I that "I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the <br />2 proposed zone change, (Z 15-5) as well as the testimony and documents <br />3 ' provided at the public hearing and the evidence submitted during the open <br />4 record period." Record 145. Environ-Metal argues that this declaration <br />5 establishes that the hearings official considered all of Schlieder's submissions, <br />6 including Sheet 9/2/15-04. <br />7 The hearings official certainly considered Sheets 9/2/15-01 through -05 <br />8 in the sense that he must have viewed them. However, based on the findings <br />9 quoted at n 4, it is clear that the hearings official believed he could not apply or <br />10 rely on Schlieder's September 2, 2015 maps, in order to determine the location <br />11 of the LDR/POS boundary, in part because the hearings official understood that <br />12 all five sheets were based on the digital Metro Plan diagram. We disagree with <br />13 Environ-Metal that the hearings official's declaration of documents considered <br />14 is sufficient to establish that the hearings official in fact considered Sheet <br />15 9/2/15-04 for its potential significance in resolving the question before the <br />16 hearings official: whether the proposed alignment of the property boundaries, <br />17 and hence the location of the LDR/POS boundary, is consistent with the 2004 <br />18 Metro Plan diagram, as required by EC 9.8865(1). The hearings official <br />19 expressly declined to consider Schlieder's September 2, 2015 maps, including <br />20 Sheet 9/2/15-04, for that purpose, under the impression that all of the maps <br />Page 21 <br />