LaurelRidge Page 3 of 5 <br />Zone Change Application - Hearings Official - Public Hearing - Applicant Testimony <br />August 26, 2015 <br />e. In addition, the text of the Metro Plan says that the UGB shown on the diagram at <br />this location is generalized, and its exact location is not determined until <br />annexation. <br />"The UGB is tax lot-specific where it is coterminous with city limits, where it has <br />been determined through the annexation process, and where it falls on the outside <br />edge of existing or planned rights-of-way. In other places, the UGB is determined <br />on a case-by-case basis through interpretation of the Metro Plan Plan Boundaries <br />Map in this Metro Plan and the following factors (see Metro Plan Plan Boundaries <br />Map Key)." (Metro Plan at II-G-14) <br />f. In summary, we did not ignore the UGB. We used it. It is shown on our application <br />exhibit. Whereas the UGB cannot be used to accurately align the subject property <br />with the Metro Plan Diagram, it can be used, as we've all said, to show that there is <br />some amount of POS north of the UGB. <br />At this point, regarding the Metro Plan Diagram, staff concludes by stating: <br />"...staff has evaluated the proposed zoning configuration proposed by the applicant <br />compared to the configuration as represented on the currently adopted 2004 Metro <br />Plan Diagram (11'x17'). Staff ultimately concludes that this proposal provides a <br />reasonable representation of the Metro Plan Diagram." (Staff Report, page 5, HO <br />Agenda page 19, second para.) <br />After some brief discussion regarding Metro Plan Text, staff concludes their findings <br />regarding criteria EC 9.8865(1) with the following statement: <br />As stated earlier, staff believes the applicant's representation of the Metro Plan's <br />Parks and Open Space designation is reasonable considering the limited precision that <br />can be afforded by the relatively generalized Metro Plan Diagram." (Staff Report page <br />6, HO Agenda page 20, second para.) <br />"Based on these findings, the proposal is consistent with EC 9.8865(1). <br />8. After brief discussion regarding the remaining criteria, staff concludes its staff report <br />with the statement: <br />"Based on the available evidence, and consistent with the preceding findings, staff <br />recommends the Hearings Official approve the requested zone change to R-1/PD/WR <br />and PRO/PD/WR." (Staff Report page 8, HO Agenda page 22, second para.) <br />This concludes our comments regarding the staff report. We appreciate their recommendation to <br />approve. <br />III. Laurel Hill Valley Citizen's Testimony <br />Pertinent Take-Away's from the Neighborhood Association's Testimony <br />Comments below are in reference to the neighborhood association's August 14, 2015 letter <br />included in the Staff Report as Exhibit C. Page references below are the page number of that <br />letter. <br />Page 2, first paragraph, references Sheet SA-7.0 from the previous application. Let's be <br />clear about what that sheet was (and wasn't): <br />a. That sheet is one of seven in a set of plan sheets titled "Site Analysis." <br />Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4 ht Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 686-4540 <br />