Applicant's Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearings Official October 12, 2016 Page 3 Accordingly, we agree with LHVC, at least in the abstract, that a multi-referent, multi-axis approach is likely to produce a more accurate and reliable result than a single-referent, single-axis approach. In our view, if multiple referents are available, a reasonable decision maker would at least consider the "fit" provided by multiple referents, and would not limit consideration to the fit provided by a single-referent, single-axis approach. As discussed below, the parties dispute whether other referents are available or reliable. There appear to be two main disputes: whether the hearings official should have considered (1) the fit provided by matching the survey map and enlarged Metro Plan diagram depictions of the portion of East-30th Avenue that curves to the west near its intersection with Spring Boulevard, and (2) matching the city limits line from the survey map with the east boundary of Spring Boulevard and the "green finger" shown on enlarged Metro Plan diagram. We turn to those arguments. Once the Hearings Official has determined the relevant referents to use, how he matches up the survey information with those referents is an evidentiary call. Decision at 33: Environ-Metal argues that choosing the "fit" of the East 30th Avenue centerline with the black line representing East 30th Avenue on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram has a fact-finding quality to it to which LUBA should defer, if that judgment is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our view, choosing the alignment that is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram is a mixed question of law and fact. Choosing which referents to rely upon is fundamentally an interpretation of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, and thus a matter of construing the law. We agree with Environ-Metal that, once the relevant referents have been determined, the hearings official's choice between competing diagrams showing different alignments of surveyed lines with the same set of referents would be an evidentiary call, which LUBA must affirm if based on substantial evidence, i.e. evidence that a reasonable person would rely on in reaching a decision. Younger v. Portland, 305 Or 346, 358-60, 752 P2d 18 262 (1988). However, the hearings official never had the opportunity to make such a choice with respect to East 30th Avenue, in part because he had eliminated from consideration all maps he believed were not based on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, including Sheet 9/2/15/-04. He believed, erroneously, that only the two final overlaid diagrams Environ-Metal submitted, Exhibits L and M, were based on enlargements of the paper Metro Plan diagram. The Hearings Official can affirm his original decision if he makes adequate findings explaining his decision.