Remand Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 presumably less reliable. Environ-Metal contends that trying to match other referents would simply water down the accuracy of the analysis. While Environ-Metal is correct that there is no legal requirement to use multiple referents to answer the question posed by EC 9.8865(1), we generally agree with LHVC that, unless there is some reason to question the accuracy of referents, a multi-referent approach is likely to produce a more accurate and reliable result, compared to the single-referent approach advocated by Environ- Metal and accepted by the hearings official. The question posed under EC 9.8865(1) is whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Due to the exceedingly small scale and other limitations of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, determining whether proposed zoning is consistent with the diagram means, as a practical matter, attempting to match or line up surveyed features or lines with features or lines depicted on the 2004 enlarged Metro Plan diagram. As explained above, because the property boundaries depicted on Environ-Metal's survey map do not directly overlay any features or lines depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram,8 the city and all parties recognized the necessity to match 8 Actually, that is not quite true. The southern boundary of the subject property corresponds to the urban growth boundary line, a line which was first surveyed in 2005. The UGB line in this area runs along a ridgeline, and that line bears a strong correlation in shape to a series of black dashes on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram that represents the approximate location of the UGB along that same ridgeline, although in 2004 the exact location of the UGB had not Page 28 HO Agenda - Page 10