In keeping with the Hearings Official's conclusion that development in the western portion of the site <br />(Lots 5 and 6) must be eliminated to satisfy the tentative PI_TD approval criteria, the Hearings Official <br />zl <br />',l l' i'1rFa TYI•~111 iTFe @lt i-el%~519u .bbv is , Sl liilvlie ~ .\liil i(aM9(`~~V' Kf~.\%yt'UI "A`I )I 1111-.iBl of 111 I id1W(_ V~1_ 11(_,1 <br />b`JtisA t:UG. t.i Li1L.. `v✓„.] IJA w.'A1_u~:e ~ ~r _ _ _ - _ _ <br />i -'Y'r - YYa <br />conclusion was predicated on the determination that the applicant had not correctly identified or <br />J i e e i 1'l-. -s~ %1 9 A I Q. 9, r <br />µr%_l ~Alieµ ava si~~ l\ e/i is Iv vEi ll\el ti viii wa ea. v 111 t-Ja~'l iti~! V noted 1111(1 e1 anneal issues suissues 1 -7, !_141. I 3athni AL' <br />Commission finds that the Hearings Official erred with respect to her determination regarding the /WR <br />conservation area and elimination of development in the western portion of the site. By extension, she <br />erred by deferring review of the applicant's Standards Review application. <br />With regard to the proposal to remove the berm along the west side of the easternmost leg of the riparian <br />corridor, the Planning Commission upholds the Hearings Official's conclusion that the proposal does not <br />constitute "realignment or configuration of channels and pond banks" under EC 9.4930(3)(a), as stated on <br />page 20. However, contrary to the Hearings Official's statements on page 35, the Planning Commission <br />finds that removal of the berm does qualify as a "riparian area enhancement, restoration or creation <br />activity" under EC 9.4930(3)(f) (which may be permitted subject to Standards Review approval, if <br />specified standards are met) since the berm was a man-made addition to the riparian area, and since its <br />removal will restore more natural conditions including sheet flow within the riparian area and installation <br />of native plants. The Planning Commission -further concludes that the applicant has shown that it will <br />meet the applicable /WR development standards at EC 9.49x0(2) through (5) or that it call feasibly do so, <br />as demonstrated by the applicant's statements and supplemental analysis as well as the May 6, 2008 staff <br />report in the record. <br />With regard to the proposal to construct a private access across the rrpariari corridor pursuant to EC <br />9.4930(3)6), the Planning Commission also finds that the applicant has shown that it will meet the <br />applicable /WR development standards contained in EC 9.4980(2) through (6) and (10) or that it can <br />feasibly do so. With regard•to the culvert standards at (10)(d)-and (e), the Hearings Official's findings <br />under EC 9.8320(1), (6), and (I 1)(b), and other evidence in the record, support compliance. With respect <br />to (10)(f), the Planning Commission finds that the proposed culvert is the minimum length practicable and <br />fill on the top of the culvert has the minimum footprint practicable,- given that proposed crossing is the <br />minimum allowable w7 adtn , to a a the i° s~rlsurl?iiatlOr~ in tttite record provide regarding <br />alternative designs indicates marginal differences and is inconclusive. <br />With regard to the proposal to construct new underground utilities below the culvert crossing pursuant to <br />tip` O.riu~ior 3Jl l', `iAVl, the 1 AI.LA A1g +..1.+ <br />~t,P iia„~i, ^ e vOn,m1s51'n also finds Il?at the a,iplirarat hac cltnwn that it will meet the <br />Lim 9.A9_3 1011( <br />standards described in that section and the applicable /WR development standards contained in EC <br />9.4980(2) through (5) or that it can feasibly do so. <br />Appeal Issue 10: The Hearin Official erred on page 26 in finding that the stream is a "natural drainage <br />course " within the meaning of EC 9.8320(9) <br />With respect to appeal issue 10, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err on <br />page 26 in finding that the stream is a "natural drainage course" within the meaning of EC 9.8320(9). The <br />Planning Commission further finds that the question of compliance with EC 9.8320(9) and related criteria <br />is established with the Planning Commission's determination that the proposal accounts for the /WR <br />conservation area. With respect to peak stormwater flow and -velocity, the Hearings Official found that <br />the applicant had supplied information regarding culvert capacity and soakage trenches addressing staff's <br />concerns with regard to EC 9.8320(9), the stormwater standards at EC 9.8320(l 1)0), and the /WR <br />Standards Review requirements. <br />Al&feWftdscFVDD F)DT 07-5 & SDR 0000-2) November 2008 Pag8a$01177 <br />