Planning Commission affirmed the Hearings official's decision to approve the tentative PUD, <br />with additional findings and conditions as well as modifications to certain approval conditions, <br />as set forth in Section IV, below. <br />As described below, with this June 14, 2018 Final Order, the Planning Commission affirms the <br />Hearings Official's April 20, 2018 decision with modifications. The Planning Commission's <br />decision is detailed below with respect to each assignment of error. <br />II. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The record before the Planning Commission consists of all the items that were placed before, <br />and not rejected by, the Planning Commission prior to its final decision on this appeal. The <br />record in this appeal was physically placed before the Planning Commission at the hearing and <br />deliberations on this appeal and was also provided electronically to each of the commissioners. <br />Under EC 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are "on the record," that is, the Planning <br />Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Hearings Official. In addition, <br />appeals to the Planning Commission are "limited to issues raised in the record that are set out <br />in the filed statement of issues." The Planning Commission's decision on the appeal is based <br />upon consideration of all relevant evidence and argument within the record. <br />III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES <br />Bias/Ex Parte Contacts <br />At the Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2018, Chairman Barofsky and Commissioner <br />Jaworski declared ex parte contacts related to the application on appeal and announced that <br />they could make an unbiased decision based on the evidence and argument in the record. <br />During the staff presentation, at the May 22, 2018, meeting it was stated that any person in the <br />audience had the right to rebut the substance of any of the ex parte communications. At the <br />Planning Commission meeting on June 7, 2018, Commissioner Taylor announced that while she <br />is a member of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, she did not have any ex parte <br />contacts related the application on appeal and that she can make an unbiased decision based <br />on the evidence and argument in the record. <br />Rejection of Testimony <br />At the Planning Commission meeting held on June 4, 2018, the Planning Commission rejected <br />the following portions of the "Appeal Statement to the Eugene Planning Commission of the <br />Hearings Official Decision dated April 20, 2018, regarding the Capital Hill Tentative PUD <br />application, File PDT 17-1" submitted by the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount <br />Neighbors Association and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens: <br />1) The Planning Commission rejected items (f) and (1) under Appeal Issue 23 because the <br />Planning Commission determined that they constituted new issues not raised before the <br />Hearings Official; <br />2) The Planning Commission rejected the word "permanent" in the first sentence under the <br />heading "Environmental quality" in Appeal Issue 28 because the Planning Commission <br />determined that an assertion of permanent damage constituted new evidence not <br />presented to the Hearings Official; <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 2 <br />