I only the two final overlaid diagrams Environ-Metal submitted, Exhibits L and <br />2 M, were based on enlargements of the paper Metro Plan diagram. <br />3 For the reasons stated in the first sub-assignment of error, remand is <br />4 necessary for the hearings official to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 free of the <br />5 erroneous impression that it is based on an enlargement of the digital Metro <br />6 Plan diagram. Unless there is some other reason not to consider Sheet 9/2/15- <br />7 04, for the reasons stated above the hearings official on remand should make an <br />8 evidentiary choice between Exhibit L and Sheet 9/2/15-04 with respect to the <br />9 matchup between the surveyed centerline and the black line representing East <br />10 30 h Avenue. We do not mean to suggest that the hearings official cannot <br />11 ultimately conclude, as an evidentiary matter, that the matchup between the <br />12 centerline and the black line that is depicted on Exhibit L is more consistent <br />13 with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram than matchup depicted on Sheet 9/2/15-04, <br />14 based on findings that explain the basis for that conclusion. However, the <br />15 hearings officer must resolve that question in the first instance. <br />16 3. City Limits Line/Green Finger/Spring Boulevard <br />17 One reason why the hearings official declined to consider Schlieder's <br />18 overlaid diagrams submitted on September 2, 2015, is that the overlaid <br />19 diagrams depicted the city limits line from Environ-Metal's survey map, and <br />20 attempted to match the city limits line with the eastern boundary of Spring <br />21 Boulevard and the eastern edge of the green finger. The hearings official <br />Page 34 <br />