The applicant appealed LUBA's decision to the Court of Appeals, and on February 27, 2019 the <br />Court of Appeals affirmed LUBA's decision without opinion. On May 7, 2019, the applicant <br />requested that the City begin to process the remand. <br />On May 19, 2019, Planning staff mailed a "Notice of Opportunity to Submit Written Testimony <br />to the Eugene Planning Commission - Limited Issues" to the applicant and interested parties. <br />The notice provided that the Planning Commission would accept "written testimony that <br />addresses the Capital Hill Tentative PUD application's compliance with the geotechnical <br />requirements of Eugene Code (EC) sections 9.8320(6) and 9.9630(3)(c)." The City intentionally <br />limited the scope of permissible new testimony to testimony that is relevant to the scope of <br />issues set out in LUBA's remand. The Planning Commission did not hold a hearing on remand. <br />The Planning Commission held deliberations on the remand on August 6 and 13, 2019. <br />1 Although LUBA's remand references EC 9.9630, that code section does not apply directly to this <br />tentative PUD application. EC 9.9630 only applies to applications for subdivisions, partitions and site <br />review. See EC 9.9500. However, the policies of the South Hills Study that are codified in EC 9.9630 are <br />directly applicable to the tentative PUD application through EC 9.8320(2) ("The PUD is consistent with <br />applicable adopted refinement plan policies."), so the application must comply with the same <br />substantive approval criteria included in EC 9.9630(3). This Final Order will therefore refer to the <br />applicable South Hills Study policy rather than to EC 9.9630. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Remand Page 2 <br />