along the property line (as well as the 2 degree rotation issue with regard to the north arrow on the <br />Metro Plan diagram), not the City limits line or Spring Boulevard. The HO did not explicitly address <br />the location of the City limits in his decision; however, staff can confirm that he was aware of this <br />issue as it was brought up at the hearing and is present in the record. In other words, staff believes <br />that the HO considered the City limit line as shown on ZC-4, but chose not to base his final decision <br />on the location of the City limits line in relation to the location of Spring Boulevard, in favor of the <br />applicant's argument and evidence. In any event, staff notes the adopted Metro Plan diagram does <br />not show the location of the City limits line, thereby precluding its use as a physical referent from <br />the adopted diagram under EC 9.8865(1). <br />2. Second Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official erred by allowing the applicant to use 30th <br />Avenue as the sole referent to locate their property on the 2004 Metro Plan Diagram as seen <br />in their map ZC-4 L included in the 'Public Comment-Applicant Post-Hearing' (Attachment <br />#4)." (See appeal statement for full text of this appeal issue). <br />Summary: <br />The appellant's testimony has consistently pointed out that mapping accuracy can be increased with <br />the use of multiple referents (i.e. other streets in addition to 30th Avenue). In this case, the applicant <br />used two referents: 30th Avenue and the north arrow as shown on the adopted Metro Plan diagram. <br />HO Decision: <br />"LHVC also uses tax lots for other properties, city limits, and additional streets to generate what it <br />argues are more accurate maps than the applicant. LHVC materials were prepared in part by a certified <br />engineering geologist, and the arguments are compelling. In fact, if the question were where the <br />boundary is most likely located using any available information, I would likely agree with LHVC. In <br />determining the boundary, however, we are all bound by the 2004 Metro Plan diagram." (see HO <br />Decision, Page 6) <br />Further, the HO states the following: <br />"In conclusion, this present situation is not like a math or science problem that if we work hard enough <br />or look closely enough that the correct answer will appear. There is no exact correct answer. As there <br />is no exactly correct answer, the best guess is the best I can do. As LUBA stated, we must to do the best <br />we can with the tools at our disposal, and some of those tools arguably restricted the analysis." (see <br />HO Decision, Page 8) <br />Staff Comments: <br />The HO acknowledges that using additional referents could have increased the accuracy of the <br />approved zoning configuration. However, the HO found that the analysis was legally "restricted" by <br />the inconclusive 2004 Metro Plan diagram, and that the applicant correctly followed LUBA's direction <br />in terms of the referents used to align the maps. <br />3. Third Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official erred when he states, on page 6: "As staff's <br />September 2, 2015 memorandum explains, LHVC used maps generated by LCOG from a digital <br />version that is different from the 2004 Metro Plan." In fact, on September 2, 2015, during the <br />open record period, LHVC submitted 5 additional maps, two of which place the applicant's <br />Page 4 <br />PC Agenda - Page 4 <br />