I with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Specifically, LHVC argues that the <br />2 hearings official erred in rejecting consideration of (1) various overlaid <br />3 diagrams based on enlargements of the unofficial digital version of the Metro <br />4 Plan diagram, and (2) Sheet SA 7.0, which is a overlaid diagram that Environ- <br />5 Metal introduced in the first proceeding that led to Environ-Metal Properties, <br />6 LLC.S <br />7 Environ-Metal responds in part that no issues were raised during the <br />8 local appeal of the hearings official's decision to the planning commission <br />9 regarding whether the hearings official erred in rejecting consideration of maps <br />10 based on the digital Metro Plan diagram, or regarding Sheet SA 7.0, and thus <br />11 the arguments raised in the second sub-assignment of error are waived. <br />12 Although Environ-Metal does not cite the source of its waiver argument, we <br />13 understand Environ-Metal to refer to the "exhaustion-waiver" principle <br />14 articulated in Miles v. City of Florence, 190 Or App 500, 79 P3d 382 (2003) (to <br />15 preserve an issue before LUBA where the local appeal regulations require <br />16 specification of issues, the issue must have been specified in the local appeal). <br />17 <br />As <br />noted, the <br />planning commission granted a <br />motion <br />to strike <br />with <br />18 <br />respect to <br />portions <br />of the original <br />October 6, 2015 <br />appeal <br />statement, <br />and <br />5 According to LHVC, Sheet SA 7.0 shows approximately 40 acres of the <br />subject property subject to the POS designation, consistent with LHVC' <br />position, rather than the 20 acres advocated by Environ-Metal in the <br />proceedings leading to this appeal. <br />Page 23 <br />