Exhibit A <br />There does not appear to be any explanation for why the north arrow points to true north <br />in the 1980 and 1987 Metro Plan diagrams and points to grid north in the 2004 Metro Plan <br />diagram. Perhaps the applicant is correct that the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram is <br />a scrivener's error. Perhaps the scrivener's errors occurred on the 1980 and 1987 Metro Plan <br />Diagrams. As LHVC points out, there is a reason that the north arrow might be tilted towards <br />grid north. ORS 93.312(2) provides: <br />"A description of land that contains coordinates associated with the position of a point on <br />a land boundary must: <br />"(a) Use the Oregon Coordinate System; <br />"(b) Use one specified zone and system for the entire description * * <br />According to LHVC, the Oregon Coordinate System is what requires using grid north. <br />While the applicant is correct ORS 93.312 is not applicable to land use decisions and the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram does not have coordinates, it is some justification for why the north arrow <br />might be tilted. <br />Ultimately, I have no way of knowing whether the north arrow pointing to grid north on <br />the 2004 Metro Plan diagram is a scrivener's error or not. As discussed earlier regarding more <br />recent potentially more accurate versions of the Metro Plan diagram, we are stuck with what is <br />depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram for better or for worse. For whatever reason, the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram depicts the north arrow pointing to grid north rather than true north. <br />Therefore, I find that the map of the subject property should also have been tilted two degrees to <br />grid north. <br />The applicant admirably recognized this might be a potential resolution and generated a <br />map using the 2004 Metro Diagram and a map of the subject property also tilted two degrees to <br />grid north. This map is submitted as Exhibit L. The applicant also submitted a metes and bounds <br />legal description of the boundary depicted in Exhibit L in Exhibit O. I believe this is the most <br />accurate description of the boundary between the LDR and POS plan designations on the <br />property. Staff has asked for a condition of approval that the legal description be subject to <br />review and approval by the City Surveyor and the City of Eugene Public Works Department. The <br />applicant does not object to that condition of approval. <br />In conclusion, this present situation is not like a math or science problem that if we work <br />hard enough or look closely enough that the correct answer will appear. There is no exact correct <br />answer. As there is no exactly correct answer, the best guess is the best I can do. As LUBA <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5) Page 8 <br />