Attachment B <br />1 the "north arrow" problem and - the criticism that Exhibit G is based on an <br />2 enlargement of the digital Metro Plan diagram. Record 201, 202 (see also <br />3 oversize color copies RE-K and RE-L). Both additional overlaid diagrams that <br />4 are Exhibits L and M are based on a scanned enlargement of the official paper <br />5 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />6 Overlaid diagrams Exhibit L and M omit the city limit lines and some of <br />7 the urban growth boundary lines from Environ-Metal's survey map, which <br />8 were included on overlaid diagram Exhibit G, leaving only the property <br />9 boundaries and the centerline of East 30th Avenue from the survey map. <br />10 Exhibit L rotates the property boundaries and centerline two degrees to the <br />11 right, to match the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Because of <br />12 the long east-west axis of the subject property, the rotation adds approximately <br />13 eight acres to land subject to the POS designation. Exhibit M is not rotated, <br />14 and we understand Exhibit M to be consistent with Exhibit G. Environ-Metal <br />15 argued to the hearings official that the two-degree north arrow tilt on the Metro <br />16 Plan diagram is a scrivener's error, and that the hearings official should <br />17 determine the location of the property relative to the features on the enlarged <br />18 Metro Plan diagram, based on the unrotated "true north" Exhibit M over the <br />19 rotated "grid north" Exhibit L. <br />20 On the same date, Schlieder submitted a set of five new overlaid <br />21 diagrams, labeled Lll V V Sheets 912115-01 throl.lgh -VJ. Record 188-92, <br />22 Oversize Exhibit RE-I. The most relevant in the present appeal is Sheet 9/2/15- <br />Page 11 <br />HO Agenda - Page 23 <br />