to 'slide' in a northwest direction along the axis of East =0th Avenue, with the result that <br />less land within the subject property is subject to the POS designation. Schlieder calculated <br />that with the north arrow problem corrected, and the East 30th Avenue centerline and city <br />limits lines placed to match the western curve of the East 30th Avenue alignment and the <br />eastern boundary of Spring Boulevard, approximately 40 acres of the subject property is <br />subject to the POS designation, rather than the 20 acres advocated by Environ-Nletal. <br />"On September 2, 2015, city planning staff submitted a supplemental staff memorandum <br />that agreed with Schlieder that using additional physical referents would more accurately <br />align the property with the Metro Plan diagram, and that a more accurate map would result <br />if the property boundaries are rotated to match the two-degree tilt of the north arrow on the <br />Metro Plan <br />dia- gram. Record 195. Staff also argued that the hearings official should not <br />rely upon diagrams based on the unofficial digital Metro Plan diagram. Record 194. <br />"On the same date. September '_,'Ol>, Environ-Metal submitted two additional, alternative <br />overlaid diagrams (Exhibit L and Exhibit M) to address the 'north arrow' problem and the <br />criticism that Exhibit G is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. <br />Record 201, 202 (see also oversize color copies RE-K and RE-L). Both additional overlaid <br />diagrams that are Exhibits L and M are based on a scanned enlargement of the official <br />paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />"Overlaid diagrams Exhibit L and M omit the city limit lines and some of the urban Growth <br />houndary lines from Environ-Metal's survey map, which were included on overlaid <br />diagram Exhibit G. leaving only the property boundaries and the centerline of East 30th <br />Avenue from the survey map. Exhibit L rotates the propert y boundaries and centerline rwo <br />degrees to the right, to match the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Because <br />of the limo east-west axis of the subject property, the rotation adds approximately eight <br />acres to land subject to the POS designation. Exhibit NI is not rotated, and we understand <br />Exhibit M to be consistent with Exhibit G. Environ-Metal arwed to the hearings official <br />that the nvo-degree north arrow tilt on the Metro Plan diagram is a scrivener's error, and <br />that the hearings official should determine the location of the propert y relative to the <br />features on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. based on the unrotated 'true north' Exhibit <br />M over the rotated 'grid north' Exhibit L. <br />"On the same date. Schlieder submitted a set of five new overlaid diagrams. labeled LHVC <br />Sheets 9/2/15-01 through -05. Record 153-92, Oversize Exhibit RE-1. The most relevant <br />in the present appeal is Sheet 9/2/15-04. Schlieder testified that Sheet 9/2/15-04 is an <br />overlaid diagram using an enlarged Metro Plan diagram based on the official paper 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram. Sheet 9/2/15-04 purports to correct the 'north arrow' problem and <br />the 'sliding' problem identified in Schlieder's earlier testimony. Schlieder argues that <br />Sheet 9,'2/15-04 overlays the surveyed lines shown on Environ-Metal's survey map, <br />including the East 30th Avenue centerline and the city limits, with the associated features <br />on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram in a manner that matches all referents more closely <br />than any of Environ-Metal's diagrams." Laurel Hill Vallee Citizens r. Cih of Eugene, <br />Or LUBA - (Slip Op 4-12) (LUBA No. 2015-092. March 11. 2016). <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 5 <br />