Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpen Record Response Period ending 10-5-16Laurel Dill Valley Citizens Co-Chairs October 5, 2016 Mr. Fred Wilson Gunnar Schlieder Hearings Official Sheryl Kelly c/o Erik Berg-Johansen City of Eugene Vice-Chair RE: LHVC SUBMISSION FOR 2nd OPEN RECORD PERIOD, LAUREL RIDGE PUD ZONING REMAND (Z15-0005) Stephanie Midkiff Dear Mr. Wilson: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens as our submission Secretary during the 2nd Open Record period. This submission addresses the applicant's submission from September 28, 2016. Natalie Whitson In short the applicant makes four allegations: Treasurer 1. The applicant prefers their Exhibit "L" which consists of an overlay of rotated ZC- 2 onto a poor-quality scan of the Metro Plan Diagram using only the 30' Avenue Susan Ratzlaff centerline as referent. They dismiss overlays based on other single referents on the basis of the referent's size or distance from the property. Executive 2. LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-05 (Tax Lot Map Overlay) has inaccuracies. 3. LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 (Overlay of applicant's sheet ZC-4 onto high-resolution Committee scan of Metro Plan Diagram) has inconsistencies in scale. Adam Jones 4. The issues with LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 are related to LHVC's use of a "raster Bill Blix image" as opposed to a more accurate "vector-based" diagram. Betty Hosokawa We will address these issues in the following paragraphs: Deborah Kelly Applicant's allegation 1: Single Referent Better than Multiple? Jan Wostmann The issue of the propriety of using only one referent for placement of their property on Kathleen Frazer whichever Metro-Plan Diagram, as proposed by the applicant, has been addressed in both LHVC's and City Staff's earlier submissions. Both LHVC and City Staff, the latter Kaye Downey referencing textbooks, agree with LUBA that use of multiple referents is preferable to use Mitch Hider of a single referent. LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 makes use of a total of four referents, Richard Cundiff whereas the applicant uses only one, which, moreover, is a line, rather than a point. LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 demonstrates that a total of six referents (Centerline of 30r' Ave., Centerline of Spring Boulevard and its intersection with 30' Ave., the base of the Green Finger, Bloomberg Park, and the City Limits) can be matched well to the Metro Plan and is consistent with Applicant's Sheet SA-7.0. Laurel HillValleyCitizens@gmail.com . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 www.lhvc.org Mr. Fred Wilson October 5, 2016 Page 2 Applicant's Allegation 2: Inaccuracies in LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-05 The applicant alleges that there are inaccuracies on LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-05, which is an overlay of the applicable tax lot maps onto an image of the Metro Plan Diagram which is based on LCOG's GIS layer. According to the applicant's description of their methodology, they scaled their survey of the subject property according to the scale bar on an image of LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-5. However, quite clearly, someone appears to have measured inaccurately, as the yellowish surveyed elements of the map are somewhat smaller than the image they have been placed upon. Consequently, none of the applicant's surveyed elements fit well with the underlying LHVC image. The Centerline for Spring Boulevard is not centered on Spring Boulevard, but rather to the east of the center of the road on the TL Map, the surveyed property line of Bloomberg Park is to the W and N of the one on the tax lot map and the subject property is smaller than shown on the TL Map. According to our assessment of the issue it appears to be the result of inaccurate scaling by the applicant rather than represent inaccuracies with either the TL Maps or LHVC's map. Moreover, even if the applicant's argument were right, the maximum discrepancy for the applicant's property appears to be 35 feet as opposed to the 179 feet the applicant had "slid" their property to the NW on their proposed overlay maps. Applicant's Allegation 3: Inaccuracies in LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 The applicant alleges issues with the scaling of LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04. It is telling that the applicant did not include the entire sheet as presented by LHVC, but rather only a portion of the sheet and the scale bar from that sheet as an excerpt. It should be noted that the entire drawing of the applicant's boundary and scale bar (along with the Shirmer-Satre Logo etc.) on applicant's sheet ZC-2 was imported into the LHVC sheet as a unit. LHVC verified the bar scale presented by Schirmer-Satre on their drawing and then used the drawing without any modifications, besides the rotation necessary to bring the diagram to Grid North. In the wake of the applicant's allegation, LHVC re-checked (to a foot or less accuracy) our scale of the original document on which the LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 PDF is based and found no discrepancies between the scale bar and stated distances along the property lines If there are scaling discrepancies on applicant's ZC-417 and ZC-4G, they are either due to the applicant's inability to correctly read the scale of their own drawing or to some manipulation the applicant has performed with the scale block which they separated from the original drawing. Laurel HillValleyCitizens@gmail.com . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 www.lhvc.org Mr. Fred Wilson October 5, 2016 Page 3 Applicant's Allegation 4: Vector-Based Diagrams Preferable to Raster Images The issue of raster image vs. vector-based diagram was initially introduced in September, 2015, during the first open record period, by the applicant's insistence on using an extremely poor-quality scan of the Metro-Plan Diagram. Their first submission during the 2015 zone change application had been presented on vector-based Metro-Plan Diagram images obtained from LCOG's GIS Metro Plan Layer. Only after LHVC presented alternative maps based on the same LCOG GIS layer, did the applicant submit maps using the poor-quality scan of the "adopted" Metro Plan diagram insisting that these were the only acceptable version. Since that time, it has been the applicant who has insisted that ONLY raster-based scanned images of the original Metro-Plan Diagram are admissible! And now they want to complain about the use of raster-based images by LHVC. It was actually LUBA who indicated in their opinion that LCOG's GIS layer would likely result in an acceptable Metro-Plan diagram base map onto which to the place the applicant's property. So the limitation of using raster-based scans of paper copies of the Metro-Plan Diagram remains entirely at the applicant's insistence and not due to any limitations from LHVC, City Staff, or LUBA. Nonetheless, LHVC is at least in partial agreement with the applicant's argument, which postulates that "vector-based" diagrams (which locate points in space by direction and distance from an origin) can be more accurate than pixel-based images. The latter are limited in their accuracy to the size of the pixels. If Oregon were represented by a raster image with pixels 300 miles wide by 300 miles tall, it would not be possible to locate any points within the state, as one pixel would essentially encompass the entire state. The entire United States would be approximately 9 pixels wide, from Washington State's Olympic Peninsula to the eastern tip of Maine, and 5 pixels high, from the northern border of Minnesota to the south tip of Texas. Such an image would clearly not be useful to the question before us. However, the accuracy of raster (pixelated) images is entirely dependent on the size of the pixels used, also called the "resolution". For generating LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04, LHVC worked on an image of the Metro Plan Diagram (1" = 7,000') at a resolution of 1,200 dpi (dots - or pixels per inch, re-calculated from the original scan). Therefore, on LHVC's Metro Plan Diagram, each pixel represents 7,000 feet/1,200 dots = 5.83 feet per pixel, or each pixel represents an area of 5.83' x 5.83' = 34 ft'/pixel. Once the Metro Plan Diagram had been scaled up to the 1" = 200' scale used by the applicant's maps, the resolution was recalculated to 300 dpi (pixels per inch or 2007300 dpi = 0.667feet per pixel), which does not change the coloration of the scanned Metro Plan Diagram (5.83 feet/dot) but improves the workability of the map and the image quality of the applicant's Sheet ZC-4. As outlined in our submission for the I" Open Record Period (on September 28, 2016), the applicant used a Metro Plan Diagram with a pixel size of 17.5' x 17.5' = 306 ft2/pixel. This means that nine pixels on the Metro Plan Diagram underlying LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 fit into one pixel of the applicant's Metro Plan Diagram scan. Along those same lines, it should be pointed out that on their maps (1" = 200'), the applicant represents their property Laurel HillValleyCitizens@gmail.com . 2585Moon Mountain Drive . Eugene, OR 97403 www.lhvc.org Mr. Fred Wilson October 5, 2016 Page 4 lines as 0.09" wide, which is 18 feet, or three times the pixel size used by LHVC for the Metro Plan Diagram. Whereas it is true that the applicant's surveyed boundaries and points are represented in ACAD as vector-based objects, the applicant then places these theoretically very precise points and lines on a raster-based image of extremely poor quality, which makes the accuracy of their maps extremely poor. This is precisely the reason why LHVC has called for discarding all the applicant's maps which are based on their extremely poor-quality scan of the "original" Metro Plan Diagram. As suggested previously, if 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 orientation to North (True North vs. Grid North). These maps provide the crispest delineation of the Metro Plan Zoning Designation boundary. Respectfully submitted, 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 Laurel Hill VaRey 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 October 5, 2016 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: Just a quick note to explain how the evidence I entered into the record last week, regarding the approximation of the POS acreage by the City's GIS specialist. In his judgment there were approximately 42 acres of POS on the applicant's property. Since we don't have a map showing exactly where those 42 acres are, this information is useful only as 'context'. It should assist you in determining that the applicant's map, Exhibit L, which shows approximately 20 acres of POS, cannot be correct. Such a large discrepancy surely indicates that the applicant's methodology produced an incorrect resu It. In contrast, LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 shows approximately 40 acres of POS, which is much closer to the estimate produced by the City's GIS specialist. There are of course many more compelling and direct reasons why Sheet 9/2/15-04 is the most accurate representation of the line separating the plan designations on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. See testimony from Gunnar Schlieder, Bill Blix and Sean Malone. It is interesting to note that should you delineate the line between plan designations based on Sheet 9/2/15-04, the applicant would likely acquire two acres more of developable land than what the accuracy of today's GIS technology would give them. Respectfully submitted, Jan Wostmann Laurel Hill Valley Citizens LaurelHillValleyCitizens@gmail.com 9 2585 Moon Mountain Drive 9 Eugene, OR 97403 9 www.lhvc.org LaurelHillValleyCitizens@gmail.com 9 2585 Moon Mountain Drive 9 Eugene, OR 97403 9 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 October 5, 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 response testimony. The September 28, 2016, letter submitted by Schirmer Satre, the applicant's consultant (the applicant), alleges that "no two sets of referents can be utilized to accurately locate the subject property on the Metro Plan Diagram." As LHVC has noted, the goal here is to use multiple referents to be accurate, not to create perfection. To the extent that the applicant argues that because perfection cannot be obtained, then the most inaccurate map can be used, that argument must be rejected. The applicant alleges that "additional referents have been considered, and that having more referents did not provide more accuracy." The applicant appears to be looking for perfection instead of an accurate depiction that utilizes all referents. Harmonizing all referents will lead to a more accurate depiction than using a single referent that would result in a more skewed depiction. Going back to the original appeal in this matter, LUBA indicated that the parties "will have to do the best they can with the tools at their disposal." Environ- metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene, Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2013-098, January 29, 2014), slip op at 21. The applicant appears to argue that because the map cannot perfectly fit with every referent, then the applicant is somehow justified in using only a single referent, regardless of the distortion. This argument is unavailing on its face. The applicant spends much time critiquing LHVC 9/2/15-05, but there is no basis to conclude that the applicant's methodology is sound. The methodology is made up of numerous steps and measurements. These steps and measurements are subjective, especially when "align[ing] the boundary. Where, for example, the applicant proposes to measure from on a tax lot line necessarily changes the measurement. Regardless of that basic shortcoming, once again, the applicant is simply attempting to use a single referent - 30th Avenue, not the many referents that the applicant used and that LUBA suggested - and the applicant fails to harmonize the various referents to come to a reasonable, accurate conclusion. The applicant repeatedly alleges that LHVC 9/2/15-04 and -05 maps represent the "incorrect" Metro Plan. The letter from the City staff dated September 28, 2016, unequivocally refutes this worn out allegation. City staff stated: "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 FI-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." As such, the applicant's allegation of the "incorrect" map falls on deaf ears. As to the applicant's repeated assertions that the City limits cannot be used, that issue has been laid to rest by LUBA in its most recent opinion.I City staff also agrees with this position, and, at the September 21 hearing, the Hearings Official appeared to agree. The applicant essentially alleges that all maps - including tax lot maps and LHVC maps are incredible - and that only its own maps can be trusted. For example, in alleging that map LHVC 9/2/16-05 is faulty, the applicant attacks all tax lot maps: it "actually proves that tax lot maps are inherently fallible and not accurate." This is broad-brushed statement, in and of itself, is incredulous. The applicant then presents unsubstantiated arguments about raster and vector, but the reality is that the applicant is using the blurriest image of all for its map. City Indeed, LUBA ultimately agreed with LHVC stating: "while not depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram, the city limits line in this area is a surveyed line that can be accurately located along the boundaries of two features that are depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram: Spring Boulevard and the so-called `green finger.' According to undisputed testimony in the record, the city limits is located along the eastern boundary of Spring Boulevard, and borders the eastern and northern boundary of a portion of the green finger, the base of which forms an `L' shape." LHVC v. City of Eugene, Or LUBA , (LUBA No. 2015-092/091, March 11, 2016) slip op 35. z staff has attested to the City's high-resolution scanner that LHVC utilized. The blurry images set forth by the applicant in its maps, on the other hand, are inherently problematic because it is impossible to know where to begin to measure on such a map. Such an approach is laden with subjectivity. LHVC's 9/2/15-04 map, however, is much more clear, as noted by City staff. For the foregoing reasons, as well as those submitted by members of LHVC, including 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. Sincerely, Sean T. Malone Attorney for LHVC Cc: Client 3 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 9101 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 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. 375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 PLANNERS + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 Fax: 541.686.4577 www.schirmersatre.com + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS + 1 I 1 1 - 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 301h 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'h Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, Utz 8 r4U1 • too 1) n250-40-+u - 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 staffs 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 SATO 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. It 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 Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony Page 10 of 10 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 1J $o COLT tOL slol'OO-OL-CO-gL dvw 300IHl3Hnvi .~<.< N . „ Ala3doad 133rans V , „s.A89,K:.., „O - o, n, :39NVH3 3NOZ N dnon. 3n..~ • LnNv . a N VI LL (n Z ww (n w Zm O c/) F w~ w co F- W QQ(n 5 C) 3: CL O CC CL (1) cl: Q Q Q 6 O U J E O U) -0 _z 0 J O_ W Q O j J 0 0 N LLo0 U(Dzz w U(_np Z Z Q Z W W I o U) tr w WQ ao H F=-( Q0 OwZ c° W ca ~WOrF- Qp ~ LL W LL wQO(n H J Z cU)~QO 2 30 1-(nQZ r O ` l.._..~ 00 (1) cm N 7a N W rn y W r ~ ° W 0 6 °O ra oQ ~Wy °#W ° oa ° mwa venx zo ~F~ y °Q¢ FO `~~ZW o ~ °W Z I 0 Za- O Z U) H W W W Q wZOw cr U) J } W H OU m J co c (n W W ~ w cf) Jm~ W Z W w Z_Omm J 0 Q a) W (L 0 Q Q c J U W 0 Z C :co Z) F=o O UUQ(nm 7 v/ - N N~ •O / N (A c c F w 8-H i cz O xQ<m6 ° F W d y =3 :3 (D ~ O oaiZW °w°gg Ii 40- O(D- c N h o~~;M ~ I C _C: O N (n / i co N ' CZ a) J N cn N C Q . ~ c) CL p N O Lo c: ODJ CL (1) (n / I V \ a 0 / \ R 00 1 1 ~ U 0 O O C 'y W V.. LA O .E A C' va • 4a or56-C5.-,r5 rya cr=5c-as-iK•-3: OOS;EXauuV d;1adOJd IP.H S}IJI.'PuOH yJ p c~'~~ ' SGC:i »"Ta~J' SI :AnL07 ` 4Yn37W8 V3153'n n9 rq UI ~ L, _ w 7\I 'Sr'i=NiT= 9n'u it SHOT • a ems; Jr% ~ m;- o ' aaaBn3 N N Iri- iiflIL~ § J)r~~~ i/'r/JI I~{~~i; ~.j~f//=''~~ ~ri~%'1,~/~'l'~I// li~~~~llli/%'4i!~`1`j`: 73 LM 7' ILL .i\\~\\\\. /!%-:`('..•LYF \\~~~\\\~14~, , c eta, `~I~\\~' _.i'--~.~~~~\~~ ~(i. ;li~~~4~~ --~~n~,~z` .~~.\\~.,\>\`,t'!'~i1 ` 11 i' l.`'t ~`~i- --IT Ji•c~ Irtu N J : - I i 4 .;1t,~ \ r tf I F•~i: 1 J~(f ( i •ti{ 1f~i7 f;~.f < at Q \ 1 ~f f',ii j ' L F- (n ~ `~~:\`I\°`~~~~:~t\\L~°*'ti 17I~)\~I' 'M1 1 1,.1 1~1 ~1~1 _-i'i~ ~~tl~i'~~~ti~r-_. .r Q 2F- III x 'W \ \ I I ,}I r 1 ' (~l 17'+idJ'•'l l ' J : - l\ I ,1; ' \ I~` 1 \:\\;11~ i% % ~;~~i~~ f ' ~ 1'• ! ~C~i'~"~.` ` !l`r r;'j~r~l , ~ J/~// ,,\L~~'.;';. a. _ -y~ - 1 i fi- I / \ 1} \g\~.1 rl:J rJ ;n,T,I Il 1. 1, P J ! . } ~ aa~~• :1\~ y 'rl/ IE Irt ~11~1"~r' J { , \ 1111 ` !1, I ti~7,: U L~`. r~~)~~~fli`+ ~'!~'If;l•'~,~%/ J, Cam: ~liil \ { );1~1`J V)i 1 ±li/~~g~/i~~/%j~~/~,~II1 ~i~~,.:`~~ff~ 1 _ ,l•`11~ I~! _ _ ''~~'.~yt r Z Z `:,~•/`ll.~/r /'/r1 tt Q W i qll /l ; I~/; ~7r li l - r / ! I •L 111.x,,(;; i~ e \ , ~ ~ l`.-' s+ ~ \ O ONO'0 ;arar 1St`,siltilri~r 1~ \ t~~ - n ` r.~ / W Q t`•\~ V 11 11) U_ W'r 'VO 111H z c! c F SiJtlSOFt` Ir'}Jd ..'I//,f C N ~ O W Q !fir PI /~/f U , ) I\"'~_... I - )s, ,1! il'J' f:~ /.•!(I ~ W a = W z (D C: y .__I w Q r iJ ~C1 f' , 1. ~l/ U) (D z' E 3: X L) 0 U) lyj CD W Q) U) C) (It 0 vi U) L_ u C.C w (1) CD U) ! LO / Jf I (1) L1J r ~IJ I 0 p 0) Cf) 0 c 00 P. a) CO r- y r t ' ICE c C U) CZ) \ cU CL 0 0) cu 0 C: 'a Q- a) C15 C; J_0OQc 1: 1 M fD L LL cu U) V C E c L O 0 U J c O -cu c cn N U_ s (6 fLn V rn c s U c N N J W p U co z Z Q Z W W 2 C2 L C cncr w 2DHQ H C/) Q Z UL < ~~w o c <WOc: pl--u-w LL w Q cl CQ >F- JZ '+'J\ cn Q O Z) 0UO = HU)<z r LLJ- o z~~ I ~ ~ U) ` ` Ln N ° Lo _ 0 I;t CL E OD W' I' CC) c.) i o - - I~-- SPRING BLVD (Do > o W 7 c _ ° v a o~ r c O co a) ~ U O C N N cD 4-- -0 E Q N (D O LL C) O 0 O Ln LO N 0 N .E cn 4-0 O X U Icu U J U ' 3 V J V J ® I Figure 5 Branch HotINEERING= Since 1977 October 5, 2o16 Rick Satre Schirmer Satre Group 375 W 4th Ave #201 Eugene, OR 97401 RE: METRO PLAN ALIGNMENT LAURELRIDGE ZONE CHANGE (Z 15-5) Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. 11-o68:2d .,Received OCT 05 2016 City of Eugene Planning Division 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 re d 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 War,dng Together Sor Our Conomu nftV Initializing Components. Please Wait._. i her sr= na wsrrsme , exFr?s or imnl ao, inda-Jing tt c v.wr rly cS mErchsnLsdri?r cr Rn_ss fur a ps-mular p:jn3A i scoamps-Iicg iEue _Re cr eny display crvdud or r pnri derived fr+m lhi= slfe. Th= sppli,-Lure N eleniled For c e~~ce oriy fT7.fb- 3ton 4l m appEax= in tnL__ppltwaton my or may not iae.acura:°, G;-7rant, cr oLhsm° aTPJia&__ l PEr~ IS NGT TO H_ 61st Ff-7-q MdWir HIS ,-1-10% OR FOF. LEGAL PLrFYPD£~' Th appG ;7cn u_ = I't-MiTtSed Gaz=r1____ teahna'a.gy fnr Es-tt AmSI> Sm,=- A, I T ghts reseryad 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) 6864540 `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.. TOPOGRAPHY IS LIDAN DATA (HOT SURVEYED PROPERTY BOUNDARY fr' 1 SURVEYED DATA) 1 f GIS lj (HON SURVEYED) Y 6 LINES RE g 1 REPRESS 4TING oHG APPROXIMATE 1 LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY m...µM1»..®..._.:._.._.. .~.L...®.. ®...W . ®......m...-. j ~ ! ! LARGE MARGIN OF ERR i° ( YCHED AT.:INTERSECTION . OF 2 SURVEYED PROPERTY LINES aced 2 O/$ PROPERTY LINES = i r LI 5 EwY~ ft U YFYOR TH ,RE C S OR O E 9biET r x E [NTRwpR RC+E -PROx Wni~Lti:AigN Or ,R;: t to lirva[bAtx SVRtSURVfvEO Darn: J v= f KTT~ j Y~' ' yrr, t ! i I ~ f E r 1 I ! 1 LEGEND URVEYED PeFR?EPIY r AGAR ORIGINAL (NOT P OF) F CI STAFF FIGURE SUBMITTED 9.26.16 !SURVEYED PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND OTHER SURVEYED REFERENTS i 'I