Public Comment Received at Hearing

Page 4 June 8, 2016 criterion * * and provides no evidence of compliance. EC 9.6780 does not allow for such an assumption for existing accesses and the Applicant provides no evidence to support its assumption. Since the Applicant bears the burden of proving compliance with all of the approval criteria, it cannot demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6780 based on a mere assumption. 7. EC 9.6792 - Stormwater Quality. The Applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with two aspects of the stormwater quality standards set forth in EC 9.6792. First, EC 9.6792(3)(a) requires the Applicant to submit a site development plan that demonstrates certain infiltration rates, bedrock, groundwater elevations and ground surface slopes conditions exist on the site. Additionally, EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) requires the Applicant to submit a report that demonstrates at least one of these conditions exists to ensure the stormwater runoff can be adequately accommodated on-site. The Applicant admits that "Geotechnical work has not yet been completed" and the preliminary information they provided is not definitive, but suggests that "these conditions will be verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted with the building permit." These are site development standards that apply to the Application and cannot be deferred to the building permit phase when there is no opportunity for public review and comment. Second, EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) requires an applicant proposing to use the public off-site stormwater quality facilities, which the Applicant is proposing in this case, to "submit a report that demonstrates there is insufficient land area to construct an approved infiltration or filtration facility by setting forth the required size of the smallest infiltration or filtration facility needed for the development's impervious surface area and a site plan demonstrating that an approved infiltration or filtration facility cannot be located on the development site without reducing the size of the proposed development which is otherwise consistent with all other applicable lot and development standards." The Applicant claims that there is insufficient area on site to address the stormwater, but failed to submit a report or other evidence supporting this claim.3 8. EC 9.4930 - Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone. The Applicant failed to demonstrate that its proposal to remove the 32-inch Black Cottonwood tree located within the Water Resources Overlay complies with EC 9.4930(2)(k). EC 9.4930(2)(k) restricts the removal of trees in the Water Resources Overlay to "hazardous trees" provided the applicant submits a "a written evaluation of each tree proposed for removal prepared by a certified arborist declaring the tree(s) to be hazardous and recommending immediate removal." (Emphasis added). The Applicant claims that its arborist report satisfies this requirement, but the arborist clearly did not claim that the tree was "hazardous" or recommend its "immediate removal." In fact, the arborist concluded that the base of the tree is "sound" and the main issue involves broken or damages limbs, not the tree as a whole. To the extent there are broken or damages limbs, at a minimum the Applicant's arborist must evaluate if the issue can be resolved by trimming or removing those particular limbs. Regardless, the arborist report clearly does not satisfy the strict requirements under EC 9.4930(2)(k). 3 The Applicant's Stormwater Report does not contain this required information.