I were disqualified from consideration for that purpose, because they were based <br />2 on the digital rather than paper Metro Plan diagram. As explained above, that <br />3 impression is only partially correct: Sheets 9/2/15-03 and -04 are based on <br />4 scans of the paper 2004 Metro Plan diagram. <br />5 In sum, we agree with LHVC that remand is necessary for the planning <br />6 commission or hearings official to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 free of the <br />7 mistaken assumption that it is based on the digital Metro Plan diagram, and <br />8 adopt any necessary findings based on that consideration. We do not mean to <br />9 suggest that the city may not choose to consider or to rely on Sheet 9/2/15-04 <br />10 for other reasons that are explained in its findings on remand. However, the <br />11 city erred in declining to consider Sheet 9/2/15-04 for the reason cited. <br />12 As explained below, consideration of Sheet 9/2/15-04 on remand will <br />13 likely be shaped by our resolution of the third sub-assignment of error, which <br />14 concerns whether the city must consider additional referents, and which ones, <br />15 in determining whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the 2004 Metro <br />16 Plan diagram. <br />17 The first sub-assignment of error is sustained. <br />18 B. Second Sub-Assignment of Error <br />19 LHVC argues that the hearings official erred in refusing to consider <br />20 other maps,. in determining whether the proposed zone change is consistent <br />Page 22 <br />