Organization, and a number of other individuals testified in opposition. The applicant's legal <br />counsel, Michael Reeder, and Andrew Brand, followed with final rebuttal testimony. Written <br />testimony was also submitted by several individuals. <br />The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on September 5, 2018. The Planning <br />Commission deliberated on the appeal issues at its meetings on September 6, 2018, and <br />reached its final decision on September 6, 2018. The Planning Commission affirmed with <br />modifications the Hearings Official's approval of the Willamette Greenway Permit, Site Review, <br />and Adjustment Review as set forth in Section IV, below. <br />As described below, with this September 6, 2018 Final Order, the Planning Commission affirms <br />the Hearings Official's August 7, 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 />also provided electronically to each of the commissioners. Under EC 9.7655, appeals to the <br />Planning Commission are "on the record," that is, the Planning Commission is limited to <br />consideration of the evidence before the Hearings Official. In addition, appeals to the Planning <br />Commission are "limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of <br />issues." The Planning Commission's decision on the appeal is based upon consideration of all <br />relevant evidence and argument within the record. <br />Ill. PROCEDURAL ISSUES <br />Bias/Ex Parte Contacts <br />At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2018, Commissioner Fragala declared an <br />ex parte contact and confirmed that she can make an unbiased decision based solely on the <br />evidence and argument in the record. No other Commissioners announced any ex parte <br />contacts related to the application on appeal. <br />A written challenge to the impartiality of Commissioner Randall was also made and introduced <br />to the record before the Planning Commission. Staff advised that, irrespective of the challenge, <br />Commissioner Randall was not in attendance at the hearing and would not be participating in <br />any aspect of the decision-making process due to his unavailability resulting from prior personal <br />commitments. As such, the Planning Commission need not address the challenge any further. <br />The Planning Commission Chair stated that any person in the audience had the right to rebut <br />the substance of any ex parte communications, and asked whether anyone in the audience <br />wished to challenge the qualifications of any of the Planning Commissioners. There were no <br />other challenges to qualifications or impartiality. <br />Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 2 <br />