assignments of error which are all focused on the approved location of the boundary line between the <br />R-1 and PRO zones on the subject property. Four appeal issues were raised by the appellant, which are <br />summarized below and detailed in the written appeal statement. <br />Staff also notes that the applicant's representative, Bill Kloos, submitted a "motion to strike" <br />(Attachment D) in response to the original appeal statement. The motion proposed redactions of text <br />and attachments (maps) that were alleged to be new evidence. The City's legal counsel agrees with <br />the majority of the proposed redactions, as some new evidence/testimony was presented in the <br />original appeal statement. As such, the original appeal statement has been removed from the record <br />and is not attached to this AIS. In response to this motion to strike, appellants submitted a revised <br />appeal statement (Attachment Q. <br />As stated, staff agrees with the majority of the applicant's proposed redactions that eliminated certain <br />sections and attachments of the original appeal statement. However, staff does not agree that the <br />appellants' reference to the dotted blue City limit line must be redacted. A clean version of ZC-4 was <br />submitted by the applicant early on in this process. That document showed a dotted blue line <br />representing the Eugene city limits. Accordingly, appellants' reference in their appeal statement to the <br />dotted blue line is not new evidence and need not be redacted. <br />While this is not new evidence, the PC must still determine whether or not the City limits line (which is <br />not present on the Metro Plan diagram) can legally be used to determine the location of the boundary <br />line between POS and LDR plan designations. <br />To assist the Planning Commission in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings <br />Official's decision (see Attachment E), staff has identified pertinent record information and <br />considerations below. <br />1. First Assignment of Error: "The Hearings Official erred by not taking into consideration the <br />misplaced City Limit line shown as a dotted blue line on ZC-4... Proper placement of this line <br />using Spring Boulevard, which is depicted on the Metro Plan, allows for a much more accurate <br />and unequivocal location of the applicant property on the Metro Plan." (See appeal <br />statement for full text of this appeal issue). <br />Summary: <br />LHVC believe that the applicant's zoning configuration, as approved by the HO, was created in error by <br />not using the City limits line in relationship to Spring Boulevard as an additional physical referent to <br />ensure a more accurate representation of the disputed zoning boundary. <br />HO Decision: <br />"It seems reasonable to me to align East 30th Avenue along the property line as the applicant did. <br />That method seems more likely to be more accurate in the vicinity of the property than aligning <br />East 30th Avenue farther away from the property. Therefore, I agree with the applicant that it <br />properly used East 30th Avenue as a referent" (see HO Decision, Page 6). <br />Staff Comments: <br />The HO's final decision, as quoted above, was primarily based on the alignment of East 30th Avenue <br />Page 3 <br />PC Agenda - Page 3 <br />