I presumably less reliable. Environ-Metal contends that trying to match other <br />2 referents would simply water down the accuracy of the analysis. <br />3 While Environ-Metal is correct that there is no legal requirement to use <br />4 multiple referents to answer the question posed by EC 9.8865(1), we generally <br />5 agree with LHVC that, unless there is some reason to question the accuracy of <br />6 referents, a multi-referent approach is likely to produce a more accurate and <br />7 reliable result, compared to the single-referent approach advocated by Environ- <br />8 Metal and accepted by the hearings official. <br />9 The question posed under EC 9.8865(1) is whether the proposed zoning <br />10 is consistent with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Due to the exceedingly small <br />11 scale and other limitations of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, determining <br />12 whether proposed zoning is consistent with the diagram means, as a practical <br />13 matter, attempting to match or line up surveyed features or lines with features <br />14 or lines depicted on the 2004 enlarged Metro Plan diagram. As explained <br />15 above, because the property boundaries depicted on Environ-Metal's survey <br />16 map do not directly overlay any features or lines depicted on the enlarged <br />17 Metro Plan diagram,8 the city and all parties recognized the necessity to match <br />8 Actually, that is not quite true. The southern boundary of the subject <br />property corresponds to the urban growth boundary line, a line which was first <br />surveyed in 2005. The UGB line in this area runs along a ridgeline, and that <br />line bears a strong correlation in shape to a series of black dashes on the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram that represents the approximate location of the UGB along <br />that same ridgeline, although in 2004 the exact location of the UGB had not <br />Page 28 <br />