2017 Planning Commission Final Order on Remand (PDT 13-1 Re-Affirmed)

RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION The record before the PC in making this decision consists of the formal record from the City's 2013 decision-making process (as settled by LUBA for LUBA No. 2014-001); the formal record from the City's 2015 decision-making process (as settled by LUBA for LUBA Nos. 2015-076/077); and all the material placed before, and not rejected by, the PC during this 2017 decision-making process. The entire record was available to, and was physically placed before, the PC. Ill. PROCEDURAL ISSUES Bias At the PC meeting on May 22, 2017, and again at the meeting on May 30, 2017, all members of the PC present declared that they could make an unbiased decision based on the evidence and argument in the record. Rejection of Testimony ` At the meeting held on May 22, 2017, the PC rejected the following: 1) a letter from Paul Conte dated May 8, 2017, and 2) a portion of a letter from the applicant dated May 3, 2017. The PC rejected the May 8, 2017, letter from Paul Conte because it was submitted after the close of the record. The PC rejected a portion of the applicant's letter dated May 3, 2017, because the PC determined that the rejected portion of-the letter did not directly respond to testimony received during the first and second open record periods as required by the Notice of Opportunity to Submit testimony in the 2017 open record period.z IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the PC finds that the subject application meets all applicable PUD approval criteria from EC 9.8320 as specified by the HO, with the additional findings and modified conditions of approval described below. In the event of any conflict between the HO's decision and this Final Order, this Final Order shall prevail. The HO's decision is adopted by reference and included as Attachment A.. The PC was presented with eleven assignments of error. Each assignment of error is set forth below, followed by the PC's findings of fad and conclusions of law as to each one. The PC's deliberations supporting this decision took place on: December 9, 2013; December 16, 2013; August 17, 2015; September 28, 2015; October 5, 2015; May 22, 2017; and May 30, 2017. First Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding that the application met EC 9.8320(1) "The PUD is consistent with applicable adopted policies of the Metro Plan." A. Sub-assignment of Error I.A: the Decision failed to address the following policy at all: 2 The Planning Commission rejected a portion of the first paragraph under the "Conclusion" heading on page 9 of the applicant's May 3, 2017 letter. Specifically, the Planning Commission rejected the first 23 lines of text in the Conclusion section, through (including) the following citation: "Hearings Official Decision, p. 29." 2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) . Page 3