Received in Public Hearing <br />City of Eugene Planning & Development <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o City of Eugene Planning and Development <br />99 West 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, Oregon 97401 <br />Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City file Z 15-5) <br />OCT 20 2015 <br />File -Z 15-5 <br />Exhibit 5 <br />Statement of Paul Orum before the Planning Commission, October 20, 2015 <br />My name is Paul Orum. I live at 2389 Floral Hill Drive in Eugene. I am on the executive <br />committee of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) and helped prepare the appeal you are <br />considering today. I also made a statement before the Hearings Official on August 26. <br />LHVC appeal issues #1 and #2 - Materials submitted by the applicant distort the amount of <br />parks and open space within their intended development area, enabling them to develop more <br />land than they are entitled. The Hearings Official did not adequately evaluate and address this <br />distortion and its consequences in his decision (zone change approval criteria EC 9.8865(1)). He <br />ignored it. Yet this distortion accounts for the largest amount of contested POS acreage <br />considered at the hearing - roughly 12 highly visible acres are at stake. <br />Please bear with an illustration. The issue is "sliding" the property boundaries on the map when <br />using only one linear physical referent - 301h Avenue. If this podium is 30th Avenue and this <br />paper is the applicant's property, I can slide the property right while remaining in general <br />alignment with 30th Avenue. Same thing goes to the left. Sliding the property also changes the <br />parks and open space boundary on the property. But if I use this pen to represent Spring Blvd <br />and the city boundary, I create a corner with 30th Avenue and can no longer slide the property <br />and remain in alignment. (One could also create misalignments by rotating the map, but the <br />issue I am asking you to address is the effect of sliding, not rotating, the property boundaries.) <br />One can see a serious misalignment of Spring Blvd and the city boundary on the applicant's <br />original maps (ZC-2, ZC-3, and ZC-4 overlay). On these maps the city boundary should be at <br />Spring Blvd, but it is not. The applicant subsequently submitted maps that remove and blur out <br />known referents, which neither addresses the distortion and nor provides any basis for <br />decision. <br />LHVC appeal issue #3 - The applicant claims that the only map anyone can rely on is the 11 x 17 <br />inch 2004 Metro Plan diagram. In fact, LUBA acknowledged the need to consult other maps in <br />its previous decision on this property.' In its decision, LUBA stated: "Because none of the city's <br />comprehensive maps in this area are property specific, references to other maps in the record <br />1 Environ-Metal Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene, LUBA No. 2013-098. <br />1 <br />