acknowledges that only the 2004 Metro Plan is the official version of the <br />diagram." <br />Hearings Official Decision at 6. LUBA found that the Hearing Official in failing to <br />consider much of the evidence that the Hearing Official opined could not be relied upon. <br />Now that LUBA has removed impediment to LHVC's "compelling" maps that the <br />Hearing Official articulated in the above quote, the Hearing Official may now rely on <br />what the Hearing Official previously found "compelling." LUBA's opinion can clearly <br />be read to allow using various referents to assist in accurately finding the delineation <br />between plan designations. <br />LHVC's maps are consistent with the applicant's SA 7.0 map <br />LHVC also points the Hearing Official to the applicant's map referred to as SA <br />7.0, which is located in the LUBA record at 879, 1021, 1024, 1049, and 1073. Map SA <br />7.0 is also attached hereto for the Hearing Official's convenience. As noted in LHVC's <br />9/2/15 Memorandum that accompanied the 9/2/15-01 through -05 maps (located at <br />LUBA Record 184-192), the maps that the Hearing Official found "compelling" (but <br />ultimately rejected) closely resembled the applicant's SA 7.0 map. LUBA Record 185 <br />(regarding map 9/2/15-01: "The registration of the property on the Metro Plan Diagram <br />on this version of the map looks remarkably similar to Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 from the <br />2012 PUD application."); id. (regarding map 9/2/15-02: "Again the registration is nearly <br />identical to Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 from the previous PUD application."); LUBA <br />Record 186 (regarding map 9/2/15-04: "Its similarity with all other sheets and <br />Applicant's Sheet SA7.0 is again obvious."). The applicant now disclaims map SA7.0 <br />because it accurately shows a significant amount of POS. Any notion that that map <br />SA7.0 is somehow inaccurate or used solely for "planning purposes" is unfounded <br />because the map itself contains "notes" on the legend that attest to its accuracy: <br />"Notes <br />1. Lot 701 property lien based on a 6.27.2011 draft survey by Branch <br />Engineering. Other lot lines based on RLID [Regional Land Information <br />Database] database. <br />2. City limits and urban growth boundary digitized manually based on 6.3.2011 <br />LCOG [Lane Council of Governments] map. <br />3. LIDAR data received from LCOG on 7.5.2011 and processed to align with <br />survey in note 1. <br />4. Goal 5 data acquired digitally and processed to align with survey in note 1. <br />5. 2009 aerial photo acquired from USDA NAIP program and processed to align <br />with survey in note 1." <br />Indeed, those notes indicate SA 7.0 was premised on the 2011 survey from Branch <br />Engineering. Indeed, even the city limits and urban growth boundary are based on the <br />4 <br />