In their petition for review, Petitioners attempt to challenge not just <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />24 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />CITY OFEUGEN 26 <br />CITYATTORNEY'S <br />OFFICE <br />125 E. a Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />Phone (541) 682-8447 <br />Fax(541)682-5414 <br />the City's decision to count easements in its calculation of net acreage. 15 <br />They also attempt to cast aspersions on the gross acreage number, which was <br />never even questioned by opponents at the local proceedings. The total <br />acreage number of 2.3 acres was used by all parties and decision makers <br />throughout the local proceedings. As mentioned above, appeals to this <br />Board are limited to the record. ORS 197.825(2). Further, the Eugene Code <br />limits the Planning Commission's review to those issues raised in the local <br />appeal statement. EC 9.7655(3). The sole issue with regard to net density <br />that was raised in the local appeal was whether the Hearings Official erred in <br />counting easements in his net density calculation. 16 Accordingly, that is the <br />only issue-that is before this Board. <br />The Hearings Official explained his interpretation that easements are <br />to be included for purposes of calculating net density as follows: <br />"The PC finds that the HO did not err in his calculation of net density <br />by not subtracting public easement areas, as asserted by the appellant. <br />Even if these additional areas are subtracted from the net density <br />calculation, staffs analysis shows and PC affirms that the PUD <br />complies with the net density allowance in R-1 zoning for 14 units per <br />acre.. ' Rec. 14. <br />" It is not entirely clear what easement areas Petitioners allege were counted <br />that should not have been counted. - Before the Hearings Official, neighbor <br />opponents included a chart that identified areas that they believed should not <br />have been counted in the net density calculation. Rec. 665. <br />16 The appeal statement provides: <br />"The Hearing Official erred in his calculation of the net density area <br />pursuant to EC; 9.2751. For example, on page 35 of the decision, the <br />Hearings Official excludes all easements from that calculation. The <br />net density provisions are intended to determine the amount of land <br />that is available to build- because buildings are not allowed within <br />easements and areas dedicated for water, sewer, street and similar <br />public services, those areas must be excluded from the calculation." <br />Rec. 336. <br />Page 25 - BRIEF of RESPONDENT <br />