Received in PubiiC Hearing <br />City of Eugene Planning & Development <br />SEP 212016 <br />Sean T. Malone <br />Attorney at Law <br />259 E. Fifth Ave., <br />Suite 200-G <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />File 4 Z. I S-,_ <br />Exh0'r-i 1'%_ 3 <br />Tel. (303) 859-0403 <br />Fax (650) 471-7366 <br />seam-nalone8@hotmail.com <br />September 21, 2016 <br />Via Hand Delivery <br />Eugene Hearings Official <br />Harris Hall - Lane County Public Service Building <br />125 East 8th Avenue <br />Eugene OR 97401 <br />Re: Testimony re remand in LUBA No. 2015-092 and -091 <br />On behalf of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC), please accept this testimony <br />regarding the issue on remand. In the above-referenced LUBA cases, LUBA disagreed <br />with Environ-Metal's sole assignment of error, and LUBA sustained two of LHVC's <br />assignments of error, as explained in the staff report. LHVC previously submitted a <br />memorandum and series of maps submitted by Gunnar Schlieder, referred to as LHVC <br />9/2/15-01 through -05. When considering both assignments of error that were sustained <br />by LUBA, the reasonable choice is to adopt map 9/2/15-04, which relies upon multiple <br />referents ((1) East 30th Avenue centerline, (2) East 30th curve, (3) the East <br />30th/Springfield Boulevard intersection, and (4) the green finger). LUBA all but gave its <br />stamp of approval to LHVC's 9/2/15-04 map when it stated: <br />"I agree with the majority that the hearings official's choice to rely on an overlaid <br />diagram that matches only one referent (the nearby East 30th Avenue centerline) <br />when an overlaid diagram that matches that referent and three additional referents <br />(the East 30th curve, the East 30th/Spring Boulevard intersection, and the green <br />finger) is inadequately explained in the decision on appeal. In particular, the <br />hearings official does not appear to have appreciated that an overlaid diagram <br />based on an enlargement of the official Metro Plan diagram that matches four <br />referents was available." <br />LUBA Slip Opinion at 39. Simply put, adopting Map 9/2/15-04 is a reasonable way to <br />delineate the line between plan designations, and LUBA has already implicitly given its <br />approval of map 9/2/15-04. For this reason and those provided in LUBA's opinion, I <br />