2. The Planning Commission rejected the following portions of Deborah Killian's October 13, <br />2024, email because the Planning Commission determined that they were unrelated to the <br />appeal issues raised by the applicant. Because the Planning Commission is limited to <br />consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot consider <br />the following portions of Ms. Killian's testimony: <br />a. The third sentence of the third paragraph regarding wildlife and fencing; <br />b. The second sentence of the fifth paragraph regarding a traffic study; <br />c. The entirety of the sixth and seventh paragraphs regarding density and affordable <br />housing; and, <br />d. The final sentence of paragraph eight regarding the use of the land as a park. <br />3. The Planning Commission rejected the paragraphs numbered 2 and 5 in Elaine Hanks' <br />January 5, 2025, email because the Planning Commission determined that testimony was <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 those pieces of Ms. Hanks' testimony. <br />4. The Planning Commission rejected the first four sentences of the third paragraph and the <br />entirety of the fourth paragraph (all related to traffic) of Beth Kitselman's January 12, 2025, <br />email because the Planning Commission determined that testimony was unrelated to the <br />appeal issues raised by the applicant. Because the Planning Commission is limited to <br />consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot consider <br />those pieces of Ms. Kitselman's testimony. <br />5. The Planning Commission rejected the third full paragraph of Carol Scherer's January 12, <br />2025, email because the Planning Commission determined that testimony was unrelated to <br />the appeal issues raised by the applicant. Because the Planning Commission is limited to <br />consideration of the issues raised in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot consider <br />those pieces of Ms. Scherer's testimony. <br />6. The Planning Commission rejected the following portions of Larry Smith's January 13, 2025, <br />testimony because the Planning Commission determined that they were unrelated to the <br />appeal issues raised by the applicant and/or constituted new evidence not provided to the <br />Hearings Official: <br />a. The entirety of the second -to -last paragraph and the first two sentences of the final <br />paragraph under the heading "1) A Long Series of Plans," because these portions of <br />Mr. Smith's testimony were unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the applicant; <br />and, <br />b. The text and Figure 6 under heading 4 on page 8 of Mr. Smith's letter, because it <br />includes new evidence that was not available to the Hearings Official. <br />7. The Planning Commission rejected the following portions of Larry Smith's January 14, 2025, <br />submitted video testimony because the Planning Commission determined that they were <br />unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the applicant and/or constituted new evidence not <br />provided to the Hearings Official: <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 3 <br />