PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE <br />Based on procedural requirements set forth in the Eugene Code (see EC 9.7655), the PC may address <br />only those issues set out in the written appeal statement. Further, the PC limits its consideration to the <br />evidentiary record established before the HO; the PC may not accept new evidence, except that which <br />it officially notices. The City Attorney has advised that the PC should not use its authority to take <br />official notice of material that would be new evidence when it is considering an appeal. <br />The Eugene Code requires that the PC's decision on this appeal be based on whether or not the HO <br />failed to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with the applicable criteria. <br />Those criteria are the Zone Change Approval Criteria at EC 9.8865, to the extent they are implicated by <br />the appeal. This is particularly important given the subject matter of this appeal; the PC's role is not to <br />dissect the evidence and choose the "correct" or preferred zoning configuration in the first instance as <br />if it were the original decision-maker. Instead, the PC's role on appeal is to determine whether or not <br />the HO erred in his decision, based on the record of evidence and testimony he had before him. <br />Staff also notes that the sole criterion at issue in this zone change appeal is EC 9.8865(1), which states <br />the following: <br />EC 9.8865(1): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro <br />Plan. The written test of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram <br />where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. <br />In the event that the PC finds the HO did not err, the PC may simply affirm his decision, or adopt <br />supplemental findings in support of that affirmation. If the PC determines the HO erred and chooses <br />to modify or reverse the decision, the PC is required to provide specific findings of fact as to why the <br />decision was in error. The PC cannot reverse the decision without such findings. <br />As discussed above, it is critical that the PC's decision on this appeal be issued no later than November <br />6t" to meet the 120-day statutory time limit. The PC's decision must be made in accordance with the <br />procedures for appeals at EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. <br />SUMMARY OF APPEAL ISSUES <br />In 2014, LUBA affirmed that some POS designation (which corresponds to PRO zoning) exists on the <br />subject site. The question raised by the current application was not if POS designation exists, but <br />rather how much (in terms of acreage) exists on the subject site. <br />In effect, the central issue is where the boundary exists between R-1 and PRO zoning on the subject <br />property, based on interpretation of an ambiguous adopted plan diagram that shows a split (non- <br />parcel specific) plan designation on the subject property. The record reflects that the applicant and <br />opponents have differing methods and interpretations of how to correctly determine the location of <br />the zoning boundary. The Hearings Official weighed that evidence on both sides and ultimately <br />approved an alternative map that was created by the applicant during the open record period <br />following the first evidentiary hearing (see Attachment B). <br />LHVC asserts that the approved zone change includes less PRO zoning than is required to demonstrate <br />consistency with the Metro Plan. The appeal statement (see Attachment C) identifies various <br />Page 2 <br />PC Agenda - Page 2 <br />