I the eastern boundary of Spring Boulevard, but Exhibit G depicts the city limits <br />2 line to the west of Spring Boulevard. Schlieder attributed these anomalies in <br />3 part to the north arrow problem, and in part to what LHVC calls the "sliding" <br />4 problem. Schlieder argued that Environ-Metals' single-referent, single-axis <br />5 approach allows the subject property lines to "slide" in a northwest direction <br />6 along the axis of East 30`h Avenue, with the result that less land within the <br />7 subject property is subject to the POS designation. Schlieder calculated that <br />8 with the north arrow problem corrected, and the East 30t' Avenue centerline <br />9 and city limits lines placed to match the western curve of the East 30th Avenue <br />10 alignment and the eastern boundary of Spring Boulevard, approximately 40 <br />11 acres of the subject property is subject to the POS designation, rather than the <br />12 20 acres advocated by Environ-Metal. <br />13 On September 2, 2015, city planning staff submitted a supplemental staff <br />14 memorandum that agreed with Schlieder that using additional physical <br />15 referents would more accurately align the property with the Metro Plan <br />16 diagram, and that a more accurate map would result if the property boundaries <br />17 are rotated to match the two-degree tilt of the north arrow on the Metro Plan <br />18 diagram. Record 195. Staff also argued that the hearings official should not <br />19 rely upon diagrams based on the unofficial digital Metro Plan diagram. Record <br />20 194. <br />21 On the same date, September 2, 2015, Environ-Metal submitted two <br />22 additional, alternative overlaid diagrams (Exhibit L and Exhibit M) to address <br />Page 10 <br />