I not address eroding or scouring of the Amazon Canal, or turbidity in that open waterway due <br />2 to increased flows or velocity. <br />3 Although the hearings officer's findings are not particularly clear, and the planning <br />4 commission's attempt to clarify the hearings officer's findings is of limited value, we agree <br />5 with West Creek that the planning commission correctly concluded that EC 9.8325(13) is <br />6 satisfied by requiring compliance with EC 9.6793, Storm-water Flow Control (Headwaters). <br />7 Record 32-33. EC 9.6793(1) provides that the purpose of the stormwater standards is "to <br />8 protect waterways in the headwaters area from the erosive effects of increases in stormwater <br />9 iLmoff peals flow rates and volumes resulting from development." (Emphasis added.) <br />10 Southeast Neighbors does not explain why the purpose statement at EC 9.6793(1) and the <br />11 provisions that follow in EC 9.6793 that require an applicant to demonstrate that "peals rates <br />12 of flow delivered to an existing open waterway E` * a` will not increase during storms larger <br />13 than the water quality design storm and smaller than the flood control design storm as a result <br />14 of the development that is the subject of the application" do not also protect the downstream, <br />15 open portion of the Amazon Canal from the "erosive effects" of increases in stormwater <br />16 runoff, such as * * eroding or scouring of the natural drainage courses or * * * turbidity, or <br />17 the transport of sediment due to increased peals flows or velocity." Given these overlapping <br />18 concerns, the planning commission could reasonably conclude that preventing any increase in <br />19 stormwater flows pursuant to EC 9.6793 is sufficient to ensure compliance with the EC <br />20 9.8325(13) requirement to prevent "eroding or scouring the natural drainage courses or by <br />21 causing turbidity, or the transport of sediment due to increased peals flows or velocity." <br />22 Southeast Neighbors' second assignment of error is denied. <br />23 SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORS' THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />24 As explained above, an unimproved portion of West Amazon Drive bisects the <br />25 property from its intersection with Martin Street to the north to its intersection with Fox <br />Page 19 <br />