Public Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 9 September 6, 2016 the infiltration and filtration planter boxes, the Applicant acknowledged that these on-site systems were not sufficient to handle all of the stormwater and therefore it would also be required to use the off-site public system: "As noted previously, there is not sufficient area available to size these infiltration planters to accommodate the flood control volume required by the Stormwater Management Manual based on the assumed infiltration rate allowed by the Manual. As such, these infiltration planters will still require the developer to pay System Development Charges based on the rates for filtration planters, but will minimize the amount of stormwater being discharge to the public system." Revised Application Narrative, p.32. In light of the Applicant acknowledgement that it is relying in part on the off-site public system and will be paying the additional system development charges, it is difficult to see how it can argue that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) does not apply to the Application based on the plain language of that code provision. In other words, if the Applicant is relying on both on-site and off-site stormwater systems it was required to provide a report that addressed both EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2). The Applicant also improperly included new evidence with respect to the finality of the Geotechnical Report the Applicant submitted. In its initial June 8, 2016 comments to the Hearings Official, Valley River Inn noted that the Applicant failed to provide the required final geotechnical report based on the statements in the Application that "Geotechnical work has not yet been completed" and the required site conditions "will be verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted with the building permit." In the final argument, the Applicant's sole response was that this allegation was "based on VRI's review of the initial submittal to the City, not the completed submittal with the April 4, 2016, completeness review submittal." Final Argument, p.8. In its July 21, 2016 comments, however, Valley River Inn clarified that the same exact language is contained in the most recent April 4, 2016 Application narrative. Revised Application Narrative, p.31. As a result, the Hearings Official agreed with Valley River Inn that the Applicant did not submit a final geotechnical report. For the first time, the Applicant now claims that this language was an "editing error" and the Applicant intended to change that language in the revised Application. This claim of an editing error is clearly new evidence that was not submitted before the Hearings Official. The Applicant is now relying on this new evidence as the sole basis for arguing that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that the Applicant did not submit a final geotechnical report. How could the Hearings Official have erred for not factoring in evidence the Applicant did not provide until after he made his decision? The Hearings Official correctly determined that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and (2) apply to the Application and the Applicant failed to adequately demonstrate compliance with these two criteria 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