I depicted on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram: the survey map centerline to the <br />2 enlarged Metro Plan diagram black line depicting East 301h Avenue, and the <br />3 survey map city limits line to the boundaries of Spring Boulevard and the green <br />4 finger. If there is some reason to regard the centerline matchup as a reliable <br />5 referent, while regarding the city limits line matchup as an unreliable referent, <br />6 neither the hearings official nor Environ-Metal identify it. Like the western <br />7 curve of East 30th Avenue, the city limits line is positioned at various angles to <br />8 the portion of East 30th Avenue that Environ-Metal relies upon as its sole <br />9 referent, and thus the city limits line matchup acts as an additional referent to <br />10 check the accuracy of Environ-Metal's preferred location of the match between <br />11 the survey map and the enlarged Metro Plan diagram. <br />12 In sum, we agree with LHVC that on remand the hearings official should <br />13 give appropriate evidentiary consideration to referents provided by the matchup <br />14 between the city limits line, and the depicted boundaries of Spring Boulevard <br />15 and the green finger, in determining whether the proposed zoning is consistent <br />16 with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />17 LHVC's third sub-assignment of error is sustained. <br />18 LHVC's assignment of error is sustained, in part. <br />19 The city's decision is remanded. <br />20 Holstun, Board Member, concurring. <br />21 It is difficult to understand why, 12 years after the 2004 Metro Plan <br />22 diagram was adopted, the plan designations for properties that are subject to <br />Page 38 <br />