parties to the Planning Commission; the decision of the Eugene Hearings Official dated November 12, <br />2013; and all record materials (including written and oral testimony, City staff reports and application <br />materials) presented to and not rejected by the HO. The entire City Planning & Development <br />Department file was physically before the PC prior to its final decision. <br />EC 9.7655(2) limits the nature of evidence that the PC can consider on appeal as follows: "The record <br />from the proceeding of the Hearings Official or Historic Review Board shall be forwarded to the appeal <br />review authority. No new evidence pertaining to the.appeal issues shall be accepted." Pursuant to this <br />section, the PC cannot accept any new evidence, and none was accepted as part of the appeal. <br />III. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the PC finds <br />that the subject application meet all applicable PUD approval criteria from EC 9.8320, with additional <br />findings and modified conditions of approval described below. In the event of any conflict between <br />the Hearings Official's decision and this Final Order, this Final Order shall prevail. <br />To further support the PC's conclusion, the PC incorporates the City Attorney's memorandum from <br />Anne Davies dated December 11, 2013, which is included as Attachment A. The HO's decision is also <br />adopted by reference and included as Attachment B. <br />As noted above, the appeal is comprised of ten assignments of error. Each assignment of error is set <br />forth below, followed by the PC's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each one. <br />First Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding that the application met EC 9.8320(1) <br />"The.PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 1.A: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all. <br />TransPlan Transportation System Improvements (TSP) Pedestrian Policy #1: <br />Pedestrian Environment (Metro Plan Policy F.26) <br />Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land <br />uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking <br />(Metro Plan 111-17-9) <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 1.B: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all. <br />TransPlan Finance Policy #4: New Development (Metro Plan Policy F.36) <br />Require that new development pay for its capacity impact on the transportation <br />system. (Metro Plan 111-F-13) <br />The appellant asserts that the HO failed to consider these policies, and to include adequate conditions <br />of approval for sufficient right-of-way, sidewalks, and other improvements to ensure consistency. The <br />PC finds that the HO did not explicitly address Policies F.26 and F.36 of the Metro Plan, but agrees with <br />the applicant's reasoning that these policies are not mandatory approval criteria for the application. <br />The policies provide broad direction to the local government in legislative matters but are not intended <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD Page 2 <br />