I accepted a redacted version of that original appeal statement. In addition, the <br />2 planning commission allowed LHVC to submit a revised appeal statement <br />3 dated October 12, 2015, which we understand reflects most of the redactions in <br />4 the original. Record 63-71. <br />5 With respect to Sheet SA 7.0, in its reply brief, LHVC does not identify <br />6 any place in either the original redacted or the revised appeal statement <br />7 accepted by the planning commission that mentions Sheet SA 7.0. <br />8 Accordingly, we agree with Environ-Metal that under Miles issues regarding <br />9 Sheet SA 7.0 cannot be raised in this appeal. <br />10 With respect to whether the hearings official erred in rejecting <br />11 consideration of overlaid diagrams based on enlargements of the digital Metro <br />12 Plan diagram, LHVC argues that this issue was adequately raised in the revised <br />13 appeal statement, which refers to several maps attached to the appeal statement <br />14 that are based on the digital version of the Metro Plan diagram. <br />15 While the revised appeal statement discusses several overlaid diagrams <br />16 attached to the revised appeal statement that are based on enlargements of the <br />17 digital Metro Plan diagram, that discussion is in service of Appeal issue No. 1, <br />18 which concerns one of the issues raised in the third sub-assignment of error. <br />19 Appeal issue No. 1 concerns arguments that the hearings official should have <br />20 considered the city limits line depicted on several maps in the record as one of <br />21 the referents to determine whether the proposed zoning is consistent with the <br />22 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Record 64. Appeal issue No. 1 does not raise, at <br />Page 24 <br />