Public Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 7 September 6, 2016 "[applicant] has not provided a street tree plan or provided any evidence regarding compliance with this standard." Hearings Official Decision, p.8. On appeal, the Applicant has not, and cannot under the narrow scope of appeal, provided a street tree plan or any additional evidence of compliance. The appeal is limited to the Applicant attorney's claim that there are a lot of trees on the property, more could be added and the Applicant will provide a street tree plan later after the Application is approved. The street tree standards require far more than lip service from the Applicant's attorney and a promise of compliance in the future. Moreover, the Applicant's proposal to address these standards by providing the required street tree plan at a later stage, via the proposed condition of approval, is not legally permissible. The City does not have the authority to defer a finding of compliance with an approval standard unless it provides the same public process it provided for the underlying application. Moreland v. City ofDepoe Bay, 48 Or LUBA 136, 153 (2004); Sisters Forest Planning Committee v. Deschutes County, 45 Or LUBA 145, 154-55 (2003); Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992). Otherwise, interested parties such as Valley River Inn would not have an opportunity to review or provide any input on the plan in question, which is one of the fundamental purposes of providing a public process for land use applications. The Applicant's proposed condition of approval is designed precisely to prevent Valley River Inn from exercising that right in this proceeding. The Hearings Official correctly determined that the Applicant failed to adequately demonstrate compliance with EC 9.2170(5)(d) and the street tree standards based on the issue, arguments and evidence submitted by the parties. The Applicant's attempt to raise new issues and new evidence, as opposed to challenge the Hearings Official's actual decision, is a tacit acknowledgement that the Hearings Official correctly decided this issue below based on the record. Therefore, the Planning Commission should affirm the Hearings Official's decision. 2. The Applicant's argument regarding EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2) must be rejected because it is based exclusively on new issues and evidence that were not raised below. The Applicant's argument under this second appeal issue is the inverse of its position under the first issue, but similarly exceeds the scope of the appeal by raising new issues and evidence that was not raised below. For this criteria, the sole issue raised before the Hearings Official below was whether or not the Applicant demonstrated compliance with EC 9.6792(3)(d). After noting that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2) contain "numerous standards that must be satisfied," the Hearings Official explained the issue as follows: "According to VRI, this information was not provided in the stormwater report. 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