Following the applicant's final rebuttal, Planning Commissioners asked several clarifying questions <br />of the applicant and staff and then closed the public hearing and the record for the appeal. <br />Prior to the Planning Commission's deliberations on the appeal, the applicant requested an <br />additional 60-day time extension pursuant to ORS 227.178(5), to allow the Planning Commission <br />more time for deliberations prior to the deadline for a final local decision. The Planning <br />Commission subsequently deliberated on the appeal issues at its meetings on January 28 and <br />February 18, 2025, and reached a final decision reversing and modifying portions of the Hearings <br />Official's decision; resulting in approval of the subject applications with conditions, as reflected in <br />this Final Order. The Planning Commission's decision is further detailed below, with findings <br />addressing each of the appellant's 10 assignments of error. <br />11. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The record before the Planning Commission consists of all the items that were placed before, and <br />not rejected by, the Planning Commission prior to its final decision. This includes all application <br />and appeal materials, evidence, recordings, and written testimony submitted and accepted prior <br />to the close of the record; which occurred immediately following Planning Commission's public <br />hearing, on January 14, 2025. <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 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. A few pieces of new <br />evidence not provided to the Hearings Official and testimony regarding issues not raised by the <br />appellant was rejected by the Commission as discussed in more detail below. <br />III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES <br />Bias/Ex Parte Contacts <br />None of the Planning Commissioners disclosed potential bias or ex parte contacts, and no bias or <br />ex parte contact challenges were asserted. <br />Rejection of Testimony <br />The Planning Commission has limited its consideration to evidence available to the Hearings <br />Official and to the appeal issues identified by the applicant. At the Planning Commission meeting <br />on January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed and rejected the following written <br />testimony (or portions thereof) submitted prior to the close of the hearing and record: <br />1. The Planning Commission rejected Elaine Hanks' October 13, 2024, email because the <br />Planning Commission determined that the testimony included in the email was entirely <br />unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the applicant. Because the Planning Commission is <br />limited to consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot <br />consider Ms. Hanks' testimony. <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 2 <br />