I fixed in place by a second reference point or reference axis, then it can "slide" <br />2 unhindered to the northwest or southeast for at least a short distance, which <br />3 reduces the accuracy and reliability of the ultimate determination of <br />4 consistency with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram and the location of the <br />5 LDR/POS boundary. If any other referent point or line is available in the area, <br />6 then matching up to both that referent and the portion of East 30th Avenue <br />7 closest to the subject property, if possible, should improve the accuracy and <br />8 reliability of the consistency determination. <br />9 Accordingly, we agree with LHVC, at least in the abstract, that a multi- <br />10 referent, multi-axis approach is likely to produce a more accurate and reliable <br />11 result than a single-referent, single-axis approach. In our view, if multiple <br />12 referents are available, a reasonable decision maker would at least consider the <br />13 "fit" provided by multiple referents, and would not limit consideration to the fit <br />14 provided by a single-referent, single-axis approach. <br />15 As discussed below, the parties dispute whether other referents are <br />16 available or reliable. There appear to be two main disputes: whether the <br />17 hearings official should have considered (1) the fit provided by matching the <br />18 survey map and enlarged Metro Plan diagram depictions of the portion of East <br />19 30th Avenue that curves to the west near its intersection with Spring Boulevard, <br />20 and (2) matching the city limits line from the survey map with the east <br />Page 30 <br />