The issues raised under the third sub-assignment of error intersect with <br />2 our resolution of the first sub-assignment of error. As explained, the hearings <br />3 official failed to recognize that overlaid diagram Sheet 9/2/15-04 is based on an <br />4 enlargement of the paper Metro Plan diagram, and therefore did not consider <br />5 Sheet 9/2/15-04 for its proffered purpose. We concluded that remand is <br />6 necessary for the city to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04. Sheet 9/2/15-04 represents <br />7 what can fairly be characterized as a multiple-referent approach, compared to <br />8 the diagrams submitted by Environ-Metal, which attempt to match only a single <br />9 referent, a portion of East 30`h Avenue. Therefore resolution of the arguments <br />10 under the third sub-assignment of error have significance for the proceedings <br />11 on remand. <br />12 1. Multiple Referents versus Single Referent <br />13 We understand LHVC to contend that the single-referent, single-axis <br />14 approach accepted by the hearings official is an inferior and less reliable <br />15 approach, compared to the multiple-referent, multiple-axis approach advocated <br />16 by Schlieder, because the single-referent approach allows "sliding" of the <br />17 property boundaries along the single-axis, while a multiple-referent, multiple- <br />direction. We understand that the green finger, on the ground, is a public trail <br />or pathway that runs north and south. The significance of the green finger is <br />tied to the significance of the city limits line, because according to LHVC a <br />portion of the city limits line runs down the eastern boundary of the green <br />finger. The green finger is displayed on the diagram that is attached to this j <br />opinion. j <br />Page 26 <br />