Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

that the standard pertaining to street trees is not satisfied, then no additional findings are needed to affirm the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue. If the Planning Commission determines the Hearings Official erred in his decision to determine that the standard pertaining to street trees is not satisfied, the Planning Commission can adopt revised findings to reverse the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue. Alternatively, the Planning Commission can impose a condition of approval and adopt revised findings to reverse the Hearings Official decision with respect to this issue. 2. Second Assignment of Error: Storm Water Quality: EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) - The Hearings Official inadvertently applied a standard that relates to off-site storm water quality management to an applicant's statement regarding the payment of SDCs for storm water flood control. The Applicant complies with storm water quality standards by demonstrating storm water quality will be handled on site and therefore satisfies the requirements of EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1). EC 9.792(3)(d)(2) does not apply to this proposal. Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official states, "As VRI explains, the applicant admitted in its narrative that'geotechnical work has not yet been completed' and that site conditions 'will be verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted with the building permit.' The applicant merely states that the information was contained in the stormwater report. While the stormwater report does contain significant amounts of information, I do not see that it specifically contains the requirements of EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2). Absent any assistance from the applicant directing me to the pertinent parts of the stormwater report to address the requirements of EC 9.6792, 1 cannot find that the requirements have been met" (Hearings Official Decision, pages 11-12). Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant clarifies that the statement "geotechnical work has not yet been completed" was an editing error. In response to completeness review, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report but forgot to remove this language from the application narrative. The appellant also asserts that "EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2), which applies only to off-site water quality management, does not apply to this application because the proposal manages storm water quality through on site measures" (Appeal Statement, page 6). As evidence, the appellant included relevant sections of the stormwater report as exhibits to the appeal statement. Regarding System Development Charges (SDCs), the appellant states that "The reference to SDCs in the above narrative is expressly in relation to stormwater flood control, which is addressed under EC 9.6791. The Hearings Officer concluded that the proposal complied with that standard and did not discuss it in his decision. The application narrative makes clear that it is under that standard, and consistent with its requirements, for which the SDCs will be paid. The Hearings Officer and opponents incorrectly associated the storm water flood control SDC reference to the storm water quality standard" (Appeal Statement, page 6). Staff Comments: Staff confirms that a geotechnical report was submitted by the applicant on April 4, 2016 in response Page 4 PC Agenda - Page 4