"However, at oral argument, LHVC and Environ-Metal agreed that there are no <br />substantive differences relevant in this appeal between the features depicted on the <br />enlarged maps in the record based on the digital version of the Metro Plan diagram <br />and those based on the paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram. The only apparent <br />difference is greater fuzziness in the lines and boundaries depicted on the paper <br />2004 Metro Plan diagram, compared to the crisper lines and boundaries depicted <br />on the digital version." <br />LUBA slip op at 6-7, n. 1. This suggests that LUBA condones (as context) the use of the <br />digital map. LHVC already submitted maps that rely on the electronic version of the <br />Metro Plan Diagram (see LHVC 9/2/15-01 and -02) that afford the Hearing Official the <br />opportunity to rely on the "crisper lines and boundaries."' Again, Environ-Metal does <br />not identify any substantive difference between the two versions of the Metro Plan <br />Diagram, and until it does, it would appear that the Hearing Official may rely on the <br />digital map as context in making his decision. <br />In addition to submitting some maps based on the digital map, as described above, <br />LHVC also submitted a high resolution scan of the Metro Plan Diagram relied upon by <br />the applicant. See LHVC 9/2/15-04. If that were not enough, LHVC will also submit <br />four additional maps today. <br />LUBA directed that the Hearing Official to consider the city limits, Spring Boulevard, <br />and the "green fines <br />The applicant cites to LUBA's remand direction to use various referents, including <br />the city limits, Spring Boulevard, and the "green finger." The applicant then cites to a <br />Planning Commission Agenda Item Summary dated October 20, 2015, Page 4, alleging <br />that "the Metro Plan diagram does not show the location of the city limits line, thereby <br />precluding its use as a referent." This, again, is an attempt to re-litigate a settled issue. <br />Regardless, LUBA understood that surveys underpinned various referents: "We <br />understand the parties to agree that the subject property lines, the urban growth boundary, <br />city limits and the 30th Avenue center line are accurately depicted in relation to each <br />other." LUBA slip op at 6. The applicant's attempt to distance itself from this issue at <br />LHVC used the digital version because that is what the applicant mistakenly and <br />initially used before it changed to the paper copy. LUBA understood this: <br />"Sheets 9/2/15-01 and -02 are based on Environ-Metal's scans of the digital Metro <br />Plan Diagram. Sheet 9/2/15-03 is a scan of the official Metro Plan diagram, at the <br />scale of one inch equals 7,000 feet, overlaid by the property boundaries. <br />However, at that scale, the subject property is almost indiscernible. Sheet 9/2/15- <br />05 is based on the digital Metro plan map, and is overlaid with tax lot <br />information." <br />LUBA slip op at 12, n. 2. <br />z <br />