Eugene Hearings Official <br />October 12, 2016 <br />Page 7 <br />the basic question of this application - where is the boundary line? A question of fact may not be <br />deferred to a post-decision process. <br />In summary, at this juncture, the Hearings Official needs to set a metes and bounds line as the <br />boundary, and he has only one such line described in the Record. That line is the line he <br />previously approved. That line is fully defensible, with supplemental findings conforming to the <br />LUBA remand. <br />Summary: <br />GIS data are not accurate; the much-cited city limits lines west of the subject property are not <br />surveyed lines. <br />The city has not submitted any surveyed data of its own. LHVC has not submitted any surveyed <br />data of their own. Only the applicant has submitted surveyed data; data which accurately locates <br />multiple referents in relation to the subject property. <br />The city and LHVC have relied on tax lot maps and city limits lines, neither of which are on the <br />Metro Plan diagram and neither of which is surveyed information. <br />The only reliable data on the record which locates the subject property on the Metro Plan <br />diagram is the applicant's data, the applicant's Exhibit L, which was previously approved by the <br />Hearings Official, and upheld by the Planning Commission. As the applicant stated last week, <br />the applicant believes that the Hearings Official got it right the first time, that the applicant's <br />Exhibit L, "Adopted 2004 Metro Plan Map: Rotated, dated 5-15-2015, revised 9-2-15," is the <br />most defensible representation of the subject property's location on the Metro Plan diagram. The <br />applicant believes that, with the additional documentation provided during this remand hearing <br />process, that the Hearings Official can reach the same conclusion again. <br />Sincerely, <br />ow 511~&" <br />Bill Kloos <br />