show a "potential location for stormwater detention" on eastern oaf <br />the site, on the portion of Tract A located north of Lot 69. North of this area, <br />on City park land, the applicant's plans also show a "potential location for <br />stormwater detention." Referral comments from Parks and Open Space <br />(POS) staff raise concerns about proposed construction of stormwater <br />facilities in a City-owned and managed natural area park. The POS comments <br />indicate that approval of such facilities on City-owned park land would be <br />dependent upon a demonstration that, at a minimum, no feasible alternative <br />exists, negative impacts to streams, vegetation and public access facilities are <br />minimized, and all other permits and approvals are obtained. Based on the <br />lack of evidence to support compliance with the applicable stormwater <br />development standards for the eastern portion of the development, staff <br />cannot craft reasonable conditions of approval to support development in <br />this area. (See pages 25 and 26 of the June 21, 2012 staff report.) <br />The staff analysis above concludes that the western portion of the site has <br />conveyance capacity, but establishes uncertainty about the eastern portion of the. <br />site. (Note: The above analysis did not include impacts from increased flows, but is <br />addressed below.) The HO erred by not including an analysis of the eastern portion <br />of the site in his decision. The PC corrects this error by establishing a condition <br />(condition of approval #3, provided at the end.of this Final Order) that removes the <br />eastern portion of the site from the development. The HO did not err in his analysis <br />of the western portion of the site -for either criterion (7)(j) or (13) - but his findings <br />have some technical inaccuracies. <br />Under approval criterion EC 9.8325(7)(j), the HO found compliance with the <br />stormwater development standards at EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797, as follows: <br />The applicant responded to testimony about stormwater drainage in its <br />August 22, 2012 post-hearing testimony. Specifically, the applicant noted EC <br />9.6790(2) requires. that post-development flows will not exceed existing pre- <br />development flows and that the 2007 study explains how this will be <br />accomplished. <br />The applicant has not proposed any pre-treatment or detention for this <br />portion of the development site, as required by current stormwater <br />development standards. However, given the available data regarding the <br />downstream system, and given the clear and objective nature of the balance <br />of the stormwater development standards, the western portion of the <br />development site can meet these requirements with the following conditions <br />of approval: <br />The final PUD plans and final subdivision plat shall note the following <br />requirement: "At the time of development, each lot shall have its own <br />filtration stormwater management system (e.g. flow-through planter) <br />that is sized to meet the requirements of EC 9.6792 Stormwater Pollution <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 28 <br />31 <br />