<br /> <br /> 26 <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />The July 10, 2024, Staff Report provided analysis and recommendations regarding the Tentative PUD <br />criteria at EC 9.8325 (Section 1 of the Staff Report) and concurrent Tentative Subdivision criteria at <br />EC 9.8520 (Section 2 of the Staff Report). As demonstrated, most of the Tentative Subdivision <br />criteria are identical to the Tentative PUD criteria. When analyzing the Tentative Subdivision criteria, <br />wherever they were identical to the PUD criteria, staff incorporated by reference the PUD <br />evaluation in justifying findings of compliance or inapplicability with the Tentative Subdivision <br />criteria. Where the Tentative Subdivision criteria were different than the PUD criteria, staff provided <br />a separate analysis as necessary. The Hearings Official found that staff’s analysis of the Tentative <br />PUD approval criteria could be used in determining if the proposed Tentative Subdivision criteria <br />were also satisfied. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official’s denial of the application was primarily based on the subject property not <br />being included on the Goal 5 inventory. Because of this fact, the Hearings Official determined that <br />the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the Clear and Objective requirements for Tree <br />Preservation and Removal and Geological and Geotechnical Analysis required under the Tentative <br />PUD and Tentative Subdivision approval criteria. However, as discussed above under Appeal Issues <br />#2 and #7, staff is recommending the Planning Commission modify the Hearings Official’s decision <br />and find that the entire site is included on the City’s Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />The Tentative PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8325(3) and the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria <br />at EC 9.8520(5) both require a demonstration of compliance with Tree Preservation and Removal <br />Standards of EC 9.6880 to 9.6885. Similarly, the Tentative PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8325(5)(d) <br />and the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria at EC 9.8520(2)(e) both require a demonstration of <br />compliance with Geological and Geotechnical Analysis standards of EC 9.6710(6). Because the <br />Tentative PUD approval criteria and Tentative Subdivision approval criteria reference the same <br />standards, it is appropriate to incorporate the findings of the Tentative PUD when making Tentative <br />Subdivision findings for identical criteria. <br /> <br />Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the Hearings Official’s decision as discussed in <br />this Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and conclude that any modification to the findings regarding the <br />Tentative PUD application should also modify any identical findings regarding the Tentative <br />Subdivision application. <br /> <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and upon subsequent <br />deliberations (scheduled for January 21 and 28, 2025) determine whether to affirm, modify or <br />reverse the Hearings Official’s decision. <br /> <br />As discussed throughout this AIS, staff recommends that the Planning Commission reverse and <br />modify the Hearing’s Official’s decision, and thereby conditionally approve the Tentative PUD and <br />Subdivision applications. In the event the Planning Commission decides to modify and reverse the <br />Hearings Official’s decision and approve the applications, the Planning Commission will need to <br />provide clear direction on findings, relying upon existing evidence in the record, to explain how the <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 28 of 159