September 21, 2016 <br />LAURELRIDGE <br />Zone Change Application <br />File Number Z 15-5 <br />Eugene Hearings Official - Appeal Remand Hearing <br />APPLICANT TESTIMONY <br />City of Fgjene Manning E. Ceaelopric ilt <br />SEP 212016 <br />File Z 15-_S <br />Exhihit w l, <br />Opening Remarks. <br />1. Hello and Introduction. <br />2. Through much process - hearings, testimony, exhibits, staff reports, decisions, appeals, and <br />a LUBA remand - we find ourselves before the Eugene Hearings Official once again. <br />3. We direct our testimony on the central issue before the Hearings Official - that being the <br />salient points in LUBA's findings. There are three of them. These LUBA findings, and the <br />applicant's testimony, are as follows. <br />Central Issue. <br />The central issue is the location of the boundary between the Low-Density Residential and Parks <br />and Open Space designations on the Metro Plan Diagram with respect to the subject property. Or, <br />put another way, where on the Metro Plan Diagram is the property located? Here are LUBA's <br />findings. <br />First, LUBA states that "...remand is necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet <br />912115-04 free of the erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital <br />Metro Plan diagram. Unless there is some other reason not to consider Sheet 912115-04, for <br />the reasons stated above the hearings official on remand should make an evidentiary choice <br />between Exhibit L and Sheet 912115-04 with respect to the matchup between the surveyed <br />centerline and the black line representing East 30th Avenue" (LUBA Final Order, page 34). <br />There are a couple of elements in LUBA's statement here. We address them individually. <br />"...remand is necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet 912115-04 free of the <br />erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan <br />diagram. " <br />This finding from LUBA presents a challenge for the applicant. LUBA is stating that it <br />was an erroneous impression that LHVC's Sheet 9/2/15-04 was based on an <br />enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. The challenge for the applicant is that, <br />this sheet was based on an enlargement of a digital Metro Plan diagram. However, <br />LHVC Sheet 9/2/15-04 was based on a digital copy of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram <br />that was obtained by LHVC from staff. This may be a copy of the 2004 Metro Plan <br />diagram, but it was not a true copy of the adopted diagram. The adopted diagram <br />is a paper diagram, not a digital diagram. The applicant's Exhibit L is based on a scan <br />of a first-generation copy of the hard copy original in the City Recorder office. <br />Fine point indeed, but a distinction nonetheless <br />"...make an evidentiary choice between Exhibit L and Sheet 912115-04 <br />with respect to the matchup between the surveyed centerline and the <br />black line representing East 30th Avenue" ~~w <br />Because the LHVC 9/2/15-04 diagram was based on a digital version of 1 <br />the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, but not the paper original, the Hearings <br />Official should consider the diagram but explain why it should not be <br />utilized. + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS i <br />375 West 4th, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401 <br />PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS Phone: 541.686.4540 Fax: 541.686.4577 <br />www.schi rmersatre.com <br />