I complicated facts in this case. LUBA has modified the copy of the overlaid <br />2 diagram with text boxes to identify various features and survey lines. <br />3 Both Environ-Metal and LHVC submitted overlaid diagrams that differ <br />4 somewhat, and those differences are discussed in more detail below. In <br />5 general, Environ-Metal relied on only a single referent, matching the surveyed <br />6 centerline of East 30th Avenue with a portion of the black line representing East <br />7 30th Avenue depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. As noted, Environ- <br />8 Metal used a survey obtained from the county surveyor to locate the built <br />9 centerline of East 30th Avenue on the survey map, and attempted to align that <br />10 centerline, depicted as a thin green line on the survey map, with the thicker <br />11 black line that depicts East 30th on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram that <br />12 represents the paved portion of East 30th Avenue. The resulting overlaid <br />13 diagram depicts the features shown on both maps. See Exhibit G, Record 1378 <br />14 and the color copy at Oversize Exhibit RE-Z. As explained below, on Exhibit <br />15 G and all other Environ-Metal overlaid diagrams, the thin green line <br />16 representing the East 30th Avenue centerline (from the survey map) matches the <br />17 line showing the East 30th Avenue alignment from the enlarged Metro Plan <br />18 diagram where it is closest to the subject property, but where East 30th Avenue <br />19 curves west, those lines diverge. <br />20 LHVC submitted testimony and maps prepared by an engineer, <br />21 Schlieder, critiquing the proposed diagram at Exhibit G. Record 1071-91. <br />22 Schlieder noted that Exhibit G is apparently based not on the official paper <br />Page 8 <br />