1 that Metro Plan diagram, and therefore the zoning, must ultimately be <br />2 determined by enlarging that Metro Plan diagram by a factor of 35 and then <br />3 trying to align that enlarged Metro Plan diagram on a map that is drawn at a <br />4 usable scale. Any imperfections or inaccuracies in the relative positions of <br />5 features shown on that Metro Plan diagram will be greatly magnified in that <br />6 enlargement process and the effort to match the enlarged Metro Plan diagram <br />7 with an accurate, usable-scale map is an inherently imprecise and subjective <br />8 exercise no matter how one tries to dress the process up with indicia of <br />9 precision. But until the Metro Plan jurisdictions prepare and adopt the Metro <br />10 Plan diagram at a usable scale, an exercise like the one in this case is <br />11 unfortunately unavoidable. <br />12 Notwithstanding the inherent imprecision of the required process to <br />13 determine the location of the Metro Plan designations on the property, I agree <br />14 with the majority that the hearings official's choice to rely on a overlaid <br />15 diagram that matches only one referent (the nearby East 30th Avenue <br />16 centerline) when an overlaid diagram that matches that referent and three <br />17 additional referents (the East 30`h curve, the East 30th'/Spring Boulevard <br />18 intersection, and the green finger) is inadequately explained in the decision on <br />19 appeal. In particular, the hearings official does not appear to have appreciated <br />20 that an overlaid diagram based on an enlargement of the official Metro Plan <br />21 diagram that matches four referents was available. The hearings official's <br />22 rejection of some other overlaid diagrams can be read to suggest that the <br />Page 39 <br />