Mr. Fred Wilson <br />September 16, 2015 <br />Page 14 <br />(2) Staff concluded with a recommendation that, upon approval of their zone change, the <br />applicant submit a legal description of the zoning boundary line. <br />(3) The applicant accepted the Staff Report findings and recommendation of approval, <br />including the requirement of a legal description, and stated such at the public hearing. <br />(4) Throughout the Hearing, and two rounds of supplemental testimony submittal, Staff <br />have not altered their recommendation. Their initial recommendation of approval still <br />stands. They have reiterated their initial recommendation for a condition of approval <br />that the applicant provide a legal description reflecting the approved zoning <br />boundaries. They add that the legal description be subject to review and approval of <br />the City Surveyor and City of Eugene Public Works Department. <br />VII. In Conclusion, the Hearings Official can approve the zone change request. <br />(1) As found in the Zone Change Staff Report, the applicant has met its burden of proof <br />and its zone change request has been found to be in compliance with applicable <br />criteria. In response to opposition testimony, the applicant has submitted two <br />Diagrams (Exhibits L and M), each with an accompanying legal description of the <br />proposed boundary between the LDR and PRO zoning districts (Exhibits O and P). <br />(2) The applicant agrees with the recommended condition of approval that the legal <br />description be subject to review and approval by the City of Eugene Surveyor and <br />Public Works Department. <br />(3) Again, staff has not changed their recommendation for approval. The Hearings <br />Official has what is needed to approve the zone change request. <br />This controversy, the years of delay, the multiple applications, and the hundreds of thousands of <br />dollars of applicant expenditure are fallout from the governing bodies, after 35 years, not yet <br />having a comprehensive plan that is entirely parcel specific. <br />It also leaves the Hearings Official in the position of interpreting ambiguities in the governing <br />bodies' ultimate policy statement - the comprehensive plan. The Hearings Official stands in the <br />shoes of the City right now. City staff did not suggest a boundary line location in Round I and <br />have not done so in Round IL The applicant appreciates this difficult position for the Hearings <br />Official; but it is where we are all at in this moment. <br />The applicant has done its best to locate the line, using the correct referents and applying a sound <br />methodology. We have also applied the same methodology to the opponents' theory that, when <br />adopting the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram, the governing body made the policy choice to skew the <br />compass rose. We believe the skew in the compass rose was a scrivener's error, not a policy <br />choice. We think we have it right. <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 61 <br />