Applicant's Final Argument - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearings Official October 12, 2016 Page 4 Decision at 34: For the reasons stated in the first sub-assignment of error, remand is necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 free of the erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. Unless there is some other reason not to consider Sheet 9/2/15 04, for the reasons stated above the hearings official on remand should make an evidentiary choice between Exhibit L and Sheet 9/2/15-04 with respect to the matchup between the surveyed centerline and the black line representing East 30th Avenue. We do not mean to suggest that the hearings official cannot ultimately conclude, as an evidentiary matter, that the matchup between the centerline and the black line that is depicted on Exhibit L is more consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram than matchup depicted on Sheet 9/2/15-04, based on findings that explain the basis for that conclusion. However, the hearings officer must resolve that question in the first instance. The Hearings Official needs to "consider" at least the city limits line, Spring Blvd., and the green finger. Decision at 38: In sum, we agree with LHVC that on remand the hearings official should give appropriate evidentiary consideration to referents provided by the matchup between the city limits line, and the depicted boundaries of Spring Boulevard and the green finger, in determining whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. 3. The data that the Hearings Official has to work with now. When it comes to what is where, there are just three kinds of data in the Record to work with. (a) There is the Metro Plan Diagram; (b) there is survey data; and (c) there is everything else, which is GIS data from one source or another, which is not on the Metro Plan Diagram. (a) Metro Plan Diagram is scanned and enlarged and comes from two competing sources. The Applicant started with a first generation copy of the adopted Diagram that is part of the original ordinance, obtained from the City Recorder as a public record, as documented in the Record. That was then scanned at Fedex Office at the highest resolution available. The opponents started with a copy provided by city staff, taken from a published copy of the Metro Plan. It is not a first generation copy of the original; we don't know its full pedigree. We know from the text of the Plan that the Diagram is "generalized," and, more importantly, that at this location it is not parcel-specific. It has qualities of a cartoon.