a. The portion of the video that showed Figure 6 from Smith's January 13, 2025, <br />written testimony because the testimony included new evidence that was not <br />available to the Hearings Official; and, <br />b. The portion of the video that showed a photograph from the applicant's <br />neighborhood meeting and Mr. Smith's various statements purporting Bill Kloos <br />and Carl Schirmer (applicant's agents) having expressed misgivings about various <br />aspects of the project, because these portions of Mr. Smith's testimony were <br />unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the applicant. <br />8. The Planning Commission rejected the entirety of the table and the fourth through sixth <br />paragraphs (all related to wetland fill permits) on the first page of Al LePage's January 14, <br />2025, testimony because the Planning Commission determined that they were 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 portions of Mr. LePage's testimony. <br />9. The Planning Commission rejected the paragraphs numbered 1, 2 and 5 in the letter <br />attached to Keri Green's January 14, 2025, email sent at 5:29 p.m. because the Planning <br />Commission determined that they were unrelated to the appeal issues raised by the <br />applicant. Because the Planning Commission is limited to consideration of the issues raised <br />in the appeal, the Planning Commission cannot consider those pieces of Ms. Green's <br />testimony. <br />The testimony that was received by City staff after the close of the record on January 14, 2025, <br />was not placed before the Planning Commission and is therefore also excluded from Planning <br />Commission's consideration on the appeal. <br />Consideration of Testimony Rejected by the Hearings Official <br />The Hearings Official rejected and declined to consider some of the applicant's testimony that was <br />timely submitted during the second open record period following the initial public hearing (dated <br />August 14, 2024) because she concluded that the testimony was new evidence, and that new <br />evidence was not allowed during the second open record period. This evidentiary issue is <br />discussed in detail below under Appeal Issue #1, and as discussed in greater detail below, the <br />Planning Commission finds that all the applicant's evidence submitted on August 14, 2024, was <br />responsive to argument and evidence submitted during the first open record period ending on July <br />31, 2024, and therefore it should have been considered by the Hearings Official. The evidence <br />rejected by the Hearings Official is therefore included within the record for this decision and was <br />considered by the Planning Commission as part of the Commission's decision on this appeal. <br />IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the <br />Planning Commission finds that the subject applications meet all applicable Tentative PUD <br />approval criteria from EC 9.8325, and all applicable Tentative Subdivision approval criteria from EC <br />9.8520 as specified by the Hearings Official, with the additional findings and conditions of approval <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 4 <br />