1 As noted, LHVC overlaid diagram Sheet 9/2/15-04 appears to depict an <br />2 alignment that matches East 30'' Avenue along its entire length, both where it <br />3 is closest to the subject property and where it curves to the west. However, the <br />4 hearings official did not consider Sheet 9/2/15-04, in the mistaken impression <br />5 that it was not based on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />6 Environ-Metal argues that choosing the "fit" of the East 30th Avenue <br />7 centerline with the black line representing East 30th Avenue on the 2004 Metro <br />8 Plan diagram has a fact-finding quality to it to which LUBA should defer, if <br />9 that judgment is supported by substantial evidence. However, in our view, <br />10 choosing the alignment that is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram is a <br />11 mixed question of law and fact. Choosing which referents to rely upon is <br />12 fundamentally an interpretation of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, and thus a <br />13 matter of construing the law. We agree with Environ-Metal that, once the <br />14 relevant referents have been determined, the hearings official's choice between <br />15 competing diagrams showing different alignments of surveyed lines with the <br />16 same set of referents would be an evidentiary call, which LUBA must affirm if <br />17 based on substantial evidence, i.e. evidence that a reasonable person would rely <br />18 on in reaching a decision. Younger v. Portland, 305 Or 346, 358-60, 752 P2d <br />19 262 (1988). However, the hearings official never had the opportunity to make <br />20 such a choice with respect to East 30'h Avenue, in part because he had <br />21 eliminated from consideration all maps he believed were not based on the 2004 <br />22 Metro Plan diagram, including Sheet 9/2/15/-04. He believed, erroneously, that <br />Page 33 <br />