I argues, the hearings official failed to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04. LHVC argues <br />2 that it raised this issue on appeal to the planning commission, but the planning <br />3 commission did not adopt findings addressing the issue, instead simply <br />4 adopting the hearings official's decision as its own, thus perpetuating the error. <br />5 Environ-Metal responds that the hearings official correctly concluded <br />6 that none of the diagrams Schlieder submitted on September 2, 2015, including <br />7 Sheet 9/2/15-04, are based on enlargements of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />8 However, Environ-Metal offers no basis for that assertion. Schlieder stated in <br />9 his testimony, to which he imprinted his seal as an engineer, that Sheets 9/2/15- <br />10 03 and -04 are based on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram instead of the digital <br />11 version. Record 185-86. As far as we can tell from comparing the various <br />12 maps in the record, that statement is correct. Sheet 9/2/15-04 appears to have <br />13 the same fuzzier lines and boundaries of the enlargement of the paper 2004 <br />14 Metro Plan diagram that Environ-Metal's Exhibits L and M show, rather than <br />15 the crisper lines and boundaries of maps based on an enlargement of the digital <br />16 Metro Plan diagram. <br />17 Environ-Metal next argues that LHVC has the burden of demonstrating <br />18 that the hearings official did not, in fact, consider Sheet 9/2/15-04. Environ- <br />19 Metal notes that at the beginning of his decision, under the heading <br />20 "Documents Considered by the Hearings Official," the hearings official stated <br />Page 20 <br />