I greater than 20 percent than the staff map showed. Prior to the close of the record, West <br />2 Creels argued to the hearings officer that lie should not rely on the Matthews Slope Map <br />3 because it was less reliable than the map prepared -by the planning staff, for a number of <br />4 reasons. Record 498. The hearings officer relied on the Matthews Slope Map to deny the <br />5 applications for both a 75-lot subdivision and the alternative 47-lot subdivisions <br />6 EC 9.7655(3) provides in relevant part that an appeal of a hearings officer decision to <br />7 the planning commission is * based on the record, and Q limited to the issues raised in <br />8 the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues." EC 9.7655(2) provides that "[n]o <br />9 new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted" by the planning commission.6 <br />10 West Creels appealed the hearings officer's decision to the planning commission. In its <br />11 appeal statement, West Creek asserted that the hearings officer erred in relying on the <br />12 Matthews Slope Map for a number of reasons. Record 219-225. As an insert in its appeal <br />13 statement, West Creels included graphics showing slopes, which it produced using the <br />14 methodology that it understood Matthews had used. Record 221-22. <br />15 In response, Southeast Neighbors argued that West Creek's appeal statement sought <br />16 to appeal issues that were not raised before the hearings officer in contravention of EC <br />5 The hearings officer found: <br />"Mr. Matthews' map shows that staff's approach was remarkably accurate. W. Matthews' <br />map shows only a few large areas not included on stars map, but all of those are outside of <br />the specific spots shown for development. Additionally, Mr. Matthews' map shows slight <br />increases in the size of the areas that staff had marked as slopes of 20 percent or greater. The <br />hearings official believes that substantial evidence in the whole record shows that staffs map <br />and Mr. Matthews' map accurately measured slope, but that Mr. Matthews' map provides <br />slightly [more] accurate information of slopes equal to or greater than 20 percent. His <br />approach is essentially identical to the staff's approach, except for the shape of the <br />measure[ing] tool, so the hearings official concludes that Mr. Matthews' map shows the areas <br />that the applicant must avoid pursuant to this criterion." Record 466. <br />b EC 9.0500 defines "evidence" to mean "[f]acts, documents, data, or other information offered to <br />demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the <br />decision." <br />Page II <br />