LaurelRidge Page 9 of 10 <br />Zone Change Application (Z 15-5) <br />Eugene Hearings Official - Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony <br />October 5. 2016 <br />We submitted a metes and bounds description that corresponds to the line that separates the <br />two land use designations. It was included in the applicant's open record submittal from last <br />year's hearing process regarding this zone change application. See Exhibit O, dated 8-31-15. <br />End of Excerpt from Applicant's September 28, 2016, Open Record Submittal. <br />E. LHVC's maps are consistent with the applicant's SA7.0 map. <br />Mr. Malone's citation of the "Notes" from Sheet SA7.0 provide sufficient documentation that Sheet <br />SA7.0 was constructed from inaccurate data. Specifically, this is as follows: <br />Sheet SA7.0 Notes <br />Accuracy <br />1. <br />Lot 70 1 property line based on a 6.27.20 II draft <br />The data described by Note 1 is the ONLY <br />survey by Branch Engineering. Other lot lines <br />surveyed data on the entire sheet. <br />based on RLID [Regional Land Information <br />Database) database. <br />2. <br />City limits and urban growth boundary digitized <br />GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. <br />manually based on 6.3.20 II LCOG [Lane <br />Council of Governments) map. <br />3. <br />LiDAR data received from LCOG on 7.5.20 11 <br />GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The <br />and processed to align with survey in note 1. <br />data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment <br />and scale was modified to fit the other date as the <br />overall data assembly was occurring. <br />4. <br />Goal 5 data acquired digitally and processed to <br />GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The <br />align with survey in note 1. <br />data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment <br />and scale was modified to fit the other date as the <br />overall data assembly was occurring. <br />5. <br />2009 aerial photo acquired from USDA NA IP <br />GIS digital information obtained from LCOG. The <br />program and processed to align with survey in <br />data was 'processed', meaning that its alignment <br />note 1. <br />and scale was modified to fit the other date as the <br />overall data assembly was occurring. <br />As the applicant has previously stated, Sheet SA7.0 was generated very early on in the project. I <br />was one of the first assemblages of in-process information, compiled as the information was <br />obtained. The purpose of Sheet SA7.0 was to begin to illustrate a general picture of the property <br />and its conditions. Sheet SA7.0 was not generated for the zone change application. It has never <br />been part of the zone change application. Oh, and Sheet SA7.0 also used the incorrect Metro <br />Plan diagram. Sheet SA7.0 did NOT use the adopted Metro Plan diagram. <br />F. The surveyor information submitted by applicant provides little to no new information. <br />Really? No new information? To the previously generated subject property boundary survey and <br />301h Avenue centerline the applicant's surveyor added the surveyed locations of all of the cited <br />referents, including the green finger, the centerline of Spring Blvd and Bloomberg Park. <br />There was plenty of new information in the surveyor's map. <br />What Mr. Malone should have said is that neither LHVC nor Mr. Malone presented any new <br />information at the hearing on September 21, 2016. (Nor did they submit any new information in <br />their open record submittal of September 28, 2016.) <br />Applicant's Conclusion and Recommendation <br />Schirmer Satre Group • 375 West 4'' Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 . (541) 686-4540 <br />