Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

I Neighbors'/Matthews' submissions, and rejected that evidence. Southeast Neighbors does 2 not challenge those findings or otherwise explain why those findings regarding new evidence 3 are incorrect. 4 In its second subassignment of error, we understand Southeast Neighbors to argue that 5 the planning commission erred in rejecting as "new evidence" under EC 9.7655(2) the 6 Matthews demonstrative exhibit created at the planning commission hearing. Petition for 7 Review 30. We understand Southeast Neighbors to argue that the Matthews demonstrative 8 exhibit should not have been rejected because the planning commission allowed West Creels 9 to introduce new evidence, and the demonstrative exhibit was merely Southeast Neighbors' 10 response to that improperly introduced new evidence. We reject that argument. First, we 11 have already determined above that the planning commission did not improperly accept any 12 new evidence from West Creep. More to the point, EC 9.7655(2) is clear that "no new 13 evidence * * * shall be accepted." Given such a prohibition, the remedy for correcting a 14 planning commission error in accepting new evidence in contravention of EC 9.7655(2) is 15 not to allow an evidentiary free-for-all in the form of more new evidence to be introduced 16 before the planning commission in violation of EC 9.7655(2), but to remand the decision for 17 the planning commission to make its decision without relying on arty new evidence. 18 Southeast Neighbors' first assignment of error is denied. 19 SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORS' SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR/WEST 20 CREED'S SEVENTH CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 21 EC 9.8325(13) requires an applicant for a planned unit development to show that: "[s]tormwater runoff from the PUD will not damage natural drainage courses 23 either on-site or downstream by eroding or scouring the natural drainage 24 courses or by causing turbidity, or the transport of sediment due to increased 25 peals flows or velocity." Page 14