Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

which provides that "No new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted." The I38961 notes that in response to staff's November 14 recommendation against taking official notice, the Applicant has acknowledged that "the PC has much material ...and that not taking official notice-will lessen the work before you. The applicant is OK with this [staff's] recommendation." (See November 14, 2012 Hearing Exhibit C, letter from Rick Satre). The Applicant does not rely on these documents to support their related appeal issues (#3 and #4), so they are unnecessary. Request to Consider SEN Testimony that the HO Excluded from the Record SEN: In their Appeal Statement, the SEN claims that the HO erred when he refused to consider the SEN rebuttal testimony dated September 11, 2012. PC Determination; The SEN testimony could not be considered because it was submitted after the close of the record. While the HO would likely have considered an extension of the record with a timeline extension from the Applicant, none was provided, so the HO had no recourse but to formally issue an Order denying the SEN request. The PC denies the SEN request and rejects testimony submitted after the close of the HO record. Applicant/HBA Request to Reject the SEN Appeal Applicant/HBA: At the November 14, 2012 hearing, Bill Kloos argued that the SEN was not approved by the SEN Board of Directors and that the SEN Charter does not allow appeals (see Hearing Exhibit A). SEN: Dan Snyder argued that the neighbors had a quorum of board members present at the hearing and took an official vote ratifying the filing of the appeal; he also asserted that the neighbor's charter clearly authorizes the filing of appeals in local land use planning actions. PC Determination: Whether or not SEN complied with its own charter is not an issue for the PC to consider. It does not relate to an approval criterion and was not an issue before the HO. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of the PC's review. City staff accepted the SEN appeal with the 50% fee for recognized neighborhood associations; to assert its argument, the Applicant/HBA could challenge that staff action, not the HO decision. For these reasons, the PC will continue to consider SEN's appeal. Request to Reject the SEN "Googie Map" Transparency (Hearing Exhibit E) SEN: At the November 14, 2012 hearing, Mr. Snyder distributed documents to the Planning Commission, which he described as being a transparency of a "Googie Map" overlaying an excerpt of the Goal 5 Scenic Areas map. This information was being presented by the SEN to support its Appeal Issue 46 - to show that the subject property is not on the Goal 5 Scenic Area map and, as such, the PUD is not exempt from the geotechnical analysis standards: Refer to Appeal Issue #6 for more information. Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 6 9