Attachment D <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />October 8, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />The following items or allegations in the appeal document constitute new issues that were not <br />raised before the Hearing Official. They may not be accepted. They must be redacted. <br />1. Appeal Issue 4. This appeal issue states that the HO erred by ignoring the absence of an <br />accurate acreage number in the applicant's materials. Acreage calculations were included in the <br />applicant's initial application materials and in the staff report. Whereas "acreage calculations" <br />are in the record, the alleged requirement for an "accurate acreage calculation" as part of revised <br />application materials or as part of a decision, is not in the record. Put differently, it is only in this <br />appeal that anyone has alleged the requirement for an "accurate acreage calculation." Because <br />this issue was not raised below, it may not be raised here. <br />Attached to this letter is a copy of the appeal on which we have redacted with black lines the <br />material that should be redacted, based on the errors listed above. <br />Sincerely, <br />ow 511~&" <br />Bill Kloos <br />Cc: Schirmer Satre Group <br />Client <br />Encl: Appeal showing proposed redactions <br />PC Agenda - Page 20 <br />