LaurelRidge Page 2 of 10 <br />Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) <br />Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony <br />October 5 2016 <br />The applicant agrees with LUBA, the Hearings Official can consider city limit lines, but points out <br />that the Hearings Official is not required to use city limit lines. <br />As for surveyed city limit lines, the applicant has previously stated that the blue dashed line on <br />the original zone change plans (Sheets ZC-2, ZC-4, ZC-5 and ZC-6, dated 5-15-2015) was a line <br />traced over tax lot maps which were received in a GIS format from the Lane Council of <br />Governments (LCOG). The only portion of that blue dashed line which is surveyed is the <br />segment coincident with the subject property boundary. As for Note 2 on those 5-15-2015 sheets, <br />that note is referring to a 6.27.2011 survey. That survey did not include the city limit lines which <br />are not coincident with the subject property. <br />As the applicant documented in its open record testimony from September 28, 2016, city limit <br />lines on the record for this application have been located with the use of tax lot maps and tax lot <br />maps are inaccurate. <br />Regarding the second LUBA citation above, it has been documented, and not contested, that the <br />centerline of 30th Avenue is a reliable referent. Therefore, the Hearings Official can give <br />appropriate evidentiary consideration that the 30th Avenue centerline is reliable. As noted herein, <br />and in prior testimony, the Hearings Official can also give appropriate evidentiary consideration <br />that city limit lines are an unreliable referent. <br />B. Three Diagrams. <br />To augment their assertion that the city limits line shown on the applicant's original zone change <br />application diagrams (notably ZC-2 and ZC-4), staff generated three exhibits - diagrams is which <br />they "took measurements." <br />1. Figure 1 from City Submittal, dated September 28, 2016. <br />In the first measurement, on the applicant's diagram ZC-2, staff measured "...the distance <br />between the western property boundary and the far western reach of the city limits line <br />(directly west of the subject property)..." Staff states that that measured distance is <br />approximately 850 feet. In response, the applicant notes that it doesn't matter what that <br />distance measures. The referenced city limit line is not a surveyed line. As documented <br />elsewhere on the record, the city limit lines west of the subject property are lines traced off of <br />a GIS-based tax lot data set obtained from Lane Council of Governments early on in the <br />applicant's process of analyzing the subject property. In summary, staff's first measured <br />drawing is faulty and cannot be used. <br />See marked-up Figure 1, attached, containing applicant comments. The city limit line <br />referenced is actuality the east edge of the green finger. Measurements taken from the <br />surveyed referents result in two different measurements indicating that the lines are not <br />parallel and that the GIS data is inaccurate. <br />2. Figure 2 from City Submittal, dated September 28, 2016. <br />In the second measurement, staff utilized a copy of an exhibit from the subject property's <br />annexation application from 2006. This exhibit contains topography, tax lot lines and other <br />miscellaneous information. Staff measured the distance between the lines on this exhibit <br />representing the subject property and the same city limit line referenced above west of the <br />subject property. Staff states that the distance is 850 feet. In response, the applicant <br />contacted the consulting engineer who generated the original 2006 annexation application <br />Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, UK a r4U1 • too 1) 000-404v <br />