Mr. Fred Wilson <br />September 16, 2015 <br />Page 10 <br />Diagram - parcels like this one. Since 2004 the Metro Plan Diagram has been <br />parcel-specific for only some properties. It remains not parcel-specific for many <br />other properties. For those non-parcel specific tax lots, skewing the Metro Plan <br />Diagram by a couple of degrees would mean changing the Metro Plan designation <br />for at least part of some properties that are not parcel-specific. Imagine a Tax Lot <br />adjacent to a plan boundary line. If the Diagram colors are rotated a couple of <br />degrees, the color break on the Diagram will have shifted relative to property <br />lines, as compared to where the colors were in 1987. This would amount to a <br />change in the plan designation for some of the property - at least a smidgen for <br />many properties. <br />(c) The findings associated with the 2004 Metro Plan amendments identify all of the <br />changes being made in the 2004 Diagram, and those findings say nothing about <br />the north arrow. The findings associated with the 2004 Metro Plan amending <br />ordinance appear at Exhibit R at page 227. Those findings at various locations <br />explained the changes that were being made to the Metro Plan Diagram. <br />However, none of those findings explains that the governing bodies intended to <br />rotate the compass rose to any degree or intended to make the plan changes that <br />would result from rotating the compass rose. If they had intended to rotate the <br />compass rose then the findings would say that. If they did not intend to make that <br />change, then the change was a printing mistake of some kind - something that <br />would fall into the basket of scrivener's errors. <br />(d) All of the above, 2004 plan text and legislative history, suggests that rotating of <br />the compass rose on just the 2004 Diagram was a scrivener's error. The <br />governing bodies did not intend to make this change. Therefore, the Hearings <br />Official should not make this change. <br />(e) Based on all of the above, the Hearings Official should find that the metes and <br />bounds description prepared by the applicant as Exhibit P is the correct <br />description of the plan boundary. <br />V. The opponents' line drawing methodology reflects data errors and legal errors. <br />Here we generally describe the methodological shortcomings of the opponent's efforts to <br />interpret the plan to precisely locate the line. <br />(1) The opponent's testimony at the public hearing focused on the use of a digital Metro <br />Plan GIS layer, trying to align it with a digital tax lot layer (both obtained from the <br />Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)), and locating the applicant's tax lots on their <br />resulting map. <br />As staff pointed out following the hearing in the Staff Memorandum dated September <br />2, 2015, there were two fundamental problems with the LHVC map. First, the digital <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 57 <br />