1 least expressly, the different issue raised in the second sub-assignment of error, <br />2 that the hearings official erred in rejecting consideration of maps based on <br />3 enlargements of the digital Metro plan diagram. The digital Metro plan <br />4 diagram does not depict or include the city limits line, although several <br />5 overlaid diagrams prepared by the applicant and opponents that are based on <br />6 enlargements of the digital Metro plan diagram show the city limits. <br />7 Accordingly, we agree with Environ-Metal that the issue of whether the <br />8 hearings official erred in rejecting consideration of maps based on <br />9 enlargements of the digital Metro plan diagram was not raised in the local <br />10 appeal statement, and is therefore not an issue that can be raised before LUBA, <br />11 pursuant to Miles. <br />12 The second sub-assignment of error is denied. <br />13 C. Third Sub-Assignment of Error <br />14 Under the third sub-assignment of error, LHVC argues that the planning <br />15 commission erred in affirming the hearings official's acceptance of the <br />16 applicant's "single-referent" approach, and in failing to adopt findings <br />17 regarding the issue of "sliding" and the failure to use multiple referents such as <br />18 Spring Boulevard, the city limits line, and what LHVC refers to as the "green <br />19 finger." <br />6 The green finger is a thin rectangle of land designated POS depicted on the <br />enlarged Metro Plan diagram, which is located north of the intersection of East <br />30th Avenue and Spring Boulevard, and which is oriented in a north-south <br />Page 25 <br />