Attachment B <br />1 version of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, but on the unofficial digital version. <br />2 Schlieder presumably did not intend this to be a criticism in itself, because the <br />3 initial maps submitted by Schlieder were also based on the digital Metro Plan <br />4 diagram. <br />5 Substantively, Schlieder identified what we will call the "north arrow" <br />6 problem. In brief, Environ-Metal's surveyed map and enlarged Metro Plan <br />7 diagram were both oriented with true north to the top of the diagram. <br />8 However, Schlieder noted that the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram <br />9 is tilted two degrees to the right relative to the top of the printed page, <br />10 apparently to reflect what is called "grid north," a convention reflecting the <br />11 difficulty of representing a portion of the round globe on a flat map. Schlieder <br />12 submitted diagrams showing that when the property boundaries are tilted two <br />13 degrees to match the north arrow on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram an additional <br />14 eight acres is subject to the POS designation. <br />15 Second, Schlieder noted that on Exhibit G the centerline of East 30"' <br />16 Avenue from the survey map diverges north of the thick black line representing <br />17 East 30th Avenue from the enlarged Metro Plan diagram at the point where East <br />18 30ffi Avenue curves west near its intersection with Spring Boulevard. Schlieder <br />19 calculated this divergence to represent approximately 124 feet on the ground at <br />20 the appropriate scale. Further, Schlieder took the position that the city limits <br />21 line from the survey map, as depicted on Exhibit G, is offset to the northwest <br />22 from its correct position, which according to Schlieder is actually located along <br />Page 9 <br />HO Agenda - Page 21 <br />