Even if staff had been incorrect in their determinations, once an applica h-27 <br />deemed complete, there is no basis for the HO or the PC to reconsider compliance <br />with the neighborhood meeting requirement. The HO noted, under the introductory <br />heading "Application, referrals and Public Notice" on page 7 of his decision, that the <br />application materials confirm compliance with EC 9.7007. The HO does not revisit <br />the requirement under any criteria. EC does not include a PUD approval criterion <br />under which the HO or the PC may'consider compliance with neighborhood meeting <br />requirement. <br />Further, the HO's decision actually evaluated the 75-lot plan -the one presented at <br />the neighborhood meetings -as the application (see page 2 of HO Decision). The <br />HO's denial is based on shortcomings in the 75-lot proposal. As noted above, the HO <br />regarded the 47-lot plan as additional evidence, but not as a revised application. <br />PC Decision: The PC denies this assignment of error. This issue is beyond the scope of the PC's <br />review. <br />SEN Appeal Issue #9; Stormwater <br />"The Hearings Official ruled that the Applicant complied with EC 9.8325(13) because "the condition of <br />approval required to comply with EC 9.8325(7)(j) that addresses flow-control ensures that the <br />application complies with this approval criteria." Decision at 34. This determination was in error, as <br />the Applicant must make an independent showing that it can comply with this criterion." <br />PC Findings: The approval criteria at EC 9.8325(7)(j) and EC 9.8325(13) both relate to stormwater. <br />SEN argues that, because these are different criteria, compliance with the first <br />criterion does not equate to compliance with the second. The HO determined that <br />compliance with criterion (13) was ensured through the condition for flow control <br />established under criterion (7)(j). When evaluating criterion (13), however, the HO <br />did more than refer to criterion (7)(j); the record shows that he made an <br />independent evaluation of the approval criteria. <br />EC 9.8325(13) states "Stormwater runoff from the PUD will not damage natural <br />drainage courses either on-site or downstream by eroding or scouring the natural <br />drainage courses or by causing turbidity, or the transport of sediment due to <br />increased peals flows or velocity." The HO states: <br />The applicant responds to this approval criterion as follows: "Stormwater is not <br />being added to any natural drainage course onsite. The plans show that <br />stormwater from this site, after treatment in onsite facilities, will enter the city's <br />piped system at the north end of the site. These facilities eventually discharge to <br />the Amazon Canal, an engineered drainageway and part of the city's stormwater <br />system. In terms of impacts on the waterway offsite, the owners understand this <br />standard to mean that no damage will result if onsite stormwater detention <br />facilities are constructed to city standards to accommodate the 10-year design <br />storm. The stormwater facilities are designed to meet this city standard; hence a <br />positive finding can be made." (See page 33 of the HO Decision.) <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 26 <br />29 <br />