Appeal Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

standards is new evidence. Next, the opponent alleges that staff's commentary in its September 6, 2016 Agenda Item Summary (AIS) that the City does not have jurisdiction to require street trees along 1-105 and Delta Highway is new evidence. Based on the resolution of the street tree issue below, it is irrelevant whether those statements constitute new evidence, because the Planning Commission determines that the street tree standards do not apply. In any event, those statements do not constitute new evidence. Scope of Appeal Issue: The Hearings Official determined that the applicant was required to submit a street tree plan, pursuant to EC 9.2170(5)(d) and EC 7.280(1), even though the development proposal did not include the creation of a new street. He determined that the approval criterion was not satisfied because appellant failed to submit a tree plan or provide any evidence regarding compliance with the criterion. The appellant's first appeal issue contends that the evidence in the record supports that the street tree requirements are complied with or can be complied with through a condition of approval. The opponent argues that appellant's first appeal issue fails to assign error to the Hearings Official's determination that the street tree requirements apply despite the fact that no new street will be created. The appellant asserted that the street tree requirements did not apply because no street was to be created; as a result, the applicant did not provide a street tree plan. That was the central issue presented to the Hearings Official. The Planning Commission concludes that the first appeal issue has to do with compliance with street tree requirements. That determination turns on whether the street tree requirements apply in the first place, and the Planning Commission may therefore consider it. The subject street tree standard at EC 7.280 is provided below: EC 7.280: Street Tree Proaram - Policy, Standards. Procedure. 1) Policy. in order to create attractive and healthy neighborhood environments, no approval shall be granted for a development that involves the creation of a street unless the applicant has submitted and received approval of a street tree plan that ensures street trees will be planted and established in accordance with the standards and procedures provided for in this section and the adopted policies of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved street tree plan as each lot or area is developed, and shall be required on streets that abut the development as well as on new streets within the development site. Conclusion: The Planning Commission highlights the importance of the first sentence in the above standard, which requires a street tree plan only for development "that involves the creation of a street." The second sentence of the standard (that discusses "streets that abut the development") is predicated on there being a street tree plan in the first place. Based on these findings, a street tree plan is not required in this case because the project does not create a street. The Planning Commission concludes that the Hearings Official erred in his interpretation of the applicability of EC 7.280 and EC 9.2170(5) to the subject property as it pertains to the creation of a street. Appeal Issue #2: Stormwater Quality Standards Evidence in the Record: The appellant asserted in its appeal statement that language in the application that the final geotechnical report had not yet been submitted was an editing error. The opponent asserts that the claim of an editing error is new evidence. Again, whether that statement is new evidence is irrelevant because the Planning Commission determines below that EC 9.6792(3)(d)2. does not apply, and the evidence in the record demonstrates compliance with EC 9.6792(3)(d)1. In any event,