HomeMy WebLinkAboutHO Remand – Open Record Period ending 9-28-16September 28, 2016
Eugene Hearings Official Received
c/o City of Eugene r
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division SEP 2 8 2016
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401 City of Eugene
Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) Planning Division
Remand Hearing - Open Record Period - Applicant Testimony
Dear Eugene Hearings Official,
We are submitting this as the applicant's open record testimony.
Additional Referents
At the remand hearing last week on September 21, 2016, the applicant submitted testimony and evidence
as suggested by LUBA and addressed additional referents. As documented that evening, the applicant
surveyed the location of three additional referents to add to its original referent - the 30th Avenue
centerline. The three additional referents were the tax lot associated with what is being referred to as the
green finger, the centerline of Spring Blvd, and Bloomberg Park. These four referents are locationally
diverse in regards to the subject property. The green finger tax is located to the west-northwest, the
centerline of Spring Blvd is located to the west-southwest, the 301h Avenue centerline is located to the
west-southwest and south, and Bloomberg Park is located to the south-southeast.
As was documented, no two sets of referents can be utilized to accurately locate the subject property on
the Metro Plan diagram. That is because the Metro Plan diagram is not a measured drawing. It is not
based on surveyed data. It is a drawing carried forward from its genesis in the late 1970s, well before the
development of today's digital drawing construction abilities. It is not inaccurate to say that the Metro
Plan diagram is a cartoon.
Given that, the applicant stated that evening that additional referents have been considered, and that
having more referents did not provide more accuracy. The strongest, best, nearest and longest referent,
the 30th Avenue centerline, is still the best referent to use.
LHVC Sheet 912/15-04
Another of LUBA's findings discussed the need to adequately consider LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04. This
occurred at last week's hearing. The Hearings Official discussed his consideration of the diagram from
the prior approval of this zone change application a year ago. The Hearings Official asked a number of
questions regarding the diagram. LHVC representatives discussed sheet 9/2/15-04 in detail.
The hearing closed with LHVC stating that their Sheet 9/2/15-04 is the most accurate and best alignment
of the subject property on the Metro Plan diagram and should be the alignment that the Hearings Official
should select.
Given that, the applicant decided to take a look at Sheet 9/2/15-04 and Sheet 9/2/15-05.
Here is what we found.
A. A COMPARISON OF LHVC 9/2/15-05 AND ACTUAL SURVEYED DATA
The information below lists the inconsistencies on map LHVC 9/2/15-05 which pm~
opponents assert justifies the fact that tax lot maps, not found anywhere on the Metro
Plan, can be used to accurately locate the subject property with respect to the Metro
Plan. FN
+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS +
375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 SCHIRMER
PLANNERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 Fax: 541.686.4577 -
www.schirmersatre.com
LaurelRidge Page 2 of 5
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Open Record Period - Applicant Testimony
September 28, 2016
1. LHVC 9/2/15-05 (what makes up this original exhibit)
• Incorrect Metro Plan.
LCOG tax lot maps assembled to create this larger map.
Schirmer Satre Group's Sheet ZC-3 dated 5-15-2015 which contains:
➢ Incorrect Metro Plan.
➢ A city limits line that has no corresponding match on the Metro Plan, is not survey data
nor based on any accurate data (as you will see below, basing its location on LCOG tax
lot maps is inherently inaccurate).
2. Our Methodology
• Obtain PDF of LHVC 9/2/15-05.
• Insert PDF into ACAD.
• Scale PDF to 200 scale using the graphic scale found on the drawing.
• Overlay our subject property boundary survey and surveyed referents.
• Align the boundary survey and surveyed referents to match the center line of 30th Avenue
which LHVC used as their starting point as stated at the public hearing on 9.21.16. (See Note
#1 on plan).
• NOTE: A property corner in close proximity to 30th matched fairly nicely when the centerline
was matched. (See Note #2 on plan).
What We Found (Letters on drawing correspond to the following comments starting at the
northwest corner of the subject property and continuing clockwise)
A. North surveyed property line is 35' away from tax lot line.
B. Tax lot maps have symbols that indicate property corners. They typically look like this:
In this case it is evident that multiple maps that were matched together do not in fact match
accurately at these points.
C. East end surveyed property lines do not align with tax lot lines. Surveyed line is accurate.
This documents that tax lot lines, and tax lot maps, are not accurate.
D. Tax lot line is above surveyed property line.
E. Further to the east the tax lot line is below the surveyed property line. Again, tax lot lines are
inaccurate by nature.
F. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 3200' long. Surveyed property line is actually 3164.95'.
Tax lot map data is inaccurate and/or not current.
G. Tax lot text indicates line is 613.37' long. It measures 626.05'. The actual surveyed length is
602.38'.
H. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 300' long. It measures 283.57'.
1. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 300' long. It measures 304.29'.
J. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 300' long. It measures 304.29'.
K. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 300' long. It measures 303.05'.
L. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 300' long. It measures 306.64'.
M. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 859.83' long. It measures 870.62'.
N. Tax lot line text indicates the line is 2273.82' long. It measures 2238.75'.
As landscape architects we are often asked to create site plans for clients from tax lot maps while
they wait for the actual survey data. It is possible to start thinking conceptually about a site plan
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 41h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 3 of 5
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Open Record Period - Applicant Testimony
Seotember 28. 2016
with tax lot information but it is at the client's risk. Tax lot map data (the text on the map) often
matches survey text but more often than not the actual tax lot map (graphic) does not.
There is no good explanation why this is true but to use tax lot maps instead of surveyed data is
to risk a trip to Errors and Omissions Insurance.
B. A COMPARISON OF LHVC 9/2115-04 AND ACTUAL SURVEYED DATA
This document lists the inconsistencies on the map LHVC 9/2/15-04 which opponents assert is the
more accurate location of the boundary between the two land use designations.
1. LHVC 9/2/15-04 (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-ACAD (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 corner of the title block is
at exactly 1"=200' then other lines within the drawing are not accurate.
Graphic Scale: 1" = 200'
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: 1" = 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'.
C. CONCLUSION
Maps are only as good as the data used and the accuracy with which they can be assembled (or not).
Sheet LHVC 912/15-05 is replete with inconsistencies and inaccuracies and actually proves that tax
lot maps are inherently fallible and not accurate.
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 . (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 4 of 5
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Open Record Period - Applicant Testimony
September 28, 2016
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-41D) 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 4 th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
LaurelRidge Page 5 of 5
Zone Change Application (Z 15-5)
Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Open Record Period - Applicant Testimony
September 28, 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.
Of the three primary findings put forth in the LUBA decision, the applicant has provided testimony and
evidence regarding each of them. We have demonstrated that additional, multiple referents can be
considered but do not necessarily lead to a better conclusion. We have demonstrated that tax lot maps,
even though they are not on the Metro Plan, may be considered by some but that the maps are
inaccurate and should not be used. The city limits line, as suggested by LUBA, could be considered and
yet the only way to locate that line on a map is to use tax lot maps which are demonstrated to be
inaccurate. The city limits line is not found on the Metro Plan. We have demonstrated that additional
consideration can be given to LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04, but that it is not an accurate representation of the
subject property on the Metro Plan.
In the end, 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 concludes the applicant's open record testimony. In advance, thank you for your consideration of
this material.
Sincerely,
R~t~d, M. Safr&
Richard M. Satre, AICP, ASLA, CSI, Principal
Schirmer Satre Group
Enclosed:
ZC-4E. LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-05 with Subject Property and Surveyed Referents Added
ZC-4F. LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 Scaled to Graphic Scale
ZC-4G. LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 Scaled to Match North Property Line
Exhibit O - Zone Boundary Legal Description for Metro Plan Rotated
Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540
Exhibit O
August 31, 2015
ZONE BOUNDARY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
for
METRO PLAN ROTATED
BEING a tract of land in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 and Northwest 1/4 of Section 1o, both in
Township 18 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian, being more particularly described as
follows:
COMMENCING at the brass cap marking the Northwest corner of DLC 59;
THENCE South 00°04'32" East, 239.61 feet to the northeast corner of those
lands conveyed in that Statutory Warranty Deed recorded on January 3, 2007 as
Reception Number 2007-000444 in the Lane County Oregon Official Records;
THENCE along the eastern boundary of said deed South 00°04'32" East, 501.59
feet to the POINT of BEGINNING; THENCE South 63°4429" West, 970.63
feet to a point; THENCE South 88°05'31" West, 470.69 feet to a point;
THENCE North 86°29'17" West, lo74.61 feet to a point; THENCE South
80°02'29" West, 235.63 feet to a point; THENCE South 60°4441" West, 327.12
feet to a point; THENCE South 36°39'08" West, 929.90 feet to a point;
THENCE South 84°54'o6" West, 261.84 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-
way margin of 30th Avenue, said point being the POINT of TERMINATION.
The courses herein are not based on a filed boundary survey of the subject area and are intended
to automatically adjust to the courses resulting from a future filed boundary survey of the
subject area.
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR
Renee D191tallys'"d
by Renee Clough
C U # , Date: 2015,09.01
t 08J 1:34 -07'00'
OREGON
NOVEMBER 30, 2007
RENEE CLOUGH
691 2LS
RENEWAL DATE: 12/31/15
y~~ 0 3ao3y39 3 y ,H9Nads-£0
Z e3 N3 e oEa~N
d ~9 ~t~ EOL 9 LOL SlOI'00, dVW 39N1Xj
o Uy 39ami3Nnvi
:s.W wo ,y ~ _
uoyd •dONd iowe s NO WVNOeia o a,6 V
d F1 ` ~ b'989'469:*'el 065Y9ye'4K :e ?h
NVId OMi9W :30NVHO 3NOZ
LIJ
° dw W V
w z
Qaz oF"a€~ v
uW s°z F~yi 7
z&,F
c z Gad
~H UM
f0 J
i MzcwaN
R
- < ~F~ ~ ~w wee
t LL Qw W
J - $ 00 J ew
cS SSW
p W I a ~~w ~ Y ~ ' Y
5 ~ ~ v S 2 q 4
c> o q/.
O a w 70 i
U ~ Vii` e _ ~ p u
I I e~ r J. ~ ~ o
w ' O
i ~
0 ry
> I
z -Z
= 1' p N n
i i N v
i
>>w ',r PEE
f
W
-
1,z,a[as ,['Iro 1' ~7
N
}
00 m
p ,n p v
p s
r
Z 1{I
-
I-- Z
~
-
-
Iff 111
0 IL
C
y
0U.
60t
f
i
w W
W m
N
3 : `o mp;: °
.
e
~9 is r~
z o
COL T WL slot `00-0-0-8~ dVw
3Jaial3mnvn
3 -
?
Ya~woK:sas
is>~s,~
d~010 H~`JU3gH31tl6%I.......
F e 'v d
on
m Q
`,~r iA~,
'doad 1o3rem NO wdaE)via
NVId OUl3W :3JNVH3 3NOZ
a
_
srv
na„ pd
V
N
q9 is r~ cot V Got SiOI `oos0~-so-s~ dvw
F4 _ 06 3OOiai3anv-i
[[Sti 989'lK'*"ad 0150'989'4K
d:eueyd Q
'dOMd 1owgfis NO wvz,!Dvia 8
S `f... U3 N14tl S~tl 34W6tl IH ]LS ~<l LEIl~'F1~Q' Eo
NHId Oa13w -3JNVHO 3NOZ
,~`~V - . err, £OL 8 LOL 5101 '00-O1•C0 BL dv1Y 1
[ - - y.
~z s 3Oaiai3anv7
r ,
~1183dO8d 103r8nS
.30NVH0 3NOZ 1
i
I
u
m ~
pa I;
sa m
n eo ~ .
ge
~ w
L
Ws ~o
OG
~F
a~
a
- 0 3
f~ m5t
a~
Efp
ti 4
f
15
0
sry V
T
-10 sy a
o p 2.
V
N~
O
W
Z
J
Ix
W
IL
O
Odd
~=C
N D: W
of 0
FZ 0
OS
WHO
F
ycu
W W
VJ7
~ Q m
x 0
J y y
Laurel Dill Valley Citizens
Co-Chairs
September 28, 2016
Gunnar Schlieder
Mr. Fred Wilson
Sheryl Kelly
Hearings Official
c/o Erik Berg-Johansen
Vice-Chair
City of Eugene
Stephanie Midkiff
RE: LHVC SUBMISSION FOR 1ST OPEN RECORD PERIOD, LAUREL RIDGE PUD
ZONING REMAND (Z15-0005)
Secretary
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Natalie Whitson
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens as our submission
during the I" Open Record period. This submission addresses the short-comings of the
applicant's submission from the Hearing on September 21, 2016.
Treasurer
In short the applicant makes two allegations:
Susan Ratzlaff
1. The base for LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 is a digital copy of the Metro Plan Diagram.
2. It is not possible to use more than one referent at a time.
Executive
Applicant's Allegation l: The LHVC Metro Plan Diagram vs. Applicant's "True
Committee
Copy"
Adam Jones
As already presented at the Hearing on September 21, 2016, and corroborated by City
Staff, LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 is based on a high-resolution scan of a printed copy of the
Bill Blix
Metro Plan Diagram from a 2004 Metro Plan book. This means that the plan diagram is
Betty Hosokawa
coeval with the version which was approved by the City Council in 2004. The applicant
has not presented any evidence that there is a material difference between the scanned
Deborah Kelly
diagram used by LHVC to prepare Sheet 9/2/15-04 and the "true copy" applicant obtained
Jan Wostmann
from the City Recorder.
Kathleen Frazer
Moreover, as presented by applicant's counsel (Bill Kloos) during the 9/21/16 Hearing,
Kaye Downey
they borrowed the original ("with its blue cover...") from the City Recorder's office and
took it to FedEx/Kinko's to make a scan. This means that applicant's version is also a
Mitch Hider
"digital copy" of the Metro Plan Diagram! Moreover, it is a very poor quality scan as it
Richard Cundiff
was apparently copied at the normal scanner resolution.
The applicant's surveyor indicates that the base map is "pixelated" and gives an
approximate dimension of 15 x 15' per pixel. Closer examination reveals that 10 pixels
represent 175' on the applicant's map. Therefore, individual pixels are 17.5' wide. This
means that the original 1" = 7000' Metro Plan Diagram was scanned at 400 dpi.
Laurel Hi llValleyCitizens@gmaiLcom . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 . www.lhvc.org
At most locations on Applicant's Sheet ZC-4, the boundary between the R-1 designation
and the POS designation is from 4 to 6 pixels wide. At 17.5' per pixel, this means that the
boundary ranges from 70 to 105 feet wide. In addition, bleed-over may have resulted from
the very bright yellow color of the R-1 zoning designation into the more subdued greenish
POS designation.
The surveyor correctly states that the accuracy of any map is dependent on the least
accurate component, which, in this case, is the Metro Plan Diagram. However, as LHVC
Sheet 9/2/15-04 shows, a much higher accuracy can be achieved at higher scan resolutions.
The scan performed by the City of the Metro Plan Diagram is at a resolution of 1,200 dpi,
or 3 times more precise than the scan utilized by the applicant. In other words, pixels on
the City's scan are only 6 feet on a side. Moreover, the transition zone from R-1 to POR
ranges from about 16 feet to 24 feet wide. This means that the actual boundary can be
established within tolerances that are less than 25% of those which arise from use of the
applicant's map.
Given the large errors arising from use of the applicant's poor scan of the Metro Plan
Diagram, this scan is essentially unsuitable for establishing the correct location of the
boundary between R-1 and POR designation. Regardless of the registration issue (see
Allegation 2, below), it is recommended to disregard any and all of the applicant's maps
which are based on the scan for Sheet ZC-4.
Applicant's Allegation 2: It is Impossible to Use More than One Referent at a Time
As part of their submission at the hearing, the applicant provided 24x36" hard copies of 4
versions of their Sheet ZC-4. These each purported to use one of four referents. Sheet ZC-
4A utilizes the Centerline for 30' Avenue, Sheet ZC-413 utilizes the "Green Finger", Sheet
ZC-4C utilizes the Centerline of Spring Boulevard, and Sheet ZC-4D utilizes Bloomberg
Park. We disagree with all four proposed registrations of the applicant's property on the
Metro Plan Diagram. Some registrations are better than others, but all can be significantly
improved.
Annotated versions of the four maps presented by the applicant are attached. These maps
were prepared on scans of the applicant's hard copy maps made by City Staff The original
surveyors map was overlaid on the scans (purplish pink annotation) and adjusted (rotated
and scaled) to match the applicant's referents on the scanned map. Once registration was
achieved with the applicant's proposed property boundary location, the pink layer
containing the surveyor's map was copied and pasted onto the map in light green. This
layer was then moved (without rotation) until the green overlay matched all the referents
as well as possible. All the referents include the centerline for 30r' Avenue, the centerline
for Spring Boulevard, the "Green Finger", and Bloomberg Park. Whereas it is true that
there is no "perfect" registration, especially on the applicant's poor-quality scan, the
registration with all referents can be performed significantly better than the applicant has
achieved in their quest to minimize POS zoning on their property. Moreover, the green
overlays are all very similar to the registration obtained last year on LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-
04.
Laurel Hi llValleyCitizens@gmaiLcom . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 . www.lhvc.org
Recommendations
Given the unnecessarily poor quality of the applicant's scan of the Metro Plan Diagram, it
is recommended to disregard the latest iterations of the applicant's registration of their
property on the diagram. Even if the registration were closer than they provided, it would
still be difficult to pick out where the exact boundary between POR and R-1 is located
within the property.
By contrast, LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 is on a higher-resolution scan of an original paper
copy of the Metro Plan Diagram, and utilizes a total of 5 referents, including the centerline
of 30th Avenue, the centerline of Spring Boulevard, the "Green Finger", the location of the
City Limits relative to referents present on the Metro Plan Diagram, and Bloomberg Park.
If even greater accuracy is desired for locating the boundary between POS and R-1 within
the Laurel Ridge property, it would be possible to use LHVC Sheets 9/2/15-01 or 9/2/15-
02, which use a digital version of the Metro Plan Diagram obtained from LCOG. The only
difference between the two maps is the oritentation to North (True North vs. Grid North).
These maps provide the crispest delineation of the Metro Plan Zoning Designation
boundary.
Respectfully submitted,
/7i
' is
Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., CEG
Co-Chair, Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
OREGON
Expires 12/31 /2016
LaurelHillValleyCitizens@gmail.com . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 . www.lhvc.org
0
0
T
N
cn
I V
J
COL 8 JOL S10-1 00-0 LCO-Bl d1%
j 0012113
A12l3dO8d 1O3ronS
:3ONVHO 3NOZ
_ I C
m
QmUO UjL 0
MuMdo a;
N073b0 '3
'3AV H10£
iarti' N`dld ON13W :30NVHO 3NOZ k~l +
h, a_
~ r r
v o a` ~o
g=
s~
"sots
8F
a~
mw
t
i r
F ¢ .0
<Lll ~WQG WNW
b j6Z K
4 F,
0
r
gtI r~
t- _
Fx~ ~
z~ y8
Q $aN'
J
6
0
W
d
e
t
T
CC
O
N ~
G1 Q
It fin
r_ C
02
M m
L
a..+ L
Li =
V
J
5 ) FaC
~ / I ano 3xivs s3wxix~ N
'
m
x
rL
N
e
z
~
sot 8 LOL SiOl'00-OVEO-eL dvw
dOEld 1O3rens NO WVUE) /Id
NVId OM1.aW :39NVH3 3NOZ
I.
5
S.
~ I
I l
I
I
J
sw
xxQ
Fs
I
w~
c
IV
y ~ w m v/,I 1
IIII `
~I
N i i~ p l
S
2 ~ y ~ s
m a
¢ 0 o W U- U` 2_
;mWa
h W Q d m
O
lo6~g~
-a9 a
B G. ~.jE_' pE
ON Vft s~
° `M,
a HH p
I
G 5~ _ c2 I`-
to r~ RH °o tl
m I
I I I a
p1
00
•I;
LL
c
Z
4
Z
W
W
C
F7
O
O
W
2
V
i Q
Z
F
W
~I- ups a
W
O
a
a
d
W
Q
O
N
G
W
6
N
to a;
r ~
O L
N
~ V
V
G^1 Q
~ I O
02
\Y \V
L
0) OF
a~ 0
~a
V
> L
J ~
~a
e ~ N
N~ C~ G m m~.
m U 0 W LL__
r i~ Xo 3tlo3 3 „tl.„u.s.. X3..X,.Fa~rv
Cot P.2
4 r~ z v
F mom w 3vaiaiaanvi
m Y 'dOUd iows 1S NO WvmE)vla
a 3tl1VS a3walX~
` namow6~ L0Z0 ~w'd ` NVId 02113W 3~JNt/HO 3NOZ
_ i3 1. Sa ~t~ d~c rc=
S FIB 2H 3
xm,mac'w ~
F.
i
~ i ,J L LL
a ,
eon
9 ~Od ~ ^ I
f#~ 1
ooW
C od i .
07
mWq A
9
om~ .a,awr -
I
`m
I
m ~
p' OZwd
PI ~jm~
F-w4am
d ~yZ2~
tiV jm
1 ~FI~Crv
i
a
t
m
>F ~
d
N
d o
Q v
Z
O
N
Q
W
IL
Q
a M
a ~
CO ~
O L
IN ~
V
G) Q
Cl)
C 0
0
L
N W
>
a~ 0
Q
W W
L
O = I11
m V
z J
U)
W
O
W
Z
J
W
F
2
W
V
O
t
Q
W
Z
a
I
m
W
H
e N
3
s -
[DU❑ W LL
31V HlOE
n j a (J~S~'1~~~.71Z~Cilb l~bi 1+11
off, ~~3ao3~,~ro ~
r4 . o v~ 3~JOItll3tlfltll w
dOild 103rans NO wvNodla
4
~ an3 wx ins trot Mst
3
cB
e
dnoa
N`dld Oa13w :30N`dH0 3NOZ
rt€
vL
d ~ aw a m ~ E=p
I 31 IZ w °s~w msp„w RED
C
e
4
1 f'
J
1
Wa
ma 1
W
i
UW j^.
J
b _ .1
r
m
cQ ~
G
a
o°
N
Iq
}i
O
N
V
V
~a
Cl) O
02
c~ ca
L
N ;
~0
~a
V
> im
J ~
ar
a
d
c~
m
W
m
O
O
J
m
O
f
O
W
Z
V
F
Q
2
a
Laurel Hill valley Citizens
Co-Chairs
Gunnar Schlieder
Sheryl Kelly
Vice-Chair
Stephanie Midkiff
Secretary
Natalie Whitson
Treasurer
Susan Ratzlaff
Executive
Committee
Adam Jones
Bill Blix
Betty Hosokawa
Deborah Kelly
Jan Wostmann
Kathleen Frazer
Kaye Downey
Mitch Hider
Richard Cundiff
September 28, 2016
Mr. Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official
c/o Eugene Planning Department
99 West 10th Ave.
Eugene OR 97401
Re: Laurel Ridge Zone Change ( Z 15-5) Remand
Dear Mr Wilson:
On the day following the initial hearing regarding Z 15-5, two representatives from Laurel
Hill Valley Citizens, Gunnar Schlieder and myself, met with City staff to discuss various
mapping issues that were raised at the hearing. It was at this meeting that we obtained
from the City the high resolution scan of the official printed version of the 2004 Metro
Plan Diagram that we used for our submissions during the open record period that
followed the hearing. Also in attendance at the the meeting were Gabe Flock, Erik Berg-
Johansen and the City's GIS mapping specialist.
During the conversation we asked if the City had made an independent determination of
where the POS/R1 boundary lay on the applicant's property. The answer was Yes. We
then asked if they had calculated the acreage. The GIS specialist responded that he had
made that calculation and to that in his judgment there were approximately 42 acres of
POS on the applicant's property. We asked if the City would place this fact in the record.
Gabe Flock responded that determining the POS/R1 boundary was the applicant's
responsibility, and not the City's role in the proceedings.
I mentioned this conversation at the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission to
support our map Sheet 9/2/15-04. The applicant's lawyer objected, because this
conversation with City staff was not already in the record. The Planning Commissioners
were subsequently instructed to ignore City staff's approximation of the POS acreage.
Since we are now again in an open record period, I want to be sure that a report of the
approximation of the POS acreage by the City's GIS specialist is in the record. We will be
using it as supporting evidence as we argue for the accuracy of Sheet 9/2/15-04.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Wostmann
Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
LaurelHillValleyCitizens@gmail.com . 2585 Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 . www.lhvc.org
Sean T. Malone
Attorney at Law
259 E. Fifth Ave.,
Suite 200-G
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel. (303) 859-0403
Fax (650) 471-7366
seanmalone8@hotmail.com
September 28, 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 post-hearing
testimony regarding the sole issue on remand, which is to identify the most accurate
location of the line separating the plan designations. The goal is accuracy, not perfection.
The testimony submitted by Schirmer Satre, the applicant's consultant (the
applicant), attempts to re-litigate settled issues, fails to understand LUBA's remand, and
contains inaccurate maps that do not respond to LUBA's remand. The most accurate
maps that have been submitted to the Hearings Official are maps 9/2/15-01 through -05,
as well as those maps submitted by Mr. Gunnar Schlieder on this day.
The applicant is incorrect to continue to allege that LHVC map 9/2/15-04 is based on the
electronic version
First, the applicant argues that LHVC map 9/2/15-04 is an "enlargement of a
digital Metro Plan diagram." This is simply incorrect and LUBA acknowledged as much
in its opinion. Indeed, this was the basis for LHVC's first sub-assignment of error, which
was sustained. Furthermore, staff testified at the hearing that LHVC received a high
resolution scan of the paper copy of the Metro Plan Diagram. Regardless of the
applicant's misrepresentation or mistake, LUBA noted in their opinion that no one could
identify any actual difference between the electronic version of the Metro Plan Diagram
and the paper version of the Metro Plan Diagram:
"However, at oral argument, LHVC and Environ-Metal agreed that there are no
substantive differences relevant in this appeal between the features depicted on the
enlarged maps in the record based on the digital version of the Metro Plan diagram
and those based on the paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram. The only apparent
difference is greater fuzziness in the lines and boundaries depicted on the paper
2004 Metro Plan diagram, compared to the crisper lines and boundaries depicted
on the digital version."
LUBA slip op at 6-7, n. 1. This suggests that LUBA condones (as context) the use of the
digital map. LHVC already submitted maps that rely on the electronic version of the
Metro Plan Diagram (see LHVC 9/2/15-01 and -02) that afford the Hearing Official the
opportunity to rely on the "crisper lines and boundaries."' Again, Environ-Metal does
not identify any substantive difference between the two versions of the Metro Plan
Diagram, and until it does, it would appear that the Hearing Official may rely on the
digital map as context in making his decision.
In addition to submitting some maps based on the digital map, as described above,
LHVC also submitted a high resolution scan of the Metro Plan Diagram relied upon by
the applicant. See LHVC 9/2/15-04. If that were not enough, LHVC will also submit
four additional maps today.
LUBA directed that the Hearing Official to consider the city limits, Spring Boulevard,
and the "green fines
The applicant cites to LUBA's remand direction to use various referents, including
the city limits, Spring Boulevard, and the "green finger." The applicant then cites to a
Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary dated October 20, 2015, Page 4, alleging
that "the Metro Plan diagram does not show the location of the city limits line, thereby
precluding its use as a referent." This, again, is an attempt to re-litigate a settled issue.
Regardless, LUBA understood that surveys underpinned various referents: "We
understand the parties to agree that the subject property lines, the urban growth boundary,
city limits and the 30th Avenue center line are accurately depicted in relation to each
other." LUBA slip op at 6. The applicant's attempt to distance itself from this issue at
LHVC used the digital version because that is what the applicant mistakenly and
initially used before it changed to the paper copy. LUBA understood this:
"Sheets 9/2/15-01 and -02 are based on Environ-Metal's scans of the digital Metro
Plan Diagram. Sheet 9/2/15-03 is a scan of the official Metro Plan diagram, at the
scale of one inch equals 7,000 feet, overlaid by the property boundaries.
However, at that scale, the subject property is almost indiscernible. Sheet 9/2/15-
05 is based on the digital Metro plan map, and is overlaid with tax lot
information."
LUBA slip op at 12, n. 2.
z
this time is unavailing. As noted below, at the very least, the city limits parameters were
obtained from the Lane Council of Governments and "digitized manually." See attached
Map SA 7.0, note 2.
The applicant's new maps (ZC-4A through D) are not responsive to LUBA's remand
After explaining its new maps, the applicant alleges that "[t]here is no perfect
alignment" and there is "[n]o magic location where everything aligns." This is
unremarkable because, as LUBA understood, the goal is accuracy, not perfection. The
applicant's basic conclusion is that the Hearing Official should rely on the map ZC-4A,
which is the same map as Exhibit L that the Hearing Official relied upon in his prior
decision. As noted below, in light of the Hearing Official's prior findings and LUBA's
direction to consider various referents and other information to accurately delineate the
line between plan designations, the Hearing Official should find that LHVC's 9/2/15-04
map is the most accurate because it attempts to utilize all referents.
The basic problem with the applicant's new maps is that they attempt to only
center on a single referent, instead of reconciling imperfections so that the various
referents can all be used to find the most accurate delineation. They maps use a "main
referent." This simply repeats the error that LUBA remanded. For example, ZC-4A's
main referent is the 30th Avenue center line; ZC-413's main referent is the green finger;
ZC-4C's main referent is the center line of Spring Boulevard; and ZC-4D's main referent
is Bloomberg Park. In each map, the applicant is, again, using only a single referent with
the point being that there is no perfect fit. Again, the issue is not perfection but rather
accuracy. The applicant's failure to learn from LUBA's remand is problematic, and,
therefore, the Hearing Official should reject the applicant's maps.
LHVC's prior submitted map and newly submitted map are the most accurate maps
before the Heariniz Official
It is notable that the Hearing Official previously found that LHVC's maps were
more compelling than the applicant's maps:
"LHVC produced maps showing much more POS designated land by using a
version of the Metro Plan diagram obtained from LCOG that are depicted in
Exhibits 1-5 to their letter of September 2, 2015. LHVC also uses tax lots for
other properties, city limits, and additional streets to generate what it argues are
more accurate maps than the applicant. LHVC materials were prepared in part by
a certified engineering geologist, and the arguments are compelling. In fact, if the
question were where the boundary is most likely located using any available.
Information, I would likely agree with LHVC. In determining a boundary,
however, we are all bound by the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. As staffs September
2, 2015 memorandum explains, LHVC used maps generated by LCOG from a
digital version that is different from the 2004 Metro Plan, even LCOG
3
acknowledges that only the 2004 Metro Plan is the official version of the
diagram."
Hearings Official Decision at 6. LUBA found that the Hearing Official in failing to
consider much of the evidence that the Hearing Official opined could not be relied upon.
Now that LUBA has removed impediment to LHVC's "compelling" maps that the
Hearing Official articulated in the above quote, the Hearing Official may now rely on
what the Hearing Official previously found "compelling." LUBA's opinion can clearly
be read to allow using various referents to assist in accurately finding the delineation
between plan designations.
LHVC's maps are consistent with the applicant's SA 7.0 map
LHVC also points the Hearing Official to the applicant's map referred to as SA
7.0, which is located in the LUBA record at 879, 1021, 1024, 1049, and 1073. Map SA
7.0 is also attached hereto for the Hearing Official's convenience. As noted in LHVC's
9/2/15 Memorandum that accompanied the 9/2/15-01 through -05 maps (located at
LUBA Record 184-192), the maps that the Hearing Official found "compelling" (but
ultimately rejected) closely resembled the applicant's SA 7.0 map. LUBA Record 185
(regarding map 9/2/15-01: "The registration of the property on the Metro Plan Diagram
on this version of the map looks remarkably similar to Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 from the
2012 PUD application."); id. (regarding map 9/2/15-02: "Again the registration is nearly
identical to Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 from the previous PUD application."); LUBA
Record 186 (regarding map 9/2/15-04: "Its similarity with all other sheets and
Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 is again obvious."). The applicant now disclaims map SA7.0
because it accurately shows a significant amount of POS. Any notion that that map
SA7.0 is somehow inaccurate or used solely for "planning purposes" is unfounded
because the map itself contains "notes" on the legend that attest to its accuracy:
"Notes
1. Lot 701 property lien based on a 6.27.2011 draft survey by Branch
Engineering. Other lot lines based on RLID [Regional Land Information
Database] database.
2. City limits and urban growth boundary digitized manually based on 6.3.2011
LCOG [Lane Council of Governments] map.
3. LIDAR data received from LCOG on 7.5.2011 and processed to align with
survey in note 1.
4. Goal 5 data acquired digitally and processed to align with survey in note 1.
5. 2009 aerial photo acquired from USDA NAIP program and processed to align
with survey in note 1."
Indeed, those notes indicate SA 7.0 was premised on the 2011 survey from Branch
Engineering. Indeed, even the city limits and urban growth boundary are based on the
4
LCOG map, and there is nothing to demonstrate that LCOG's map is somehow
inaccurate. Given that all of LHVC's maps are similar to the applicant's map SA 7.0
attests to the accuracy of LHVC's maps. Therefore, the Hearing Official should rely on
LHVC's maps, including maps 9/2/15-01 through -05 and those maps submitted today by
Mr. Gunnar Schlieder.
At the hearing, the Hearing Official inquired as to what occurred with map SA 7.0
before LUBA. LUBA determined that any issues related to map SA 7.0 were not
preserved in the LHVC appeal statement. Map SA 7.0 and its accuracy are now before
the Hearing Official and should be used as further context to find that LHVC's maps are
the most accurate representation of the delineation between designations.
The surveyor information submitted by applicant provides little to no new information
The applicant submits alleged surveyor information related to 30th Avenue
centerline, tax lot 301 (i.e., the green finger, all boundaries), the Spring Boulevard
centerline, and Bloomberg Park (north, west, and east boundaries). A review of that
surveyed information indicates that the allegedly new survey does not differ in any
substantial way from what we already now. For example, for 30th Avenue, according to
the applicant, "[t]he centerline of 30t Ave was calculated using centerline monuments set
by the County Surveyor during the slide repair project in 1997." The applicant then
concedes that the "monuments were recovered in good condition and matched the survey
data shown on the survey." Thus, nothing new has been added by the applicant's survey
of 30th Avenue. The survey data now is the same as that from 1997. The same is
generally true of the other surveyed tax lots, and, therefore, the allegedly new surveyor
information does little to actually introduce new information.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those submitted by members of LHVC,
including the new information submitted by Mr. Gunnar Schlieder, I respectfully request
that the Hearing Official reject the applicant's maps and delineate the line between plan
designations based on LHVC's 9/2/15 maps, as well as those maps submitted today.
Sincerely,
~J
5
Sean T. Malone
Attorney for LHVC
Cc:
Client
D
ti
Q
Cl)
w
F v
W
F-
L)
F-
H
CO)
a
LL
Z
0
Z
a
W
CO)
m
w
) S
Cl)
F 4
J ~ Q
ao~
a
Z w4
a X44
W w~
F- a
~nA
a
LL ¢
WS
AM
WPIanning
Memorandum
Date: September 28, 2016
To: Fred Wilson, Eugene Hearings Official
From: Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner, (541) 682-5437
Subject: LUBA Remand: Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5) - Open Record Period Memo
Background
During the public hearing before the Hearings Official (HO) on September 21, 2016, the applicant
presented its case and submitted five (5) new maps with supporting evidence. Opponents from
the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) neighborhood group also testified and submitted written
evidence into the record; however, LHVC has not submitted any new maps into the record up to
this point.
Metro Plan Diagram Used by LHVC
The applicant team argues that Sheet 9/2/15-04 does not utilize a scanned version of the official
Metro Plan diagram. City of Eugene staff keep paper copies of the official 11x17 Metro Plan
diagram for everyday use - at the request of LHVC, staff scanned this paper copy on a Fujitsu Fl-
5750C scanner and sent the digital file to LHVC. This high quality scanner is able to produce
images with an optical resolution of 600 dots per inch (DPI), which is why the Metro Plan
diagram image on Sheet 9/2/15-04 appears to be quite clear.
Use of the City Limits Line
During their presentation, the applicant team asserted that the city limits line cannot be used
because it is not present on the Metro Plan diagram. While it is true the city limits line does not
exist on the Metro Plan diagram, the applicant previously argued this issue and LUBA disagreed.
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). Staff agrees with LUBA that the city limits line can, and should, be utilized
to help determine a more accurate placement of the boundary line between R-1 and PRO zoning.
The applicant also asserts that the city limits line, as depicted on the applicant's original map
(Sheet ZC-2, submitted May 27, 2015), is not drawn accurately. This is interesting because Note
#2 on Sheet ZC-2 states: "City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary based on 6.27.2011 survey by
Branch Engineering." Based on the applicant's assertion that all of the other surveyed lines (i.e.
the property boundary and East 30th Avenue) are completely accurate, it seems that the
surveyed city limits lines should be accurate too.
City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax
www.eugene-or. gov/plan n in g
LUBA Remand: Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5)
To test the accuracy of the applicant's city limits line, staff took measurements on the original,
full-size copy of Sheet ZC-2. As explained below, this was basically a "spot check" of the city
limits line. Using an engineer's scale, staff found that the distance between the western property
boundary and the far western reach of the city limits line (directly west of the subject property)
is approximately 850 feet. A reduced copy of Sheet ZC-2 with staff's notes is included as Figure 1.
Staff made a second measurement on the original, full-size copy of the "Hendricks Hill Property
Annexation" map (file #A 07-10), which led to annexation approval for the subject property. Not
surprisingly, staff measured 850 feet between the western property boundary and the eastern
side of the "green finger"' (which also coincides with the city limits boundary). A scanned,
reduced version of this map with staff's notes is included as Figure 2, however the original full-
size copy of the map is available in the application file for reference and is hereby incorporated
into the record.
Staff made a third measurement within ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) mapping
software, and the same measurement of 850 feet was made with the GIS data available to the
Cityz. These data layers (city limits boundary and tax lots) are generally accurate and are used
for a wide variety of city mapping projects including legal noticing requirements. Staff has
provided a graphical representation of this measurement as Figure 3.
As a result of this additional analysis and measurement, staff agrees with LUBA's finding that the
city limits line does provide a valuable, additional referent that helps to more accurately locate
the plan designation boundary on the subject property consistent with the Metro Plan diagram.
Using Multiple Referents
Map Use: Reading and Analysis, Sixth Edition is a widely used college textbook for geography and
cartography students. The book provides the following definition of "georeferencing" (the
technical name for the process of using map referents to align different maps or data layers):
"The procedure used to bring data layers into alignment via known ground location control
points or, alternatively, the procedure of bringing a map or data layers into alignment with the
earth's surface via a common coordinate system." The important part to note is the plural in
"control points" - City of Eugene staff with professional GIS experience note 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). If only one map referent is
used, issues like the "sliding effect" on East 30th Avenue can occur. As explained by LHVC in
previous proceedings before the HO and Planning Commission, "sliding" of the referent can occur
in the case of East 30th Avenue because it is a linear referent, as opposed to a point (i.e. a street
intersection or the corner of two property lines).
1 Green Finger: Tax Lot 301 of Assessor's Map 18-03-09-20; owned by City of Eugene and designated POS
2 City Limits Data Layer: originates from Lane County of Governments (LCOG); data has "high quality - current and
complete" rating, and a "Quality 2 - Maps that meet National Map Accuracy standards. 90% features within 40' at
1:24,000" positional accuracy rating.
Tax Lot Data Layer: originates from Lane County Dept. of Assessment and Taxation
City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax
www.eugene-or. gov/plan n in g
LUBA Remand: Laurel Ridge Zone Change (Z 15-5)
In their written materials submitted at the public hearing, the applicant asserts "...that 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." The applicant believes that if you align the map using one referent, and
then try to align to a second referent, the Metro Plan diagram will not accurately align with either
referent. It is probably true that when 3 or 4 referents are used they will not all align perfectly
with the map features; however, this is expected and it is preferable to use multiple map
referents even if they do not line up with 100% accuracy.
In this case, staff agrees with LUBA that the final result will still be more accurate if the map is
registered as closely as possible to multiple referents (as opposed to a perfect alignment with
one referent). LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 is evidence that multiple referents, including East 30th
avenue, the green finger, and the city limits line, can be used at the same time to complete the
Metro Plan diagram registration. It appears the applicant failed to follow LUBA's direction
because they used only one referent at a time, thereby resulting in a less accurate location of the
plan designation boundary on the subject property.
Attachments
Figure 1: Staff Measurements on Applicant's Sheet ZC-2
Figure 2: Staff Measurements on A07-10 Annexation Map
Figure 3: Staff Measurements with Local Government GIS Data
City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
-3
e
woo °,iy sot a roc slop 'oo M-0-8~ dHw
4 z aoaianaan
F
V
J11213d021d 133f8f1s
d°no- 3a31vsa'a334tNUiN3LS :39NVHD 3NOZ = _ N
(D
I)
LL
~a o~w
z .
_ s
~ i
~I I I i
U
°°O
Oa
xF
°°0rc
°0a
o
z of
L
4 Z3
U
L O
^
^
Z3
W I
I F I /i
H N y~j
/
~ /
~ ~
W W V/
9 2 W I
m away
-wo
~ ~ ~ a--'
toga
O m
C
mMOEN
)
r/
O 0 O
00 J Q (1)
(A
I.
_ I I,
uop exaund Spadold 1111-1 s3P'JPu9H
N
N
LL
}
I
ns
~
'
n .d
l~~
1i
.,y 1i
V
913180
II J i ~ (n -~Y:
'IS 30
O L
OLO cc
,.r m.. e. rrv,era ss ~~.sm~n-wa.3.m~ne..~mr, r
O
U
C
O ~
N
L ~
11.
c
Q
Co
VJ
,
U
0
f
V
O
a)
E
O
/O
°
U
O
J
i=
LL\
O
Ln
co
O
cu
O
c
O
a)
ern
L-
O
W
Q
a)
a
y
N
LL
2
L •L
N
C)
Lr)
U
E
q
N
N
W
~o
cL
Q
(a
co
°
SPRING BLVD
°
a)
°
c
cu
O
U
E
O
J 4-0
O
N
_
X
U
a)
°
_0
r
4-0
O
~Q
J
O
-
X
=
ti
~
FZ
J
U
-p
a) a4-0
)
H a)
w