HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Materials (7-2-15)
SCHIRMER SATRE GROUP
Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
th
375 West 4 Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 686-4540 • Fax (541) 686-4577 • www.schirmersatre.com
TRANSMITTAL
TO:City of Eugene DATE: July 1, 2015
Planning and Development Dept. PROJECT: LaurelRidge Residential
Planning Division Planned Unit Development
th
99 West 10 Avenue Zone Change (Z 15-5)
CLIENT PROJ #:
Eugene, OR 97401
ATTN: SSG PROJ #:
Eric Berg-Johansen 1104
TRANSMITTED: DISPOSITION:
Herewith X For Your Approval
Separate Cover For Your Information/Use X
Other For Reply
TRANSMITTED:
# Copies Item Dated No. Pages
(In addition to this cover page)
3 paper copies and one CD of a:
Completeness Review Response package Various Dates Several
REMARKS:
This Completeness Review Response package is hereby submitted on behalf of the
applicant, Environ-Metal Properties LLC. The submittal package includes:
1. Completeness Review Response Letter.
2. Exhibit H – Boundary Commission Final Order, C EU 07-37 (Oct 4, 2007).
3. Exhibit I – Staff Notes, Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (Oct 4, 2007).
4. Exhibit J – Alder Woods, Hearing Official decision (PDT 07-5) (Sept 10, 2008).
5. Exhibit K – Alder Woods, Planning Commission Decision (PDT 07-5) (Nov 5, 2008).
We look forward to your assistance with the project. Don’t hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions or need any additional information. Thank you.
COPIES TO: BY:
Agency
File X Consultant Team X
Owner X Other Richard M. Satre, AICP, ASLA, CSI
July 1, 2015
City of Eugene
Planning & Development Department
Planning Division
th
99 West 10 Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Attn: Erik Berg-Johansen
Assistant Planner
Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5)
Response to Completeness Review
Dear Erik,
This response to the completeness review letter dated June 26 is organized according to the six points in
the letter.
The applicant requests that this application be deemed complete for processing.
None of the items requested is a completeness review item. Each requests additional information in
support of the application. We provide the information nevertheless.
Completeness review letter contents are in bold italics. Applicant’s responses are in plain text.
1. EC 9.8865(1) – Please expand the discussion of all potentially relevant Metro Plan policies,
including those that address the protection of open spaces and natural areas (e.g. Policy C.21).
Using the August 14, 2013 Staff Report for the previous zone change for this property as a guide, Metro
Plan Policy C.21 is the only policy the Staff Report found to be a relevant standard. The other policies
addressed in that application narrative the Staff Report found to be inapplicable. See Staff Report Z 12-2.
The Staff Report found:
“Otherwise, it appears that the applicant’s discussion of other Metro Plan policies is
largely unnecessary, as the policies are aspirational, directed at the local government in
terms of legislative actions, or have been implemented through standards within the
City’s land use code that are applicable to the applicant’s proposed PUD rather than the
zone change.”
The application narrative for this rezoning addressed Metro Plan Environmental Resources Policy C.21
as follows:
Environmental Resources Element
Metro Plan Policy C.21. When planning for and regulating development, local
governments shall consider the need for protection of open spaces, including those
characterized by significant vegetation and wildlife. Means of protecting open space
include but are not limited to outright acquisition, conservation easements, planned
unit development ordinances, streamside protection ordinances, open space tax
deferrals, donations to the public, and performance zoning.
City of Eugene Page 2 of 5
LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review
July 1, 2015
Finding: The City of Eugene has addressed the need to protect open spaces,
including those areas of significant vegetation with its Goal 5 Water Resources
Conservation Plan (Ordinance 20351) which established streamside protection
measures. In addition, Eugene’s Planned Unit Development ordinance includes in its
General Criteria provisions a requirement to “minimize impacts to the natural
environment” (EC 9.8320(4)). The proposal is in compliance with Metro Plan Policy
C.21 as it includes a request to include in the zone change request the application of
the Planned Unit Development overlay zone (/PD). With this, any future land use
application seeking development approval will need to address PUD criteria,
including that in regards to the environment.
To expand on this policy, the applicant would point out that it is not a relevant standard for this site-
specific zone change application. First, it is a “consideration” not a mandatory standard. Second, it is a
directive to the local government; it is not intended to be relevant to a zone change application. Third,
this application is not related to “planning for development.” It is just an application for zoning to match a
previous ultimate policy choice that this land should be LDR. Fourth, it is not related to “regulating
development.” No development is proposed in connection with this application. In summary, this policy
does not apply to this application.
2. Methodology/UGB – In the 2012 Laurel Ridge Hearings Official Decision (Z 12-2), the Official
states that “…the UGB and 30th Avenue are sufficient reference points upon which to locate the
subject property” (page 8). Please further explain the applicant’s position as to the use of the UGB
as a referent, in light of the Hearings Official’s clear statement noted above. If the applicant
believes the UGB as shown on the Metro Plan diagram is not an appropriate referent, please
clarify that reasoning in more detail (i.e. why the applicant disagrees with the Hearings Official,
staff and opponents use of the UGB as a referent in the prior case), and why it is included on plan
sheet ZC-4 (Diagram on Subject Prop.). The applicant should also provide an explanation of its
position in light of LUBA’s extensive discussion about the UGB as a sufficient reference point.
In summary, the relevant question is locating the boundary line between the LDR and the POS on the
subject property. The location of the subject property is known precisely, because it is surveyed. The
location of the UGB is known precisely on the subject property because it was reduced to a metes and
bounds line at the time of the annexation, as anticipated by the text of the Metro Plan. The generalized
UGB line on the Diagram is not accurate with respect to the LDR/POS line.
In Round I for this property, the UGB line on the Metro Plan was used to determine that some part of the
property inside the UGB was intended to be POS. The UGB line on the Metro Plan was not used in
Round I to determine where the boundary line is located. That is the sole issue in this application –
locating the LDR/POS boundary line.
The UGB dashed line on the Metro Plan diagram is not a useful referent for determining the exact
location of the boundary line for several reasons.
First, as LUBA noted, the UGB line on the Diagram is generalized and is about 1/20 of an inch wide. That
makes it about a 350-foot line at the scale 1”=7,000’ of the Metro Plan diagram.
1
LUBA slip op 15 line 5:
1 The full list of decisions in Round I is: Hearing Official Decision, Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-15 (Sept. 17, 2013),
aff’d
th
Eugene Planning Commission (Oct. 14, 2013), , __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No.
aff’d Environ-Metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene
2013-098, Jan. 29, 2014) , 263 Or App 714 (A156190, June 11, 2014).
,aff’d without opinion
Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540
City of Eugene Page 3 of 5
LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review
July 1, 2015
“As explained above, the UGB line as depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram (and
earlier maps) is approximate and generalized in this area, and the UGB line was not
located with precision until the 2007 annexation decision. According to petitioners, the
dashed line representing the UGB on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram is approximately
th
1/20 of an inch wide, which at the one inch to 7,000 feet scale of the map represents a
width of approximately 350 feet on the ground.”
Second, the UGB line on the Diagram is by definition not fixed at any location – not to any location on the
ground and not in relation to any other feature on the Diagram. It is a floater. This is evident from the
following information in the record:
“(a) The text of the Metro Plan says that the UGB shown on the Diagram at this location
is generalized, and its exact location is not determined until annexation.
The UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has
been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the
outside edge of existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places, the UGB is
determined on a case-by-case basis through interpretation of the Metro Plan
Plan Boundaries Map in this Metro Plan and the following factors (see Metro Plan
Boundaries Map Key).” Metro Plan at II-G-14.
The UGB location became fixed at the south property line of the subject property line at the time of
annexation in 2007. See Exhibit H, Boundary Commission Final Order, C EU 07-37 (Oct. 4, 2007), and
Exhibit I, Staff Notes, Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (Oct 4, 2007), both
attached hereto.
Put differently, there is no basis for saying where on the Metro Plan diagram the actual, adopted UGB line
is located. Therefore, the UGB line on the Diagram is not a “referent” for locating the POS. It has no
precise relationship to the actual location of the UGB.
The position of the staff, the opponents, and the Hearing Official are not relevant to determining whether
the UGB line on the Metro Plan diagram is useful in determining the precise location of the boundary
between the LDR and the POS on the Metro Plan diagram. Neither the HO nor the PC spoke with
respect to this issue in Round I. They only said that some part of the POS is on the subject property, not
where the exact boundary line is. The opponents are advocates for a position; responding in advance to
positions the opponents might take is not a completeness review issue.
As we explained in our narrative, the location of the LDR/POS line is an element of the plan; the meaning
of the plan is a question of law; it is the city’s law; the city has the burden of explaining what the standard
means; there is only one correct meaning of the law in any decision made by Hearing Official or the
Planning Commission. Because there will be no City Council interpretation of where this line is, the final
city decision will be afforded no deference on appeal. The City needs to guess right about what the law is
(where the line is), not make policy about where it would like the line to be.
The burden here, with respect to determining where this plan line is, belongs to the City, not the applicant,
as was explained by the HO and the PC in the context of the Alder Woods PUD decision. There the
issue was determining the location of a Goal 5 line on a plan. It was explained that the City has the initial
burden under state law to identify the standards and review the application against those standards. That
means the city must identify the plan boundary line and explain the methodology it used to establish it.
The Hearing Official said, at page 11 para 6 of the Alder Woods decision:
“The hearings official interprets this standard to require the city to identify the applicable
standards and criteria, and review the application against those standards. It does not
require the applicant to discern the applicability of the standards in the first instance.
Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540
City of Eugene Page 4 of 5
LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review
July 1, 2015
Viewed in that way, the city has initial burden to identify the boundaries of the /WR
resource site and explain the methodology it used to establish the top of bank. In turn, the
applicant has the burden of demonstrating that its proposal satisfies the standards as
applied by the city. Here, that means that, given the boundaries of the /WR resource site,
the proposed conservation setback is consistent with the setback methodology set out in
EC 9.4920. If, as here, the applicant disagrees with the city's identification of the resource
site and "top of bank," the applicant has the burden of showing why the resource area is
misidentified and, correspondingly, explain why the proposal meets the applicant's view
of the standard. \[FN omitted\]”
See Exhibit J, Alder Woods, Hearing Official Decision (PDT 07-5) (Sept. 10, 2008); and Exhibit K, Alder
Woods, Planning Commission Decision (PDT 07-5) (Nov. 5, 2008), both attached hereto.
In summary, the city has the burden of explaining where the line it; that begins with the city staff, not the
applicant. However, because the applicant must file the initial narrative, the applicant must make the first
interpretation of the law, based on the rules that apply. However, if the City disagrees with the applicant’s
placement of the boundary line on the plan (that is, what the standard in the plan is), then it is the city’s
burden to explain what the standard means and why it has reached that conclusion. Simply put, the plan
line is city law; the city needs to justify the location it picks; the applicant has stated its position, and has
explained why the UGB line on the Diagram is not a referent suitable for locating the line. The applicant
looks forward to responding to the staff’s explanation of where the line is and its methodology for reaching
that conclusion.
3. Methodology/North Arrow – Exhibit F states that the 30th Avenue, the UGB and the Diagram’s
north arrow “…were referred to by staff as ‘Referents.’” Staff does not recall advising the
applicant to rely on the north arrow or how, nor does the Hearings Official or LUBA appear to use
it in his analysis of the prior case. Please further explain how the applicant has used the north
arrow as a referent, and how the correct mapping orientation (i.e. true north) is maintained
through the process of overlaying the Metro Plan diagram with surveyed data (e.g. 30th Avenue,
the UGB, and the subject tax lots).
The applicant used the North arrow on the Metro Plan diagram as a referent because it is the most
reliable single referent on the Diagram. The symbol on the Diagram says “N”. It does not say “Magnetic
N;” it does not say “approximately N.” There is not plausible meaning for the symbol other than true
North.
As explained in our narrative, starting with the Metro Plan diagram and the surveyed site plan at the same
scale, we aligned the north arrow of the surveyed site plan with north arrow on the Metro Plan diagram
th
and then aligned each sheet to get the best fit with 30 Avenue, as shown on the Diagram and as
th
surveyed on the site plan. The north arrow and 30 Avenue haven’t changed, haven’t moved, they are the
best, and only, reliable referents found on the Metro Plan diagram.
4. Transportation Planning Rule – Please address the existence (or lack thereof) of the Parks and
Open Space (POS) comprehensive plan designation at the time the TSP was adopted, and how
this relates to the requested TPR exemption.
The POS plan designation at this location was adopted with the initial Metro Plan and diagram in 1980. A
comparison of each reprinting of the Diagram in successive publications of the Plan (1980, 1987, 2004)
shows the POS line moving about just a smidgen, but the text of the plan and intervening plan
amendments do not show the line being changed as a policy choice. That is, there were no plan
amendments to the Metro Plan diagram in this area since the initial plan adoption in 1980. The ordinance
adopting the latest Metro Plan diagram includes no decision to change the location of the POS in the area
of this site. Thus, the POS designation at this location has been in place since the beginning – 1980.
Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540
City of Eugene Page 5 of 5
LaurelRidge Zone Change (Z 15-5) – Response to Completeness Review
July 1, 2015
Therefore, it predates the adoption of the current TransPlan. Therefore, this application is entitled to the
exception stated in OAR 660-012-0060(9).
5. Previous Site Analysis Map – A map similar to the current plan sheet ZC-4 (Diagram on Subject
Prop.) was included as Attachment B in the 2012 Hearings Official packet for the Laurel Ridge
PUD. This graphic, labeled as sheet SA7.0 and named “Site Analysis: Land Use and
Infrastructure,” depicts a larger area of Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning on the subject
property than is currently proposed.
Please describe why this map differs from the current sheet ZC-4. If this discrepancy relates
directly to a difference in the methodology used to define the POS boundary, please explain the
method (i.e. referents) used to generate the 2012 version as compared to the current request.
The map reference here in Round I was done by the applicant very early on, in November 2011, in
advance of any field work, site design or land use application preparation. It was generated for use
precisely as it is titled, “Site Analysis.” Its purpose was to serve as a starting point for site design. It was
not generated for the purpose of zone change. It was not submitted as part of the prior zone change
application. Generally, the map was prepared as follows: (1) A digital (unofficial) version of the Metro
Plan diagram was obtained from LCOG. (2) It was enlarged electronically to attempt to “fit” the tax lot.
(3) No specific set of “referents” were used for the fitting. (4) The fitting involved considerable “rubber
sheeting” as the process is referred to among mapping professionals. As a result of all of the above, the
map referred to does not have a pedigree with any utility in the current application review process.
6. On page 6 of the submitted narrative, please note that the correct Metro Plan Diagram
Ordinance No. is “20319.”
So noted. Thank you for the correction.
In closing, thank you for your assistance with the application. We look forward to the process moving
forward.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Satre
Richard M. Satre, AICP, ASLA, CSI
Principal
Schirmer Satre Group
Encl: Exhibit H, Boundary Commission Final Order, C EU 07-37 (Oct. 4, 2007).
Exhibit I, Staff Notes, Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (Oct 4, 2007).
Exhibit J, Alder Woods, Hearing Official Decision (PDT 07-5) (Sept. 10, 2008).
Exhibit K, Alder Woods, Planning Commission Decision (PDT 07-5) (Nov. 5, 2008).
Schirmer Satre Group 375 West 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 686-4540
ExhibitH
ExhibitI
ExhibitJ
ExhibitK