The Committee responds: <br />the record. First, both <br />th <br />not all. Second, the letter dated March 9, 2018 was submitted after the March 7 Hearing. The <br />at-explanatory. Regardless, the Kloos letter does not demonstrate that <br />the statements apply to approval criteria, and, therefore, the issues identified by the Kloos letter <br />are immaterial to the pending appeal, especially in the absence of prejudice to the substantial <br />rights of the applicant. <br />Appeal Issue 28; Page 30 last para. <br />Kloos states: <br />The evidence on road distances and elevation differences between the site and fire <br />stations is new evidence. <br />The Committee responds: <br />Data on road distances and elevation differences are included under EC 9.8320 (1), Policy A.11 <br />the bracket of distance and elevations established by this data. Although Kloos uses the plural <br />point, itself, does not contravene the facts of the impediments for emergency vehicles inherent in <br />the sub-standard roadways as in our discussions in Criteria EC 9.8320 (5), (6), and (11). <br />Appeal Issue #10; Page 14. <br />Kloos states: <br />This entire appeal issue is based on evidence about the distinction between the <br />professional qualifications of arborist and foresters. This evidence is not in the record. <br />The Committee responds: <br />27, 2018), as follows: <br />ice of controlling the establishment, growth, <br />forestry involves managing forest systems and entire ecosystems, including impacts on <br />watersheds, soils, and env <br />Appeal Issue #23; page 24: <br />Kloos states: <br />its proportional share or public water improvements needed for this project and the <br />ts to create a large financial <br />obligation, would be secured in some manner, optimally by cash deposit or the subject <br /> <br />