The HO did not error in failing to rely on the city limits line in any way in locating the LDR/POS <br />boundary line. The HO explained, on page 6 paragraph 2 of his decision: <br />"LHVC also uses tax lots for other properties, city limits, and additional streets to <br />generate what it argues are more accurate maps than the applicant. City limits <br />and tax lots are not depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. So even though <br />LHVC's maps may be theoretically more accurate, they are not more accurate for <br />determining the boundary by using the 2004 Metro Plan diagram." <br />In summary, the task is to clarify the location of the LRD/POS boundary line on the Metro Plan <br />Diagram. The Diagram does not show the city limits line. The text of the Metro Plan is explicit <br />that in this area the Metro Plan Diagram is not parcel-specific. It would be erroneous to use <br />city limit lines. <br />LHVC Appeal Issue 2: <br />The LHVC alleges that the HO erred in using only 30th Ave. as a referent to locate the property <br />on the Metro Plan Diagram. LHVC says that Spring Blvd and Bloomberg Park should also have <br />been used. <br />There are two issues here: (a) Whether it was error to use only 30th Ave.; and (b) Whether <br />Spring Blvd. and Bloomberg Park also should have been used. <br />(a) The applicant and the HO actually used multiple "referents" to locate the property <br />on the Metro Plan Diagram. The HO used both the 30th Ave. alignment adjacent to the <br />property, and the north arrow on the Diagram. The UGB line was also used, in a general way, <br />to confirm that some part of the property has a POS plan designation. The task before the City <br />is to locate a survey of the subject tax lot on the Metro Diagram, which in this area is <br />ambiguous because, as the text of the Metro Plan says, the Diagram is not tax lot specific. It is <br />also important to note that the text of the Metro Plan does not set a minimum or maximum <br />number of referents to use at any location. <br />It is also worth noting that the Staff concurred with the methodology used by the applicant and <br />approved by the HO. The September 2 Staff Memorandum says: <br />"Staff believes the applicant did not fundamentally err in their methodology. In fact, they did <br />essentially what LUBA had prescribed in their prior decision to uphold the City's denial of a <br />previous zone change application for the subject property - to scan the Metro Plan diagram into <br />a digital format, enlarge it, and use 30th Avenue as a physical referent. The applicant obtained <br />surveys of the 30th Avenue centerline and the subject tax lots, this allowed them to establish the <br />relationship between 30th Avenue and the boundaries of the subject tax lots. Then, the <br />applicant matched the surveyed 30th Avenue location with the Metro Plan diagram's <br />representation of 30th Avenue (a solid black line). In theory, this "overlay" method is not <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 11 <br />