a. Waiver <br />2 Initially, Environ-Metal argues that no issues regarding the city limits <br />3 line depicted on several maps in the record were raised in the unredacted <br />4 portions of the original appeal statement filed October 6, 2015, and therefore <br />5 any issues regarding the city limits were waived in this appeal, under Miles. <br />6 Environ-Metal notes that, although the revised appeal statement raises issues <br />7 regarding the city limits line, the revised appeal statement was submitted after <br />8 the deadline for filing the local appeal. According to Environ-Metal, LHVC <br />9 may not rely upon the issues raised in the untimely filed revised appeal <br />10 statement to avoid waiver under Miles, but can only rely upon issues raised in <br />11 the unredacted portions of the timely filed original appeal statement. Because <br />12 all mention of the city limits issue was redacted from the original, timely filed, <br />13 appeal statement, Environ-Metal argues, no issues regarding city limits can be <br />14 raised in the present appeal. <br />15 We assume without deciding that Environ-Metal is correct that issues <br />16 raised in a revised appeal statement filed after the deadline for filing the local <br />17 appeal cannot survive to reach LUBA under Miles, although Environ-Metal <br />18 cites no authority for that proposition. However, even under that assumption, <br />19 we disagree with Environ-Metal that issues regarding use of the city limits line <br />20 were waived in this case. <br />21 The process by which the planning commission accepted the redactions <br />22 proposed by Environ-Metal in the original appeal statement (which redacts all <br />Page 36 <br />