HomeMy WebLinkAboutTestimony Rec'd at Plng Comm Appeal PH 10-20-2015 Exhibit #5Received in Public Hearing
City of Eugene Planning & Development
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o City of Eugene Planning and Development
99 West 10th Ave.
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City file Z 15-5)
OCT 20 2015
File -Z 15-5
Exhibit 5
Statement of Paul Orum before the Planning Commission, October 20, 2015
My name is Paul Orum. I live at 2389 Floral Hill Drive in Eugene. I am on the executive
committee of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) and helped prepare the appeal you are
considering today. I also made a statement before the Hearings Official on August 26.
LHVC appeal issues #1 and #2 - Materials submitted by the applicant distort the amount of
parks and open space within their intended development area, enabling them to develop more
land than they are entitled. The Hearings Official did not adequately evaluate and address this
distortion and its consequences in his decision (zone change approval criteria EC 9.8865(1)). He
ignored it. Yet this distortion accounts for the largest amount of contested POS acreage
considered at the hearing - roughly 12 highly visible acres are at stake.
Please bear with an illustration. The issue is "sliding" the property boundaries on the map when
using only one linear physical referent - 301h Avenue. If this podium is 30th Avenue and this
paper is the applicant's property, I can slide the property right while remaining in general
alignment with 30th Avenue. Same thing goes to the left. Sliding the property also changes the
parks and open space boundary on the property. But if I use this pen to represent Spring Blvd
and the city boundary, I create a corner with 30th Avenue and can no longer slide the property
and remain in alignment. (One could also create misalignments by rotating the map, but the
issue I am asking you to address is the effect of sliding, not rotating, the property boundaries.)
One can see a serious misalignment of Spring Blvd and the city boundary on the applicant's
original maps (ZC-2, ZC-3, and ZC-4 overlay). On these maps the city boundary should be at
Spring Blvd, but it is not. The applicant subsequently submitted maps that remove and blur out
known referents, which neither addresses the distortion and nor provides any basis for
decision.
LHVC appeal issue #3 - The applicant claims that the only map anyone can rely on is the 11 x 17
inch 2004 Metro Plan diagram. In fact, LUBA acknowledged the need to consult other maps in
its previous decision on this property.' In its decision, LUBA stated: "Because none of the city's
comprehensive maps in this area are property specific, references to other maps in the record
1 Environ-Metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene, LUBA No. 2013-098.
1
are necessary to locate the boundaries of the subject property." So LUBA knows about using
maps to establish property boundaries. The LUBA decision is in the record and was discussed
more than 15 times at the hearing.' The applicant must establish the correct alignment of the
property to meet the zone change criteria, referring to other maps and physical referents in the
record where necessary. Which maps are allowed is a central issue in LHVC appeal item #3.
LHVC submitted maps scanned directly from the official Metro Plan diagram as well as maps
derived from the digitized version, but the Hearings Official dismissed all of these maps and
relied solely on the applicant's maps - even where our maps were acknowledged as more
precise and scanned directly from the very same source, the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. This is a
serious error by the Hearings Official that substantially misinformed his subsequent decision.
LHVC appeal issue #4 - There is substantial evidence in the record that contested acreage was
raised at the hearing. Opponents and the applicant discussed contested acreage in the audio
recording of the hearing at: 1:14:10 (Wostmann); 1:38:00 (Schlieder); 1:40:58 (Schlieder);
1:41:00 (Hearings Official Wilson); 1:49:21 (Rojakovick); 2:02:50 (Satre). Further, the applicant
included figures on affected acreage in their original submission, but did not adjust these
figures in post hearing submissions despite using different maps. For this reason, neither the
Hearings Official nor anyone else could refer to accurate affected acreage because official
acreage figures are to be produced only if the zoning change is approved, in effect precluding
their use in evaluating and addressing the magnitude of the distortion. This is a due process
error.
Personally I feel that this process has been fundamentally abusive to those of us who have
participated in good faith. I urge you: address these distortion issues. You don't have to decide
the "right" boundary, just understand the errors of process, findings, and evaluation - and insist
they be fixed.
Don't be persuaded that this is somehow not your decision; this is your decision. By all means
don't just passively sign the proposed findings the applicant gave you. Doing so would replicate
errors and abdicate your responsibilities.
I urge you to reverse the Hearings Official's decision until the substantial distortion issues we
raised are addressed and the application made consistent with the Metro Plan.
The applicant referred to LUBA's previous LaurelRidge decision in the audio recording of the August 26 hearing
at: 37:11 (Satre); 37:31 (Satre); 37:34 (Satre); 37:53 (Satre); 38:21 (Satre); 42:26 (Satre); 51:12 (Satre); 1:01:17
(Kloos); 1:01:23 (Kloos); 1:01:44 (Kloos); 1:02:02 (Kloos); 1:02:12 (Kloos); and 1:58:15 (Satre). Opponents referred
to the previous LUBA decision at: 1:18:18 (Schlieder); 1:19:33 (Schlieder); and 1:51:30 (Halferty).
2