Hearings Official Decision (Remand)

shows a number of additional referents.5 Z_C-4A is matched to the centerline of East .;()`n Avenue. In other words, the main referent is the centerline of East 30`h Avenue. Therefore. the survey map is matched up on the centerline of East 30`l' Avenue and the other referents are not exactly matched up. This is essentially the same overlaid diagram as the Applicant's Diagram that was approved in the original decision except that it also includes the additional referents described in footnote 5. ZC-4B is matched up to the green finger. ZC-4C is matched up to the centerline of Spring Boulevard. ZC-4D is matched up to Bloomberg Park.' All four overlaid diagrams show a boundary bethveen R-1 and POS zoning approximately where the boundary is shown on the Applicant's Diagram. According to the applicant, each of these overlaid diagrams are based on surveyed locations tnr the main referent and are therefore the most accurate depictions of the R-LPOS boundarv. LHVC continues to rely on the LHVC Diagram as the most accurate overlaid diagram.' The LHVC diagram was more thoroughly explained (or perhaps ['just have it better understanding) on remand. If I understand eorrectlY, the LHVC diagram does not utilize one main referent lone referent that is located exactly on the Metro Plan Diagram - as the four overlaid diagrams submitted by the applicant dol, but instead began with one referent - the curve on East . U`f Avenue - and once that referent was located the survey map was slid around the Metro Plan diagram to try to match tip as closely as possible with other referents such as the green finger and city limit lines.` In other words. none of the referents match up exactly. but according to LHVC the slid around survey map is closer to the multiple referents than the single referent maps produced by the applicant, which perhaps match up at one referent but are much farther off at the other referents. s Each )t the four diagram, shows: (A) centerline of 30'": west segment: ( B i centerline of 30'": middle sc.-menc 1C') centerline of 3011: east segment: ID1 green linger: tE1 centcrlme of Spring Boulc%ard. IFI Bloomberg Park: west prupcrty line: (Co Bloomberg Park north property line: (H) Bloomberg Park: east property line: and 111 Tax Lot ~00east houndary Bloomherg Park was not really discussed during the original proceedings. but it is a public park located to the southeast of the property and is shown on the Metro Plan. ' LHVC suhmiued critiques of the k,ur overlaid diagrams suhmined by the applicant. While those critiques adjust the R-I PPS boundarv some'ahaL the boundaries still appear to be closer to the Applicant's Diagram than the LHVC Diagram. LHVC also raised Sheet SA TO as supporting their position. I agree with the applicant, as I did in the prior decision. that SA 7.0 was prepared as a planning tool and way not meant to represent the LDR:'POS houndar,, LUBA found that the issue had been waived on appeal. Although LHVC ntiry raise the issue since the record was reopened. I reach the same conclusion as in the prior decision 9 It is not entirely clear to me how LHVC placed the coy limit lima on the overlaid diagram. Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 8