HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearings Official Decision (Remand)DECISION OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON
ZONE CHANGE
INTRODUCTION
Application File Name (Number):
Environ-Metal Properties. LLC/ Laurel Ride (Z 15-5)
Applicant's Request:
Zone change from AG/WR - Agricultural with Water Resource overlay to PRO/PD%WR -
Parks. Recreation R Open Space with Planted Development and Water Resource overlays
and R-I/PDiWR - Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource
overlays.
Subject Pro perty/Loca lion:
Located at the end of Riverview Street. north of 30`t Avenue, west of Moon -fountain.
Assessor's Map 13-03-10-00 -Tax Lots 701 and 70.
Relevant Dates:
The Hearings Official originally approved the application on September 24. _015. The
Planning Commission adopted the Hearings Official's decision on October 29, 2015. The
Land I -Ise Board of Appeals remanded the decision on March 1 I. 2010. A public hearing on
remand was held on September 21, 2016.
Applicant's Representative:
Richard Satre of the Schirmer Satre Group.
Lead Citv Staff:
Erik Ber,-Johansen. Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division.
Summary of the Public Hearing
The Hearings Official held a public hearing on this application on September 21. 2016.
The Hearings Official stated he had no conflicts of interests. was not biased, and had no e.1 pane
communications to disclose. No person objected to the Hearings Official conducting the hearing.
Erik Berk-Johansen (Berg-Johansen), Assistant Planner, and Gabe Flick, Senior Planner, were
present for the hearing. Berg-Johansen presented the staff report at the public hearing. Richard
Satre and Bill Kloos spoke in favor ofthe application. A number of neighbors from the Laurel Hill
area spoke in opposition to the application. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Hearings
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Pa;;e 1
Official left the record open for one week for the submission of new evidence, one additional week
for responses to the new evidence, and one more week for the applicants final legal argument.
FACTS
This decision is a decision on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The
application was originally approved by this Hearings Official and that decision was adopted by the
Planning Commission. LUBA remanded the decision, and these proceedings followed. The
applicant owns property that has been annexed into the City, but it still retains an Agricultural
(AG) zoning designation with a Water Resource (WR) overlap. The applicant seeks to rezone some
of the property Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource overlays
(R-ITD/A R) and part of the property Parks. Recreation & Open Space with Planned
Development and Water Resource overlays - (PRo/PD/W R).I The property is designated for Lnw
Density Residential (LDR) and Parks and Open Space (POS) on the comprehensive plan. but the
boundary between the two designations is in dispute. I take the relevant facts from LUBA's final
opinion:
"The subject property is a 131-acre parcel with a long east-west axis. located at the snuthem
edge of the cit). adjacent to the urban growth boundary. The comprehensive plan
designation for the subject property is controlled by the Metro Plan diagram, adopted in
'_004. which is a paper I Ix17 inch map at a scale ofone inch equals 7.000 feet. The Metro
Plan diagram is not property specific. and indicates plan designation by blobs ofcolor.
`'ht the present case, the southwestern boundarv of the property adjoins the right-ofway
for East loth Avenue. In this area, which has steep slopes, the city-owned property that
includes the East 30th Avenue right-of-way' is approximately ]40 to 300 feet wide. On the
Metro Plan diagram, East 10th Avenue in the vicinity of the subject propem is depicted as
a black line that runs along a southeast to northwest axis, then corvine gently to the west.
where it intersects with Spring Boulevard, approaching from the south. and then continues
west.
"in 21113, Environ-Metal applied to the city for zoning map amendments and development
approvals to develop the entire property for residential use, based on a refinement plan map
that appeared to show the entire property designated Low Density Residential ( LDR). The
cif, denied the application, concludin, that the controlling document, the 31104 Metro Plan
Diagram, depicts a strip of land in the southern portion of the property with the Parks and
Open Space (POS.) designation. In Environ-Alum/ Properties. LLC v. Cin, o% Eugene. 69
Or LUBA 33, affd 263, Or App 71=4, 330 Pad 74 (2014). LUBA affirmed the citv's
conclusion that a southern portion ut the subject I_I-acre property is designated POS.
LUBA rejected Environ-Metal's argument that it was impossible to determine based on the
' Because there is no depute regarding the planned dc%clopntent and wafer resource )%erlaYs. for ease ut reference I
M11 just refer to the tern proposed zoning designations as R-I and PRO.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 2
scale and lack of detail on the Metro Plan Diagram exactly where on the subject property
the boundary fine between the LDR and POS designations lies. We commented:
"'Because the metro Plan diagram is now digitized. and the depicted plan
boundaries [on the digitized map] are sharper than in previous versions, the problem
may not be as difficult to solve as [Environ-Metal] fear[s]. It may be possible to
scale up the digital version of the map, overlay it with proplm' lines from a digital
database, and detennine the precise plan designation boundaries im the subject
property with reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is not possible, the city
and [Environ-Metal] will have to do the best they can with the tools at their
disposal.' 69 Or LI IBA at 47.
In 201 Environ-Metal tiled the present application to rezone the northern portion of the
subject property for residential use, and to zone approximately 30 acres of the southern
portion of the property Parks and Open Space (POS). zones that implement the plan
designations on the property. Eugene Code (EC) 9.3365( 1) is a zone change criterion
requiring that the applicant demonstrate (hat'[t]he proposed change is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.' Thus, the relevant legal question is whether the
proposed zoning of the subject probem is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram.
"In general, the evidence submitted below attempted to follow LUBA's suggested
approach, by First creating a map (which we refer to as a survey map). at a scale of t inch
equals 300 feet that depicts the subject property lines, the urban growth boundary, city
limits and the 30th Avenue centerline. The =0th Avenue centerline is located based on data
from the Lane County Surveyor's Office. The propert y boundary, city limits and urban
vrowth boundary are based on surveys. We understand the parties to agree that the subject
property lines, the urban growth boundary, city limits and the =0th Avenue center line are
accurately depicted in relation to each other.
"Nest. the Metro Plan dia=ram is enlarged and scaled to I inch equals 300 feet (the enlarged
Metro Plan diagram). The parties initially used the digital version of the Metro Plan
diagram. However, as explained below, the parties later shifted to using enlarged scans of
the official paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram.
"The final. and most difficult task, is to overlay the survey map (which does not .show the
LDR!POS boundary) on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram (which shows the LDRPOS
boundary). We refer to such combined maps as 'overlaid diagrams.' If the surveyed
property boundaries matched up to any features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram, it
would be relatively strai_^htfinvard to establish the location of tile LDR/POS boundary on
the subject propem. and hence the zoning boundary. However, in general the surveyed
property boundaries do not match up to any features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram.
There are, however. several nearbv features that can be aligned with the other surveyed
lines on the survey map. We refer to these features depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan
diagram as 'referents.' Depending on how they are counted, in the area of the subject
property there are three to four referents that could be used to align the survey map onto
the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. Because all of the surveyed lines on the survey map
have an accurate relationship with each other, by matching up surveyed lines and features
Hearings Official Decision (Z 1S-S Remand) Page 3
located near the subject property. one can be reasonably confident that the LDR7P0S
boundary is located as accurately as possible within the boundaries of the surveyed
property lines. * * *
"Both Envircm-h-letal and LHVC submitted overlaid diagrams that differ somewhat, and
those differences are discussed in more detail below. In general. Environ-Metal relied on
only a single referent, matching the surveyed centerline of East 30th Avenue with a portion
of the black line representing East 30th Avenue depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan
dia,-ram. As noted, Environ-Metal used a survev obtained front the count'v surveyor to
locate the built centerline of East loth Avenue on the survey map, and attempted to alimt
that centerline. depicted as a thin green line on the survey map, with the thicker black line
that depicts East 30th on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram that represents the paved portion
of East 30th Avenue. The resulting overlaid diagram depicts the features shown on both
maps. See Exhibit 0. Record 1 378 and the color copy at Oversize Exhibit RE-Z. As
explained below, on Exhibit d,, and all other Environ-Metal overlaid diagrams. the thin
green line representing the East 30th Avenue centerline (from the survev map) matches the
line showing the East 30th Avenue alignment from the enlarged Metro Plan diagram where
it is closest to the subject property. but where East 30th Avenue curves west, those lines
diverge.
"LHVC. submitted testimony and maps prepared by an engineer, Schlieder, critiquing the
proposed diagram at Exhibit G. Record 1071-91. Schlieder noted that Exhibit G is
apparently based not on the official paper version of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. but on
the unofficial digital version. Schlieder presumably did not intend this to be a criticism in
itself, because the initial maps submitted by Schlieder were also based on the digital Memo
Plan diagram.
"Substantively. Sell lieder identified what we will call the 'north arrow' problem. In brief.
Environ-Metal's surveyed map and enlarged Metro Plan diagram were both oriented with
true north to the top of the diagram. Ho"ever. Schlieder noted that the north arrow on the
3004 Nletro Plan diagram is tilted two degrees to the right relative to the top of the printed
page, apparently to reflect what is called ',rid north,' a convention reflecting the difficulty
of representing a portion of the round globe on a Flat map. Schlieder submitted diagrams
showing that when the property boundaries are tilted two deL,
rees to match the north arrow
on the 3004 Metro Plan diagram an additional eight acres is subject to the POS designation.
"Second. Schlieder noted that on Exhibit G the centerline of East loth Avenue from the
survey map diverges north of the thick black line representing East loth Avenue from the
enlarged Metro Plan diagram at the point where East 38th :Avenue curves west near its
intersection with Spring Boulevard. Schlieder calculated this divergence to represent
approximately 11_4 feet on the ground at the appropriate scale. Further; Schlieder took the
position that the city limits line from the survey map, as depicted on Exhibit G. is offset to
the northwest from its correct position, which according to Schlieder is actually located
along the eastern boundary (if Spring Boulevard. but Exhibit G depicts the city limits line
to the west of Spring Boulevard. Schlieder attributed these anomalies in part to the north
arrow' problem, and in part to what LHVC calls the 'sliding' problem. Schlieder argued
that Environ-Afetal s' sin«le-referent, single-axis approach allows the subject property lines
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 4
to 'slide' in a northwest direction along the axis of East =0th Avenue, with the result that
less land within the subject property is subject to the POS designation. Schlieder calculated
that with the north arrow problem corrected, and the East 30th Avenue centerline and city
limits lines placed to match the western curve of the East 30th Avenue alignment and the
eastern boundary of Spring Boulevard, approximately 40 acres of the subject property is
subject to the POS designation, rather than the 20 acres advocated by Environ-Nletal.
"On September 2, 2015, city planning staff submitted a supplemental staff memorandum
that agreed with Schlieder that using additional physical referents would more accurately
align the property with the Metro Plan diagram, and that a more accurate map would result
if the property boundaries are rotated to match the two-degree tilt of the north arrow on the
Metro Plan
dia- gram. Record 195. Staff also argued that the hearings official should not
rely upon diagrams based on the unofficial digital Metro Plan diagram. Record 194.
"On the same date. September '_,'Ol>, Environ-Metal submitted two additional, alternative
overlaid diagrams (Exhibit L and Exhibit M) to address the 'north arrow' problem and the
criticism that Exhibit G is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram.
Record 201, 202 (see also oversize color copies RE-K and RE-L). Both additional overlaid
diagrams that are Exhibits L and M are based on a scanned enlargement of the official
paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram.
"Overlaid diagrams Exhibit L and M omit the city limit lines and some of the urban Growth
houndary lines from Environ-Metal's survey map, which were included on overlaid
diagram Exhibit G. leaving only the property boundaries and the centerline of East 30th
Avenue from the survey map. Exhibit L rotates the propert y boundaries and centerline rwo
degrees to the right, to match the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Because
of the limo east-west axis of the subject property, the rotation adds approximately eight
acres to land subject to the POS designation. Exhibit NI is not rotated, and we understand
Exhibit M to be consistent with Exhibit G. Environ-Metal arwed to the hearings official
that the nvo-degree north arrow tilt on the Metro Plan diagram is a scrivener's error, and
that the hearings official should determine the location of the propert y relative to the
features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. based on the unrotated 'true north' Exhibit
M over the rotated 'grid north' Exhibit L.
"On the same date. Schlieder submitted a set of five new overlaid diagrams. labeled LHVC
Sheets 9/2/15-01 through -05. Record 153-92, Oversize Exhibit RE-1. The most relevant
in the present appeal is Sheet 9/2/15-04. Schlieder testified that Sheet 9/2/15-04 is an
overlaid diagram using an enlarged Metro Plan diagram based on the official paper 2004
Metro Plan diagram. Sheet 9/2/15-04 purports to correct the 'north arrow' problem and
the 'sliding' problem identified in Schlieder's earlier testimony. Schlieder argues that
Sheet 9,'2/15-04 overlays the surveyed lines shown on Environ-Metal's survey map,
including the East 30th Avenue centerline and the city limits, with the associated features
on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram in a manner that matches all referents more closely
than any of Environ-Metal's diagrams." Laurel Hill Vallee Citizens r. Cih of Eugene,
Or LUBA - (Slip Op 4-12) (LUBA No. 2015-092. March 11. 2016).
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 5
On remand, the issue is to properly determine the location of the boundary between the
LDR and POS designation on the Metro Plan.
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL
I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the proposed zone change. (Z
15-5) as well as the testimony and documents provided at the public hearing and the evidence
submitted during the open record period.
ANALYSIS
To use LUBA's terminology, resolution of the issue in question involves generating an
"enlarged Metro Plan Dia=ram" (Metro Plan Diagram) and a -'survey map." The swveN map is
then placed on top of the Yletro Plan Diagram to create an "overlaid diagram." As LUBA
explained, the surveyed features on the survey map do not match up precisely with the Men, Plan
Diagram. Therefore, I had to ehouse behveen competing overlaid diagrams. In the original
decision, I agreed with the applicant that Exhibit L was the most accurate overlaid diagram.
One of the reasons LUBA remanded the decision was because I did not consider one of
Laurel Hill Valley Citizens' (LHVC) overlaid diagrams - LHVC Sheet 9/3/15-0-} (LHVC
Diagram). LUBA remanded the decision in order that the LHVC Diagram he considered. I actually
did consider the LHVC Diagram in the original decision, although l certainly understand \%hv
LUBA thought l did not. Originally. I chose Exhibit L (applicant's Diagram) over the applicant's
overlaid diagram with its position on the north arrow problem (Exhibit G) and LH 'C's Diagram.'
LUBA also remanded the decision for failing to properly consider the multiple referent
approach of LHVC's Diagram versus the single referent approach of the applicant's Diagram.
The Applicants Diagram uses one referent - East 30"' Avenue adjacent to the property - to align
the surveN' map over the Metro Plan Diagram to produce the applicant's preferred overlaid
dia---rare. LHVC argued that additional referents should be used to create a more accurate overlaid
diagram. In particular. LHVC argues that the western curve of East =0 Avenue northwest of the
applicant's East _0`h Avenue referent and the city limits line on the boundary of Spring Boulevard
and the green finger should be used.' LUBA stated:
LUBA agreed with my disposition of the north arrow problem, so I will not discuss that aspect further.
As LUBA explained. the green finger is "a thin rectangle or land designated POS depicted an the cnlat-,ed btetro
Plan diagram. which is located north of the intersection of East =0" Avenue and Spring Boulcsard, and which is
oriented in a north-south direction. ~fe understand that the green finger. on the ground. is a public trail or pathway
that runs north and south The significance of the green tinker is tied to the significance ofthe cna limits line. hecause
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 6
"Accordingly, we agree with LHVC, at least in the abstract. that a frill lti-referent, multi-
axis approach is likely to produce a more accurate and reliable result than a single-referent.
single-axis approach. In our view, if multiple referents are available, a reasonable decision
maker would at least consider the -tit' provided by multiple referents, and would not limit
consideration to the tit provided by a single-referent, single-axis approach." Laarel Hill
Valley Citeens, Slip Op 30.
In the original decision. I did not consider the city limits as shown on the LHVC Diagram
because the city limits are not depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram. LUBA stated:
"On the merits, we agree with LHVC that the hearings official erred in declining to consider
evidence retarding the matchup between the surveyed cite limits line and Spring
Boulevard and the green finger. While the city limits line is not depicted on the enlarged
Metro Plan diagram. neither is the centerline of East 30th Avenue on which Fnviron-Metal
exclusively relies. Both the city limits and center line are surveyed, and there is no dispute
that the depiction of their location and relationship on the survey map is accurate. Both
the centerline and the city limit line bear close physical relationships to features depicted
on the 3004 Metro Plan diagam: the survey map centerline to the enlarged Metro Plan
diagram black line depicting East 30`h Avenue. and the survey map city limits line to the
boundaries of Spring Boulevard and the green finger. 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. Like the
western curve of East 30`h Avenue, the city limits line is positioned at various angles to the
portion of East ,0`h Avenue that Environ-Metal relies upon as its sole referent, and thus the
city limits line matchup acts as an additional referent to check the accuracy of Environ-
Metal's preferred location of the match benveen the survey map and the enlarged Metro
Plan diagram." Laurel Hill 6alle Citizens, Slip C)p 37-33.
Therefore, on remand I must consider LHVC's Diagram and consider the additional
referents of the East 30`h Avenue curve and the city limits depicted on LHVC's Diagram.
On remand. the record was reopened to allow additional evidence to be presented on the
proper location of the boundary between LDR and POS designations.a The applicant submitted
four additional oversized overlaid diagrams (ZC-4A, ZC-4B. ZC-4C. & ZC-41)). The four overlaid
diagrams attempt to respond to LUBA's directions by creating overlaid diagrams based on multiple
referents. Each of the four maps take a surveyed location for one referent and overlays the survey
map on the Metro Plan diagram to create an overlaid diagram. The overlaid diagram then also
according to LHVC a portion of the cit}, limits line runs down the eastern boundary of the 11curl finger." Lama/ Hill
la(/er Citizen. Slip C )p at '7-18 n 7. -
' A number of opponents testified against the application an the grounds of traffic. wildlife. climate change, and the
need for additional ripen space. As explained by city staff and the Hearings Official. such ar_euments are beyond the
scope of this remand and will not be cnnstdered.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 7
shows a number of additional referents.5 Z_C-4A is matched to the centerline of East .;()`n Avenue.
In other words, the main referent is the centerline of East 30`h Avenue. Therefore. the survey map
is matched up on the centerline of East 30`l' Avenue and the other referents are not exactly matched
up. This is essentially the same overlaid diagram as the Applicant's Diagram that was approved in
the original decision except that it also includes the additional referents described in footnote 5.
ZC-4B is matched up to the green finger. ZC-4C is matched up to the centerline of Spring
Boulevard. ZC-4D is matched up to Bloomberg Park.' All four overlaid diagrams show a boundary
bethveen R-1 and POS zoning approximately where the boundary is shown on the Applicant's
Diagram. According to the applicant, each of these overlaid diagrams are based on surveyed
locations tnr the main referent and are therefore the most accurate depictions of the R-LPOS
boundarv.
LHVC continues to rely on the LHVC Diagram as the most accurate overlaid diagram.'
The LHVC diagram was more thoroughly explained (or perhaps ['just have it better understanding)
on remand. If I understand eorrectlY, the LHVC diagram does not utilize one main referent lone
referent that is located exactly on the Metro Plan Diagram - as the four overlaid diagrams
submitted by the applicant dol, but instead began with one referent - the curve on East . U`f Avenue
- and once that referent was located the survey map was slid around the Metro Plan diagram to try
to match tip as closely as possible with other referents such as the green finger and city limit lines.`
In other words. none of the referents match up exactly. but according to LHVC the slid around
survey map is closer to the multiple referents than the single referent maps produced by the
applicant, which perhaps match up at one referent but are much farther off at the other referents.
s Each )t the four diagram, shows: (A) centerline of 30'": west segment: ( B i centerline of 30'": middle sc.-menc 1C')
centerline of 3011: east segment: ID1 green linger: tE1 centcrlme of Spring Boulc%ard. IFI Bloomberg Park: west
prupcrty line: (Co Bloomberg Park north property line: (H) Bloomberg Park: east property line: and 111 Tax Lot ~00east houndary
Bloomherg Park was not really discussed during the original proceedings. but it is a public park located to the
southeast of the property and is shown on the Metro Plan.
' LHVC suhmiued critiques of the k,ur overlaid diagrams suhmined by the applicant. While those critiques adjust the
R-I PPS boundarv some'ahaL the boundaries still appear to be closer to the Applicant's Diagram than the LHVC
Diagram. LHVC also raised Sheet SA TO as supporting their position. I agree with the applicant, as I did in the prior
decision. that SA 7.0 was prepared as a planning tool and way not meant to represent the LDR:'POS houndar,, LUBA
found that the issue had been waived on appeal. Although LHVC ntiry raise the issue since the record was reopened.
I reach the same conclusion as in the prior decision
9 It is not entirely clear to me how LHVC placed the coy limit lima on the overlaid diagram.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 8
This has been a frustrating experience for all parties involved.' This remand proceeding
has been difficult for me in that except for one submission that was submitted at the public hearing
(which was primarily the four additional overlaid diagrams and accompanying explanations) all of
the evidence and argument was submitted after the public hearing was concluded.'" The evidence
and argument submitted after the conclusion of the public hearing contains detailed and
complicated cartographical and engineering arguments. As the public hearing has concluded. I
have not been able to ask any question or seek any clarifications regarding such evidence and
arguments. In any event, as LUBA directed. we must to do the best we can with the tools at our
disposal.
Once again. the decision comes down to whether the Applicants Diagram or tile LFIVC
Diagram is more consistent with the Metro Plan. The four additional overlaid diagrams provided
by the applicant are based on main referents that come from a survey. Presumably those overlaid
diagrams would be accurate, at least in the area of the main referent. The farther the overlaid
diagram acts away from the main referent the less accurate the overlaid diagrams would be. If the
applicant used a lot of main referents from different areas surrounding the subject property, the
averase of those overlaid diagrams should be very close to the actual LDR/POS boundary-similar
to a regression analysis. The applicant only provided four of these overlaid diagrams. but they are
from the northwest, the southwest. the west. and the southeast. Although there are not a large
number of overlaid diagrams, they tend to support the applicant's position that tfie boundary is
further south than the LHVC Diagram shows.
The applicant's overlaid dia~ranis appear to be reasonably accurate for the main referent,
however, the other referents tend to be much less accurate: For instance, ZC- 4A is accurate for the
centerline of East 30`h .Avenue. but the middle se_,ment and west segment diverge from the Metro
Plan Diagram depiction of East 'Wh Avenue. Spring Boulevard is further to the west on the overlaid
diagram than it is on the Metro Plan Diagram. The Green finger is also farther to the west on the
overlaid diagram than it is on the Metro Plan Diagram. ZC-413 is reasonably accurate for the main
referent, the green finger (although it is still a bit to the west of the Metro Plan Diagram), but the
west segment of East 30" Avenue is a bit north of the Metro Plan Diagram. Spring Boulevard and
Bloomberg Park are also a bit inaccurate. ZC-4C is reasonably accurate for the main referent,
See Lnwe/ Hi/! t"ullev Citi=emu. Slip op 13-40(Holsmn Cuncurrence).
'n The public hearing could not be continued because of tight deadlines 6x making a final decision. includma almost
cenain appeal to the Planning Commission. Even this decision is being made on an accelerated deadline.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 9
Spring Boulevard, but the middle and west segment of East 30" Avenue is further north than the
Mero Plan Diagram depiction of East 10`s Avenue. Also. the green finger is farther to the west
than as depicted on the Metre Plan Diagram. ZC-4D is reasonably accurate for the main referent.
Bloomberg Park, but not particularly accurate for the entire stretch of East 30`n Avenue. Spring
Boulevard, or the green finger. To summarize, the applicant's overlaid diagrams are accurate at
the point of the main referent but less accurate in relation to the other referents. The applicant
argues that this is not a flaw in the overlaid diagrams but rather due to the inexact nature of the
Metro Plan Diagram. According to the applicant, the Applicant's Diagram - which uses the
centerline of the east segment of East 30' Avenue as the main referent is the most accurate overlaid
diagram.
LHVC's Diagram uses a clearer version of the Metro Plan Diagram. There was
considerable dispute about the clearer version used by LHVC and the fuzzier version of the Metro
Plan Dia«ram used be the applicant. The Metro Plan Diagram is a paper document on file with the
Citv. While di,,itized versions of the Metro Plan have been generated. only the paper version is the
official version. The applicant obtained a copy of the paper version and scanned the copy into a
digital file on a scanner with it resolution that resulted in the fuzzier version reflected on the
applicants overlaid diagrams. LHVC, as explained by the September 28. 2016 staff memo.
obtained a paper cope of the Metro Plan from staff. Staff then scanned the paper copy into a digital
file on staff's scanner. As staff explains "[t]he high quality scanner is able to produce images with
an optical resolution of 000 dots per square inch (DPI), which is why the Metro Plan diagram
image on [the LHVC Diagram] appears to be quite clear." I agree with LHVC and staff that the
Metro Plan Diagram that LHVC uses is the same as the Metro Plan diagram used by the applicant
- it just has a higher resolution.
The survey map portion of LHVC's overlaid diagram uses the same survey used by the
applicant in the Applicant's Diagram. In addition to the applicant's survey, LHVC apparently also
added city limit lines. The city limit lines were based on the applicant's survey for the southern tip
of the property in the west to the east property line. The rest of the city limit lines were apparently
based on tax lots generated by GIS. As discussed earlier. LHVC began by using the western curve
of Last ;0°' Avenue as the main referent point. Apparently, the match between the survey map and
the Metro Plan Diagram was off, so LHVC slid the survey nap around to try and match tip as well
as possible with all of East 30'n Avenue and the city limit line, particularly near Spring Boulevard
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 10
and the Breen finger. LHVC's Diagram certainly appears to match upvery well with the length of
East _ 0'h Avenue and the city limit lines around Spring Boulevard and the Teen finger.
The applicant argues that the city limit lines on the LHVC Diagram should not be used
because the city limit lines are not on the Nletro Plan Diagram and the city limit lines nn LHVC's
survey map were generated by tax lot and CIS information that is inherently inaccurate.
"The GIS data, notably county tax lot data and the city limits line. are not precise in the
real world. By definition these data sets are all approximations. Every source of CIS data
that was used by the City or the opponents is a database that comes with substantially the
same disclaimer about limitations on its accuracy and use.
"The inherent limitations of the GIS data and shortcomings in the opponents' and staffs
use of GIS data are now well documented in the Record." Applicant's Final Legal
Argument s.
While I am sympathetic to the applicant's argument that the city limit lines may not be
perfectly accurate, LUBA clearly does not agree:
"bVhile the cit limits line is not depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. neither is
the centerline of East ;0th Avenue on which Environ-Metal exclusively relies. Birth the
city limits and center line are surveyed. and there is no dispute that the depiction of their
location and relationship on the survey map is accurate. Both the centerline and the city
limit line bear close physical relationships to features depicted on tile 2004 Metro Plan
dia,rant * * Like the western curve of East ,Olh .Avenue, the city limits line is posi[ioned
at various angles to the portion of East =0th Avenue that Envircm-Metal relies upon as its
sole referent. and thus the city limits line matchup acts as an additional referent to check
the accuracy of Environ-Nfetal's preferred location of the match between the survey map
and the enlarged Metro Plan diagram." Laurel Hill I4r//ev Chiaeiis. Slip Op 37-38.
Although the applicant argues that the city limit lines are inaccurate. the September ?S,
2016 staff memo explains that staff conducted measurements to test the accuracy of the LHVC
Diagram city limit lilies and that staff concurs with LHVC's depiction of city limits.'' The
applicant argues that the measurements are faulty, largely for the same reasons that discussed
above that tax lot data and GIS data are unreliable. Even if that is true. LUBA held that the city
limit lines should be used as referents and staff validated those city limit lines. As far as I can tell,
the city limit lines are accurate.
" LUBA stated that the city limit lines are surveyed. While the city limits that birder the suhjeet property' are surveyed.
the applicant ar_ues that the other ciuY limit lines are not surveyed and werejust traced onto a sureey map from another
map. LI.IBA explained that there is no dispute that the city limit lines are accurate. Even if LUBA had notdeterntined
that the city limit lines were accurate. LI IBA still tiwnd that the CILV limit lines act "as an additional reterent to check
the accuracy' of the ;lpplicant s Diagram.
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 11
LUBA stated that multiple referents should be considered and the city limit lines should be
one of those referents. The Applicant's Dia=rant only uses one referent. but that referent is
supported by additional overlaid dia«rams using additional referents. While the Applicant's
Diagram at least somewhat complies with LUBA's directive to use multiple referents, it does not
utilize the city limit lines as a referent. The LHVC Diagram utilizes multiple referents to attempt
to produce an overlaid diagram that is accurate in relation to multiple referents instead of precisely
accurate for just one referent. The LHVC Diagram also utilizes the city limit lines as directed by
LUBA. As far as 1 can tell, the survey map used by LHVC to generate the LRVC Diagram is
accurate. The LHVC Diagram appears to overlay the survey map in closer relation ti, the multiple
referents of East 30'h Avenue. Spring Boulevard, the green finger. and cit\ limits than the
Applicant's Diagram does. Therefore, 1 agree with LHVC and staff that the LHVC Diagram is
more consistent with the Metro Plan than the Applicants Diagram.
The applicant argues that the LHVC Diagram cannot be used to determine the boundary
between the LDRPOS boundary because it is not reduced to metes and bounds as the Applicants
Diagram is. Accordin; to the applicant, only the Applicant's Diagram may be used because it is
the only proposed boundary reduced to metes and bounds. I do not agree with the applicant that
onh' its metes and bounds proposed boundary must be used. The .Applicant's Diagram could have
placed the boundary a few teet fi-om the urban growth boundary resulting in very little POS
designated land and it would still have been the crnly proposed boundary reduced to metes and
bounds, and that clearly would not be consistent with the Metro Plan. While it would have been
helpful if the LHVC Diagram had been reduced to metes and bounds. staff can reduce the LHVC
Diagram to ntctcs and bounds: -
In conclusion. while I have little confidence that the LI-1VC Diagram is the actual location
of the LDR,,POS boundary (as I had little confidence that Exhibit L. showed the actual LDRIPOS
boundary in the prior decision), based on the directions in LUBA's final opinion, I conclude the
LHVC Diagram is more consistent with the Metro Plan than the Applicant's Diagram
DECISION
Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES
the applicant's request for a zone change from AG/WR - Agricultural with Water Resource overlay
to PRO/PD/WR - Parks. Recreation & Open Space with Planned Development and Water Resource
overlays and R-l!?Di"'R- Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 12
overlays. with the boundary between PRO/PD/W'R and R-I-PD/WR the line depicted on the t.HVC
Diagram.
Dated this 19`h day of October, 2016. Mailed this(/ day of October 1016.
1
Fred Wilson
Hearings Official
SEE NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION FOR STATEN{ENT OF APPEAL
RIGHTS
Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 13