1 mention of the city limits), while also accepting the revised appeal statement <br />2 (which includes the city limits issue redacted from the original appeal <br />3 statement), is too complicated to relate in detail. But based on the partial <br />4 transcript of the planning commission proceeding provided by Environ-Metal, <br />5 it is reasonably clear that the planning commission concluded that the issues <br />6 raised in the original appeal statement regarding the city limits line were <br />7 properly before them. The planning commission chose to implement that <br />8 conclusion by accepting both the redacted and revised appeal statements. The <br />9 revised appeal statement effectively restored the redactions that concern the <br />10 city limits issue. Because that issue was raised in the original timely filed <br />11 appeal statement, Environ-Metal's arguments provide no basis to find that the <br />12 issue is waived under Miles. <br />13 b. Matching the surveyed city limits line to Spring <br />14 Boulevard and the Green Finger is an appropriate <br />15 referent <br />16 On the merits, we agree with LHVC that the hearings official erred in <br />17 declining to consider evidence regarding the matchup between the surveyed <br />18 city limits line and Spring Boulevard and the green finger. While the city <br />19 limits line is not depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram, neither is the <br />20 centerline of East 30`h Avenue on which Environ-Metal exclusively relies. <br />21 Both the city limits and center line are surveyed, and there is no dispute that the <br />22 depiction of their location and relationship on the survey map is accurate. Both <br />23 the centerline and the city limit line bear close physical relationships to features <br />Page 37 <br />