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 and may not <br />consider new evidence provided during the appeal process. 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 therefore limited to the issues raised <br />by the appellant and the relevant evidence and argument within the record. <br />New evidence not provided to the Hearings Official, and testimony regarding issues not raised by <br />the appellant, is not allowed to be considered. To that end, the Draft Final Order includes specific <br />details listing out testimony (or portions thereof) that staff believes the Planning Commission will <br />need to reject based on these procedural limitations. Staff is prepared to begin the meeting with a <br />discussion of these evidentiary issues to get Planning Commission’s determination on what needs <br />to be rejected on procedural grounds, before walking through the substance of each appeal issue. <br />The goal for this first deliberations meeting will be to get as far as possible with initial “straw poll” <br />votes on the Planning Commission’s decision with respect to each appeal issue. Staff will be <br />prepared to revise the Draft Final Order as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s <br />determinations and bring that back at a subsequent meeting for further deliberation, prior to a <br />final decision on the appeal. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission begin deliberations on the appeal as described <br />above. As reflected the prior AIS and packet for the public hearing, and in the attached Draft Final <br />Order, staff recommends that the Planning Commission reverse and modify the Hearing’s Official’s <br />decision, and thereby conditionally approve the Tentative PUD and Subdivision applications. <br />For ease of reference, the following is list of the appeal issues and related approval criteria and <br />topics organized according to the associated appeal issue number, where staff’s recommendations <br />for modifications of the Hearings Official’s decision would primarily be made: <br />•Appeal Issue #1, Evidentiary – relates to the applicant’s evidence submitted during the <br />second open record period following the initial public hearing, which was rejected by the <br />Hearings Official for consideration on procedural grounds, and partly served as a basis for <br />denying the applications. Staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse this portion of <br />the Hearings Official’s decision and consider all the applicant’s evidence and argument <br />submitted on August 14, 2024, as responsive to the evidence submitted during the first open <br />record period. <br />•Appeal Issue #2, EC 9.8325(3) – relates to compliance with EC 9.6880 through 9.6885 Tree <br />Preservation and Removal Standards if the site is not on the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Staff <br />recommends modifying the decision and finding the entire site is on the Goal 5 inventory <br />according to the Scenic Sites Working Paper and Map (Figure H-2), and therefore exempt <br />from Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. <br />•Appeal Issue #3, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with the street connectivity standards <br />at EC 9.6815(2)(d) and related standards at EC 9.6870, requiring secondary access for fire <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 5 of 42