Attachment D <br />and described in Exhibit O." But without the use of another referent the applicant could align <br />their property anywhere along the approximately 1500 foot NW segment of 30th Avenue <br />adjacent to the applicant's property. Spring Blvd and Bloomberg Park as seen on the 2004 <br />Metro Plan Diagram section selected by the applicant (Attachment #313) are two such referents. <br />Using a single referent when multiple referents are available is not reasonable. <br />3. The Hearings Official erred when he states, on page 6. "As staff's September 2, 2015 <br />memorandum explains, LHVC used maps generated by LCOG from a digital version that is <br />different from the 2004 Metro Plan." In fact, on September 2, 2015, during the open record <br />period, LHVC submitted 5 additional maps, two of which face the applicant's property on high- <br />resolution scans of the approved 2404 Metro Plan Diagram obtained from City Planning Staff. <br />These scans were generated by City Staff from a printed copy of the Plan Diagram included <br />with the 2004 Metro Plan book, with the folds visible in the scan. One of these maps is LHVC <br />Sheet 912115-03, which shows the to-scale overlay of the applicant's entire Sheet ZC-2. The <br />applicant's sheet was rotated two degrees clockwise to account for the State Plane Coordinate <br />System alignment of the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram. The alignment of 30th Avenue achieved on <br />this map is clearly superior to the applicant's versions. Moreover, this map shows essentially <br />the same location of the subject property as all other maps submitted by LHVC at the hearing or <br />during the open record period. This evidence was ignored by the Hearings Official. <br />4. The Hearings Official erred by ignoring the absence of an accurate acreage calculation in the <br />revised application. During the post hearing open record period the applicant submitted revised <br />maps different than those that were resented at the Hearin without revising the acreage <br />calculation. <br />~ In the original application, the applicant asked that just 20.47 acres be rezoned to <br />PROIPDIWR. Neither the Hearings Official nor City Staff nor the opponents have any idea how <br />much acreage is in the applicant's Exhibit L and Exhibit O which the Hearings Official approved. <br />It is an error if a zone change is approved when the exact acreage subject to the change is not <br />part of the application. <br />Six attachments accompany this statement. <br />For reference see City of Eugene Planning file Z15-5 <br />PC Agenda - Page 24 <br />