This has been a frustrating experience for all parties involved.' This remand proceeding <br />has been difficult for me in that except for one submission that was submitted at the public hearing <br />(which was primarily the four additional overlaid diagrams and accompanying explanations) all of <br />the evidence and argument was submitted after the public hearing was concluded.'" The evidence <br />and argument submitted after the conclusion of the public hearing contains detailed and <br />complicated cartographical and engineering arguments. As the public hearing has concluded. I <br />have not been able to ask any question or seek any clarifications regarding such evidence and <br />arguments. In any event, as LUBA directed. we must to do the best we can with the tools at our <br />disposal. <br />Once again. the decision comes down to whether the Applicants Diagram or tile LFIVC <br />Diagram is more consistent with the Metro Plan. The four additional overlaid diagrams provided <br />by the applicant are based on main referents that come from a survey. Presumably those overlaid <br />diagrams would be accurate, at least in the area of the main referent. The farther the overlaid <br />diagram acts away from the main referent the less accurate the overlaid diagrams would be. If the <br />applicant used a lot of main referents from different areas surrounding the subject property, the <br />averase of those overlaid diagrams should be very close to the actual LDR/POS boundary-similar <br />to a regression analysis. The applicant only provided four of these overlaid diagrams. but they are <br />from the northwest, the southwest. the west. and the southeast. Although there are not a large <br />number of overlaid diagrams, they tend to support the applicant's position that tfie boundary is <br />further south than the LHVC Diagram shows. <br />The applicant's overlaid dia~ranis appear to be reasonably accurate for the main referent, <br />however, the other referents tend to be much less accurate: For instance, ZC- 4A is accurate for the <br />centerline of East 30`h .Avenue. but the middle se_,ment and west segment diverge from the Metro <br />Plan Diagram depiction of East 'Wh Avenue. Spring Boulevard is further to the west on the overlaid <br />diagram than it is on the Metro Plan Diagram. The Green finger is also farther to the west on the <br />overlaid diagram than it is on the Metro Plan Diagram. ZC-413 is reasonably accurate for the main <br />referent, the green finger (although it is still a bit to the west of the Metro Plan Diagram), but the <br />west segment of East 30" Avenue is a bit north of the Metro Plan Diagram. Spring Boulevard and <br />Bloomberg Park are also a bit inaccurate. ZC-4C is reasonably accurate for the main referent, <br />See Lnwe/ Hi/! t"ullev Citi=emu. Slip op 13-40(Holsmn Cuncurrence). <br />'n The public hearing could not be continued because of tight deadlines 6x making a final decision. includma almost <br />cenain appeal to the Planning Commission. Even this decision is being made on an accelerated deadline. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 9 <br />