Attachment B <br />1 a generalized map. When it is scaled up to match metes and <br />2 bounds descriptions of individual parcels there will almost always <br />3 be discrepancies. No matter where you align East 30th Avenue, the <br />4 farther you get from the alignment the more the maps will diverge. <br />5 It. seems reasonable to me to align East 30th Avenue along the <br />6 property line as the applicant did. That method seems more likely <br />7 to be more accurate in the vicinity of the property than aligning <br />8 East 30th Avenue farther away from the property. Therefore, I <br />9 agree with the applicant that it properly used East 30"' Avenue as a <br />10 referent." Record 9-10 (footnote omitted). <br />11 The foregoing finding seems to presume that it is an either/or choice: either <br />12 match the centerline with the East 30th Avenue alignment close to the property <br />13 or match the centerline with the alignment further from the property, where it <br />14 curves west. The hearings official did not appear to consider the possibility <br />15 that the surveyed centerline can be aligned with East 30th Avenue both where it <br />16 is closest to the subject property, and where it curves west near its intersection <br />17 with Spring Boulevard. As explained above, given the inherent uncertainty of <br />18 a single-referent, single-axis approach, an alignment that matches multiple <br />19 linear referents, particularly those on a different axis that intersect the first axis <br />20 at angles, is likely to provide a more accurate and reliable fix. Because the <br />21 western curve of East 30th Avenue is at an angle to the relatively straight <br />22 portion of East 30th Avenue closest to the subject property, matching the <br />23 centerline to the western curve provides an additional referent that acts as a <br />24 second axis to the main axis provided by the portion of East 30th Avenue <br />25 closest to the property. <br />Page 32 <br />HO Agenda - Page 4 14 <br />