Attachment B <br />1 axis approach provides a more accurate and reliable fix that is more likely to <br />2 result in an overlaid diagram that is consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan <br />3 diagram. LHVC argued in its appeal to the planning commission that "[u]sing <br />4 a single referent when multiple referents are available is not reasonable." <br />5 Record 64. However, LHVC argues the planning commission did not adopt <br />6 findings addressing this issue.7 <br />7 Environ-Metal responds that LHVC has not identified any legal <br />8 requirement that multiple referents be used, or that require a minimum or <br />9 reasonable number of referents. According to Environ-Metal, the hearings <br />10 official relied upon the referent that is closest to the subject property, the black <br />11 line depicting the stretch of East 30th Avenue that runs parallel to the subject <br />12 property's southwestern border at a distance of approximately 200 to 250 feet, <br />13 which the hearings official found to be the most proximate, and hence most <br />14 reliable referent. Environ-Metal argues that all of the referents that LHVC <br />15 argues should be used are further away from the subject property, and therefore <br />7 Appeal Issue No. 2 stated, in relevant part: <br />"The Hearings Official erred by allowing the applicant to use 30th <br />Avenue as the sole referent to locate their property on the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram as seen on their map * * [W]ithout the use <br />of another referent the applicant could align their property <br />anywhere along the approximately 1500 foot NW segment of 30th <br />Avenue adjacent to the applicant's property. * * * Using a single <br />referent when multiple referents are available is not reasonable." <br />Record 64. <br />Page 27 <br />HO Agenda - Page 39 <br />