are necessary to locate the boundaries of the subject property." So LUBA knows about using <br />maps to establish property boundaries. The LUBA decision is in the record and was discussed <br />more than 15 times at the hearing.' The applicant must establish the correct alignment of the <br />property to meet the zone change criteria, referring to other maps and physical referents in the <br />record where necessary. Which maps are allowed is a central issue in LHVC appeal item #3. <br />LHVC submitted maps scanned directly from the official Metro Plan diagram as well as maps <br />derived from the digitized version, but the Hearings Official dismissed all of these maps and <br />relied solely on the applicant's maps - even where our maps were acknowledged as more <br />precise and scanned directly from the very same source, the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. This is a <br />serious error by the Hearings Official that substantially misinformed his subsequent decision. <br />LHVC appeal issue #4 - There is substantial evidence in the record that contested acreage was <br />raised at the hearing. Opponents and the applicant discussed contested acreage in the audio <br />recording of the hearing at: 1:14:10 (Wostmann); 1:38:00 (Schlieder); 1:40:58 (Schlieder); <br />1:41:00 (Hearings Official Wilson); 1:49:21 (Rojakovick); 2:02:50 (Satre). Further, the applicant <br />included figures on affected acreage in their original submission, but did not adjust these <br />figures in post hearing submissions despite using different maps. For this reason, neither the <br />Hearings Official nor anyone else could refer to accurate affected acreage because official <br />acreage figures are to be produced only if the zoning change is approved, in effect precluding <br />their use in evaluating and addressing the magnitude of the distortion. This is a due process <br />error. <br />Personally I feel that this process has been fundamentally abusive to those of us who have <br />participated in good faith. I urge you: address these distortion issues. You don't have to decide <br />the "right" boundary, just understand the errors of process, findings, and evaluation - and insist <br />they be fixed. <br />Don't be persuaded that this is somehow not your decision; this is your decision. By all means <br />don't just passively sign the proposed findings the applicant gave you. Doing so would replicate <br />errors and abdicate your responsibilities. <br />I urge you to reverse the Hearings Official's decision until the substantial distortion issues we <br />raised are addressed and the application made consistent with the Metro Plan. <br />The applicant referred to LUBA's previous LaurelRidge decision in the audio recording of the August 26 hearing <br />at: 37:11 (Satre); 37:31 (Satre); 37:34 (Satre); 37:53 (Satre); 38:21 (Satre); 42:26 (Satre); 51:12 (Satre); 1:01:17 <br />(Kloos); 1:01:23 (Kloos); 1:01:44 (Kloos); 1:02:02 (Kloos); 1:02:12 (Kloos); and 1:58:15 (Satre). Opponents referred <br />to the previous LUBA decision at: 1:18:18 (Schlieder); 1:19:33 (Schlieder); and 1:51:30 (Halferty). <br />2 <br />