scale and lack of detail on the Metro Plan Diagram exactly where on the subject property <br />the boundary fine between the LDR and POS designations lies. We commented: <br />"'Because the metro Plan diagram is now digitized. and the depicted plan <br />boundaries [on the digitized map] are sharper than in previous versions, the problem <br />may not be as difficult to solve as [Environ-Metal] fear[s]. It may be possible to <br />scale up the digital version of the map, overlay it with proplm' lines from a digital <br />database, and detennine the precise plan designation boundaries im the subject <br />property with reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is not possible, the city <br />and [Environ-Metal] will have to do the best they can with the tools at their <br />disposal.' 69 Or LI IBA at 47. <br />In 201 Environ-Metal tiled the present application to rezone the northern portion of the <br />subject property for residential use, and to zone approximately 30 acres of the southern <br />portion of the property Parks and Open Space (POS). zones that implement the plan <br />designations on the property. Eugene Code (EC) 9.3365( 1) is a zone change criterion <br />requiring that the applicant demonstrate (hat'[t]he proposed change is consistent with the <br />applicable provisions of the Metro Plan.' Thus, the relevant legal question is whether the <br />proposed zoning of the subject probem is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. <br />"In general, the evidence submitted below attempted to follow LUBA's suggested <br />approach, by First creating a map (which we refer to as a survey map). at a scale of t inch <br />equals 300 feet that depicts the subject property lines, the urban growth boundary, city <br />limits and the 30th Avenue centerline. The =0th Avenue centerline is located based on data <br />from the Lane County Surveyor's Office. The propert y boundary, city limits and urban <br />vrowth boundary are based on surveys. We understand the parties to agree that the subject <br />property lines, the urban growth boundary, city limits and the =0th Avenue center line are <br />accurately depicted in relation to each other. <br />"Nest. the Metro Plan dia=ram is enlarged and scaled to I inch equals 300 feet (the enlarged <br />Metro Plan diagram). The parties initially used the digital version of the Metro Plan <br />diagram. However, as explained below, the parties later shifted to using enlarged scans of <br />the official paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />"The final. and most difficult task, is to overlay the survey map (which does not .show the <br />LDR!POS boundary) on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram (which shows the LDRPOS <br />boundary). We refer to such combined maps as 'overlaid diagrams.' If the surveyed <br />property boundaries matched up to any features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram, it <br />would be relatively strai_^htfinvard to establish the location of tile LDR/POS boundary on <br />the subject propem. and hence the zoning boundary. However, in general the surveyed <br />property boundaries do not match up to any features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. <br />There are, however. several nearbv features that can be aligned with the other surveyed <br />lines on the survey map. We refer to these features depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan <br />diagram as 'referents.' Depending on how they are counted, in the area of the subject <br />property there are three to four referents that could be used to align the survey map onto <br />the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. Because all of the surveyed lines on the survey map <br />have an accurate relationship with each other, by matching up surveyed lines and features <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 1S-S Remand) Page 3 <br />