form and send to attention of LCOG Storefront (phone 541-682-4467, fax 541-682-2635).
1. Company, Agency or Individual (Requestor):
2. Address:
3. Contact Person: Phone #/Ext:
4. Project Name:
5. Brief Description of Project:
6. Area of Interest:
7. List Data Layers:
8. Intended Use of Data:
9. File Format (e.g. Shapefile, DXF, E00, TIFF or other):
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
Requestor assumes all responsibility for the use of this product and agrees to hold harmless LCOG against
any loss or damage arising from any error, omission or positional inaccuracy of this product.
The parties to this agreement are the agency or business firm requesting the digitally compiled spatial data who are
also the end user of the data (referred to as Requestor) and LCOG. By signing this agreement, Requestor agrees to
be bound by terms of this agreement. Requestor understands that the digitally compiled Geographic Information
System data provided under this agreement is provided "as-is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or
implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. The relative accuracy and
absolute accuracy of this product are not guaranteed by LCOG. Requestor agrees that LCOG liability whether in
contracts, in tort (including negligence), in strict liability or otherwise shall not exceed the return of the license price
and under no circumstance shall LCOG be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damage, including
personal injury, property damage, damage or loss of equipment, lost profit or revenue, cost of renting replacement
and other additional expenses, even if LCOG has been notified of the possibility of such damages. THE LICENSE
TO USE THIS DATA SHALL BE LIMITED TO USE ON THE PROJECT SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
ANY OTHER USE FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO RELICENSING.
10. Project Manager (name and title):
11. Signature (required):
Date:
2/15/2007
Figure 9
Richard Satre
From: BRANDT Eric <EBRANDT@Icog.org>
.'Received
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Richard Satre
Subject: RE: LCOG Disclaimer?
OCT 0 5 2016
Categories: Planning Project
City of Eugene
Planning Division
Hi Richard,
Thanks for checking-in on this. We've included standard disclaimer language along with metadata and usage
information throughout the pages of the RLID website-click on the links (i red boxes) as shown in the example
below.
R
Maps
Here is the initial content for this disclaimer:
RLID contains maps in a variety of forms. For example, maps appear on every detailed property report
(DPR) as well as on the comp sales report and in Lane Maps.
The information on these maps was derived from digital databases in the regional geographic information
system (GIS). Where feasible, the GIS data on which these maps are based is maintained and published in
a timely fashion in order to keep it in synch with the other data content in RLID. Care was taken in the
creation of these maps, but they are provided "as is". LCOG cannot accept any responsibility for errors,
omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. Current designations (e.g.,
zoning) for specific parcels should be confirmed with the appropriate jurisdictions. There are no warranties,
expressed or implied, accompanying these maps, however, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
There is also a brief disclaimer statement included in the splash screen that displays upon launch of the main
mapping applications in RLID (see below):
LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
0~%~_%Ifar,'dngYugetherSorOurCcnomunftV
Initializing Components. Please Wait._.
i her sr= na wsrrsme , exFr?s or imnl ao, inda-Jing tt c v.wr rly
cS mErchsntadri?r cr :mess fur a ps-mular p:jn3A i scoamps-Iicg
iEu= _Re cr _ny display crvdud or r pnri derived fr+m lhi= slfe. Th=
sppli,-Lure L= eleniled For c e~~ce oriy frrnrfr3ton 4l m app ea
in tnL__ppliwaton my or may not iae.acura:°, G;-7rant, cr
oLhcm-~sa TPJie&__
I HIS Si TIE IS NGT TO H_ Ust P-7- q MdWiC-ATI0:4 OR rOF.
LEGAL PLrRf- $w-
TnappG;7cn u_= I't°° Q;aaser1____ teehn¢'a.gY rrrr
Es-tt AmSI> Sm,=- A, I T ghts rexried
There is an overall disclaimer link on the RLID home page as well but it sounds like your interest is specific to map
and imagery references. Please feel free to follow-up with me if you have something more specific in mind. For
example, we have standard language on our hard copy maps and the initial disclaimer above is a variation of
this. Eric
Eric Brandt, GISP
RLID/GIS Services Program Manager
Lane Council of Governments
859 Willamette Street, Suite 500
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-4338
ebrandt@lcog.org
http://www.Icog.org
From: Richard Satre [mai Ito: rick@schirmersatre.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 3:43 PM
To: BRANDT Eric
Subject: LCOG Disclaimer?
Hello, Eric. Our paths haven't crossed in a while. I hope all is well with you. I am looking for some sort of a standard
disclaimer that LCOG may have regarding its maps, GIS data, aerial photos, etc. Is there such a disclaimer
statement? If so, could you send a copy to me? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Richard M. Satre, AICP, ASLA, CSI
Schirmer Satre Group
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 686-4540 `Fax (541) 686-0577' www.schirmersatre.com
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain certain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. Ifyou received this message in error, immediately advise the sender by reply email and destroy this message. Thank you..
0 8
9~.__
- ~ t i
r
.W, a
,I
~ w
K ~ r•. ~wi~^^" mmm~mnmuun w. > 3 ~ 1
f I a - ; a a m a eau ~ s~ s d o w m a m~ a a m m v z.r::rnz;. rrmVptltlp w ¢ iomx~rh ne, ,k rnaru. e a MnY • a a m vrx ,ae m ro .,z » n ~irn, o ed„~a .0 'a e, a. r.,.e., ~ d b a m a
w, wa ..n, ~ p~xe~c ~ i, ~ e
_
Ni fl. . 't. r:. ~I / ~
n e n
e o m F, E
k ~
m y, n "j,
F
~ » 'G°
a ~ n, (I
1 ~ r,,
H n ..e.~~.~~ .mss,.,.. ,~~:a
x4
~ ,
0 r n➢ 'j e i I
~Mp f i ~ ~ ,F
~ ~ h ~ ~ 1 2
r s .w......
i c, ~r r 4
I ~ry~i r „ i
r. i ~,ai
n ~ ,
;r r.
r ~ ~x.;~ r~ r,.
. s ~ ~
n`,.~r~,
~ ^ ~
f~, re
a ,a r
;.d
w
~i a.
a w w u,,, n ~,,,,,e~~ a ~ a J i;
u a a
ti ~ ~ Y~li
w ~ ~ ~
r
~ ~
7
r
~ p
UVXE~ 'eo 4 m y.' ♦ ~
s o a.. w
I W niminnnn nnnnn tl i
m aM.~~ pmt ~
„ ~ ~
L)i'
~ & I
' I ~
_ - _