Public Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 8 September 6, 2016 stormwater report to address the requirements of EC 9.6792, I cannot find that the requirements have been met." Hearings Official Decision, pp.l 1-12. (Emphasis added). So the sole issue below was whether or not the Applicant adequately demonstrated compliance with the stormwater quality standards set forth in EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2), and the Hearings Official concluded that they did not. On appeal, the Applicant abandoned its argument below and now argues for the first time that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) does not even apply to the Application. The Planning Commission cannot consider this new argument because it is a new issue the Applicant did not raise below. The Applicant addressed both EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2) as applicable criteria in the Application narrative and did not take the position that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) does not apply. Revised Application Narrative, p.32. Even though Valley River Inn specifically argued that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) applied to the Application, the Applicant never disputed that argument below. The Applicant only disputed Valley River Inn's assertion that it did not demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2). Applicant's Final Argument, p.8. The City staff comments on this appeal compound this procedural defect by similarly taking a position that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) does not apply to the Application, which is contrary to the position they took below. The staff report to the Hearings Official states that "the application is subject to the standards at EC 9.6792(3)(d)-(g)" and then concluded that the Applicant's stormwater information "demonstrates compliance with subsection (3)(d)." Staff Report, dated June 2016, p.18. These staff comments were not specific to subsection (d)(1) and they clearly did not state that subsection (d)(2) does not apply. Even after Valley River Inn specifically argued that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) applied, the City staff never took a position to the contrary. In fact, the City staff never took a position one way or the other after Valley River Inn raised this issue. The only argument the Applicant could have raised on appeal was that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that it failed to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2). Since the Applicant did not challenge the Hearings Official's determination, choosing instead to raise a new argument, it waived that argument on appeal. EC 9.7655(3). Even if the Planning Commission could consider this new issue, there is no question that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) applies to the Application. The standards in EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) require "a report that demonstrates there is insufficient land area to construct an approved infiltration or filtration facility on site if the applicant is using "off-site stormwater quality management by contributing to the public off-site stormwater quality facilities, through payment of a higher stormwater system development charge." In other words, if the applicant is proposing the use of off-site stormwater management through "payment of a higher stormwater system development charge," the applicant must provide a report that demonstrates it is necessary to rely on the off- site public system because there is insufficient land area to accommodate all of the stormwater on site. Although the Applicant is proposing some on-site stormwater management through the use of