appellant's statement about the editing error is merely a clarification that the geotechnical report in fact <br />had been submitted, which was apparent from the record itself. That is not new evidence. <br />Scope of Appeal Issue: The Hearings Official determined that the stormwater quality standards in the <br />code were not satisfied because the appellant had failed to provide a geotechnical report with <br />information that was required per EC 9.6792(3)(d)2. The appellant's second appeal issue contends that <br />EC 9.6792(d)2. does not apply to this application because all stormwater will be treated on-site and <br />subsection (d)2. only applies where stormwater quality will be managed off-site. <br />The opponent argues that this issue was not presented to the Hearings Official and therefore cannot be <br />raised now. The appellant's application materials addressing stormwater quality point out that <br />stormwater quality will be managed on-site. The Planning Commission finds that the appeal statement <br />provides a new "argument" related to compliance with stormwater quality standards, but does not <br />constitute a new "issue" that would be outside the scope of the appeal. Accordingly the Planning <br />Commission can consider whether the Hearings Official erred in applying EC 9.6792(3)(d)2. to the <br />application. <br />Conclusion: The Planning Commission agrees with the appellant that EC 9.6792(3)(d)2. does not apply <br />to the proposed project because stormwater will be treated on-site. The Planning Commission also finds <br />that EC 9.6792(3)(d)1. is met based on the applicant's stormwater report (dated March 29, 2016 and <br />submitted April 4, 2016) and findings presented in the staff report. The appellant pointed to sufficient <br />evidence already in the record on page 5 of its appeal statement, and the opponent did not provide <br />technical evidence to counter the appellant's assertions. The Planning Commission also agrees with the <br />appellant that a geotechnical report was in fact provided as Appendix E to the stormwater report dated <br />March 29, 2016. <br />The Planning Commission therefore concludes that the Hearings Official erred in finding that the project <br />did not meet the requirements of EC 9.6792. <br />Appeal Issue #3: Tree Preservation Standards <br />Conclusion: The Planning Commission concludes that Hearings Official erred in determining that the tree <br />preservation standard at EC 9.8440(2)(b) was not met. The Planning Commission finds that there is <br />adequate evidence in the record to support the proposed tree removals and demonstrate compliance <br />with the approval criteria. <br />Site Constraints: The Planning Commission finds there is adequate evidence in the record to support the <br />appellant's position that the subject property is constrained for a number of reasons, and therefore <br />agrees that the proposed tree removals are warranted. The subject site is relatively narrow and is further <br />impacted by the presence of a utility easement in southeastern section of the property'. The appellant <br />also states, "The need to provide adequate vehicular circulation around the hotel - particularly for fire <br />apparatus - requires maintaining a standard width drive aisle around the entire building" (Applicant's <br />Supplemental Materials submitted April 4, 2016, page 42). The required fire access lane around the hotel <br />1 The appellant states on page 5 of their Final Argument that "...development of the site is constrained by its irregular <br />dimensions, the Water Resource Overlay setback, limited opportunities for vehicular and pedestrian access, and the <br />presence of an existing stormwater drainage and utility easement that occupies 26,000 square feet of the 2.2 acre site." <br />3 <br />