October 5, 2016 <br />.,Received <br />Eugene Hearings Official OCT 05 2016 <br />c/o City of Eugene <br />Planning and Development Department City of Eugene <br />Planning Division y gene <br />99 West 10th Avenue Planning Division <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Re: LaurelRidge Zone Change (City File Z 15-5) <br />Remand Hearing - Rebuttal Period - Applicant Testimony <br />Dear Eugene Hearings Official, <br />We are submitting this as the applicant's rebuttal testimony. <br />uoisiAia 6uiuueld <br />aueBn3 jo Apo <br />910Z 9 0 100 <br />pania~a~. <br />Applicant's Response to the Eugene Planning Memorandum, Dated September 28, 2016 <br />1. Metro Plan Used by LHVC. <br />Staff admit that the Metro Plan diagram that they gave to LHVC was from a paper copy that staff <br />utilizes for everyday use. Staff gave LHVC a digital scan of that paper copy. There is no <br />documentation on the record as to what was the source of this paper copy, or as to how many <br />generations from the adopted Metro Plan diagram was that paper copy, or was that paper copy a true <br />version of the 2004 adopted Metro Plan diagram. It is well-documented that the version available on <br />the city and LCOG websites is an altered Metro Plan diagram, incorporating various Metro Plan <br />diagram amendments which have occurred since the diagram was last adopted. <br />The applicant, on the other hand, through a public records request, obtained a first-generation copy <br />from the actual adopted Metro Plan diagram. The adopted Metro Plan diagram is a paper copy, <br />Exhibit C of the ordinance which adopted the diagram in 2004. It is pixelated because the adopted <br />Metro Plan diagram itself is a paper copy of average resolution. <br />2. Use of the City Limits Line. <br />Staff presented two arguments under the heading "Use of the City Limits Line." The first argument is <br />in regards to the use of city limit lines. The second argument is in regards to a set of three diagrams <br />which staff generated to underline their assertion that city limit lines can be used. The applicant <br />addresses both of these arguments below. <br />A. Use of City Limit Lines. <br />Staff admit that city limit lines are not on the Metro Plan diagram. Staff then quotes LUBA "...the <br />Hearings Official erred in declining to consider evidence regarding the matchup between the <br />surveyed city limits line and Spring Boulevard and the green finger." (LUBA Final Order, page <br />37.) The applicant adds that LUBA also stated "If there is some reason to regard the centerline <br />matchup as a reliable referent, while regarding the city limits line matchup as an unreliable <br />referent, neither the Hearings Official nor Environ-Metal identify it. " <br />Regarding the first LUBA citation above, there are two key words we should not I . NEW %3. <br />overlook. These are "consider" and "surveyed." LUBA said that the Hearings <br />Official should consider evidence. LUBA did not require use of the evidence. <br />LUBA also referred to surveyed city limits. LUBA did not cite the use of any old <br />city limits line. - loop" 109 <br />+ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS + <br />I . 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. sch i rmersatre. corn <br />