Attachment B <br />1 Schlieder's arguments based on those diagrams were "compelling," and if the <br />2 question was where is the LDR/POS boundary located based on any available <br />3 information, he would likely agree. Record 148. However, the hearings <br />4 official concluded that he could not rely on LHVC Sheets 9/2/15-01 through - <br />5 05, because all were based on the digital Metro Plan diagram rather than the <br />6 official 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Id. Further, the hearings official noted that <br />7 Schlieder's arguments are based in part on city limit lines and tax lot <br />8 information, which are not features depicted on the official 2004 Metro Plan <br />9 diagram. <br />10 D. Appeal to the Planning Commission <br />11 LHVC appealed the hearings official's decision to the planning <br />12 commission. Environ-Metal moved to strike portions of the appeal that <br />13 included or referenced new evidence or raised new issues not raised before the <br />14 hearings official. LHVC submitted a revised appeal statement that the planning <br />15 commission accepted. <br />16 The planning commission conducted a hearing on the appeal and, on <br />17 October 29, 20153 issued its decision affirming and adopting the hearings <br />18 official's decision as its own. Because the planning commission adopted no <br />19 findings of its own, for clarity we refer to the city's decision as the hearings <br />20 official's decision. <br />Page 13 <br />HO Agenda - Page 25 <br />