Attachment B <br />1 With that introduction, we turn to the parties' arguments. <br />2 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR (ENVIRON-METAL) <br />3 As noted, the hearings official concluded that because the 2004 Metro <br />4 Plan depicts a "grid north" arrow rotated two degrees to the right, the subject <br />5 property overlay and other overlays should also be rotated to match. Record <br />6 150. Environ-Metal assigns error to that conclusion, arguing that the use of a <br />7 grid north arrow instead of a true north arrow was a scrivener's error, and that <br />8 rotating the overlays to match the grid north arrow is therefore inconsistent <br />9 with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />10 Environ-Metal supports its argument that the rotated north arrow on the <br />11 2004 Metro Plan diagram was a scrivener's error by noting that no evidence <br />12 exists in the record to demonstrate that the governing bodies who adopted the <br />13 2004 Metro Plan diagram intended to adopt a grid north rather than true north <br />14 orientation for the diagram. Environ-Metal notes that the north arrow on <br />15 earlier versions of the Metro Plan diagram appear to have a true north <br />16 orientation, i. e., the north arrow points toward the top of the printed map. <br />17 According to Environ-Metal, if the governing bodies that adopted the Metro <br />18 Plan intended to change the orientation of the north arrow to grid north, there <br />19 would have been some mention of that intent in the legislative history. That is <br />20 because, Environ-Metal argues, adoption of grid north rather than true north <br />Page 15 <br />HO Agenda - Page 27 <br />