LUBA stated that multiple referents should be considered and the city limit lines should be <br />one of those referents. The Applicant's Dia=rant only uses one referent. but that referent is <br />supported by additional overlaid dia«rams using additional referents. While the Applicant's <br />Diagram at least somewhat complies with LUBA's directive to use multiple referents, it does not <br />utilize the city limit lines as a referent. The LHVC Diagram utilizes multiple referents to attempt <br />to produce an overlaid diagram that is accurate in relation to multiple referents instead of precisely <br />accurate for just one referent. The LHVC Diagram also utilizes the city limit lines as directed by <br />LUBA. As far as 1 can tell, the survey map used by LHVC to generate the LRVC Diagram is <br />accurate. The LHVC Diagram appears to overlay the survey map in closer relation ti, the multiple <br />referents of East 30'h Avenue. Spring Boulevard, the green finger. and cit\ limits than the <br />Applicant's Diagram does. Therefore, 1 agree with LHVC and staff that the LHVC Diagram is <br />more consistent with the Metro Plan than the Applicants Diagram. <br />The applicant argues that the LHVC Diagram cannot be used to determine the boundary <br />between the LDRPOS boundary because it is not reduced to metes and bounds as the Applicants <br />Diagram is. Accordin; to the applicant, only the Applicant's Diagram may be used because it is <br />the only proposed boundary reduced to metes and bounds. I do not agree with the applicant that <br />onh' its metes and bounds proposed boundary must be used. The .Applicant's Diagram could have <br />placed the boundary a few teet fi-om the urban growth boundary resulting in very little POS <br />designated land and it would still have been the crnly proposed boundary reduced to metes and <br />bounds, and that clearly would not be consistent with the Metro Plan. While it would have been <br />helpful if the LHVC Diagram had been reduced to metes and bounds. staff can reduce the LHVC <br />Diagram to ntctcs and bounds: - <br />In conclusion. while I have little confidence that the LI-1VC Diagram is the actual location <br />of the LDR,,POS boundary (as I had little confidence that Exhibit L. showed the actual LDRIPOS <br />boundary in the prior decision), based on the directions in LUBA's final opinion, I conclude the <br />LHVC Diagram is more consistent with the Metro Plan than the Applicant's Diagram <br />DECISION <br />Based upon the available evidence and preceding findings, the Hearings Official APPROVES <br />the applicant's request for a zone change from AG/WR - Agricultural with Water Resource overlay <br />to PRO/PD/WR - Parks. Recreation & Open Space with Planned Development and Water Resource <br />overlays and R-l!?Di"'R- Low-Density Residential with Planned Development and Water Resource <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 12 <br />