1 WEST CREED'S SIXTH CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />2 As described above, the hearings officer denied West Creek's original proposal to <br />3 develop 75 lots on the property, including on the steeply sloped eastern portion. West <br />4 Creek's appeal challenged the hearings officer's denial of the 75-lot proposal. In this <br />5 assignment of error we understand West Creek to attempt to keep the 75-lot proposal under <br />6 consideration by the planning commission if the decision is remanded. <br />7 In various places in the decision the planning commission concluded that West <br />8 Creek's application to develop 75 lots, including several on the steeply sloped eastern portion <br />9 of the property, failed to comply with the stormwater standards that apply to development on <br />10 the property. Record 12, 16, 30, 32, 33. In its sixth cross assignment of error, West Creels <br />11 argues that the planning commission erred in concluding that the proposal to develop 75 lots <br />12 fails to satisfy the stormwater standards with respect to the eastern portion of the property. <br />13 According to West Creels, no party raised an issue regarding the eastern portion of the <br />14 property's compliance with the stormwater standards in the appeals of the hearings officer's <br />15 decision. <br />16 Initially, we note that West Creels cites "EC 9.8325(7)(b)" in its assignment of error <br />17 and characterizes that provision as "the stormwater standards incorporated into EC <br />18 9.8325(7)(b)." However, EC 9.8325(7)(b) requires an applicant to show compliance with <br />19 "EC 9.6500 through 9.6505 public Improvement Standards" and there is no reference to <br />20 stormwater standards in any of those sections. It is EC 9.8325(7)0) that requires an applicant <br />21 to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6791 through 9.6797. <br />22 The planning commssion findings that West Creels challenges in its petition for <br />23 review at 45 and 46 address compliance with the standards at EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 as <br />24 required by EC 9.8325(7)6). Those standards were clearly at issue in the appeals of the <br />25 planning commission's decision, as evidenced by our discussion and resolution of Southeast <br />26 Neighbors' second assignment of error and West Creek's seventh assignment of error. <br />Page 27 <br />