1 9.7655(3), and to consider "new evidence" in contravention of EC 9.7655(2), where West <br />2 Creek asserted that the hearings officer erred in relying on the Matthews Slope Map. The <br />3 parties then engaged in a lengthy battle of motions, responses to motions, replies to <br />4 responses, sur-replies to responses, etc. about whether the planning commission could <br />5 consider the issues and whether West Creek improperly submitted new "evidence." Record <br />6 157-58; 179-181; 182-86. Additionally, during the single public hearing,before the planning <br />7 commission, Matthews testified and used an enlarged 2 foot by 3 foot version of West <br />8 Creek's 47-lot site plan and measured slopes on the property with a ruler and a red pen to <br />9 demonstrate slopes on the property. <br />10 In its final decision, the planning commission concluded that the issues presented in <br />11 West Creek's appeal statement that challenged the Matthews Slope Map had been raised <br />12 before the hearings officer. Record 7-8. The planning commission rejected as "new <br />13 evidence" the two graphics that West Creek had included in its appeal statement and struck <br />14 all references to the graphics contained in West Creek's appeal statement. The planning <br />15 commission also determined that the Matthews demonstrative exhibit from his testimony at <br />16 the planning commission hearing was "new evidence" under EC 9.7655(2) and rejected it. <br />17 The planning commission then reversed the hearings officer's decision and concluded that <br />18 the map prepared by the city's planning staff based on the map provided by West Creek was <br />19 more reliable than the Matthews Slope Map, and approved the 47-lot PUD. Record 15-18. <br />20 ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B) provides that LUBA will reverse or remand a decision if the <br />21 local government "[f]ailed to follow the procedures applicable to the matter before it in a <br />22 manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner[.]" In its first subassignment of <br />23 error under the first assignment of error, Southeast Neighbors argues that the planning <br />24 commission committed a procedural error that prejudiced its substantial rights when it <br />25 allowed West Creek to challenge the Matthews Slope Map in the appeal of the hearings <br />Page 12 <br />