PDF Pape 2 <br />App-2 <br />On October 3, 2013 an objection to procedure was submitted by Bill Kloos on behalf of the . <br />applicant asserting that testimony by City Staff regarding conversations with the applicant <br />regarding a blow up of the Metro Plan (Map 7) should be stricken from the record. Mr. Kloos <br />submitted further objection regarding testimony from Jared Margolis that were otherwise not <br />in the record including assertions by Mr. Margolis that: <br />The applicant never asked where the line is on the property <br />The plan line should be determined by using a GPS in the field <br />The applicant admitted the UGB in this area was delineated based on the ridgeline. <br />The POS line must be drawn to include land on either side of the ridgeline, because the <br />intent is to protect a certain resource. <br />® Advice on how a ridgeline should be located offered as a professional GIS planner <br />At deliberations, Deputy City Attorney Anne Davies advised the Planning Commission that the <br />assertions made by Mr. Kloos were correct and that the Planning Commission should <br />additionally reject testimon'y•provided at the hearing by the applicant, staff and opponents <br />regarding conversations the applicant had with staff that was not in the record before the <br />Hearings Official. The Planning Commission voted to reject the testimony summarized above. <br />On October 6, 2013 Mr. Kloos on behalf bf the applicant provided a procedural objection along <br />with new argument. The procedural objection asserted the provision of the Agenda Item <br />Summary to the Planning Commission prior to deliberations was the staff report that should <br />have been provided to the Planning Commission priorto the public hearing in order for parties <br />to respond, <br />The Planning Commission found that the code requirement at EC 9.7670 addresses the <br />provision of a staff report prior to the public hearing, but also indicates that a staff report is not <br />required. The code provision does not apply to an Agenda Item Summary provided by.staff <br />after the public hearing and prior to deliberations. The Planning Commission voted to reject the <br />email and letter dated October 6, 2013 which included the objection and new argument. <br />The record before the PC consists of all the items that were physically before, and not rejected <br />above by the PC prior to its final decision. <br />111, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />The PC findings-and conclusion regarding the appeal'are provided below and attached hereto, <br />Pursuant to EC 9.7680, the PC may reverse a decision of the HO if it can demonstrate that he <br />failed "to properly evaluate the application or make a decision consistent with applicable <br />approval criteria. The relevant approval criteria for zone changes are found at EC 9,8865 -and <br />are discussed below. <br />Final Order - LaurelRidge PUD <br />(Z 12-2, PDT 12-2, TIA 12-6, SDR 12-5) October 14, 2013 Page 2 <br />5 <br />