3. The Planning Commission rejected the third and fourth sentences of the third <br />paragraph on the second page of Nathaniel Teich's June 18, 2019 letter because the <br />Planning Commission determined that they were outside of the scope of the open <br />record on remands <br />The Planning Commission has limited its consideration of the issues on remand to the remand <br />issues identified by LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, dated November 20, 2018, for LUBA Nos. <br />2018-074 and 2018-080. <br />IV. FINDINGS F FACT A CONCLUSIONS F LAW <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the <br />Planning Commission readopts its Final Order dated June 14, 2018, as amended and <br />supplemented below. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the subject application <br />complies with EC 9.8320(6) and the South Hills Study's specific recommendations for <br />development standards related to review of on-site and off-site impact of the development. In <br />the event of any conflict between this Final Order and the initial Planning Commission decision <br />on this application or the Hearings Official's decision on this application, this Final Order shall <br />prevail. The Planning Commission's June 14, 2018, decision is adopted by reference and <br />included as Attachment A. The Hearings Official's decision is adopted by reference and included <br />as Attachment B. <br />Applicable Approval Criteria on Remand <br />LUBA's remand focused on two approval criteria: EC 9.8320(6) and the specific <br />recommendations from the South Hills Study for development standards related to review of <br />on-site and off-site impact of the development.z <br />2 As noted above, LUBA's remand refers to EC 9.9630(3)(c) rather than the South Hills Study. EC 9.9630 <br />does not apply directly to this tentative PUD application. EC 9.9630 only applies to applications for <br />subdivisions, partitions and site review. See EC 9.9500. However, the specific recommendations from <br />the South Hills Study for development standards related to on-site and off-site impact of development <br />that are directly applicable to this application are identical to EC 9.9360(3)(c) - the code section LUBA <br />referenced in the remand. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Remand Page 4 <br />