<br /> <br /> 27 <br /> <br />approval criteria are met and why. As detailed above, staff has made several recommendations for <br />those necessary findings and related conditions of approval under each appeal issue, to help <br />facilitate a final decision (and drafting a Final Order) on the appeal. <br /> <br />For ease of reference, the following is list of the appeal issues and related approval criteria and <br />topics organized according to the associated appeal issue number, where staff’s recommendations <br />for modifications of the Hearings Official’s decision would primarily be made: <br /> <br />• Appeal Issue #1, Evidentiary – relates to the applicant’s evidence submitted during the <br />second open record period following the initial public hearing, which was rejected by the <br />Hearings Official for consideration on procedural grounds, and partly served as a basis for <br />denying the applications. Staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse this portion of <br />the Hearings Official’s decision and consider all the applicant’s evidence and argument <br />submitted on August 14, 2024, as responsive to the evidence submitted during the first open <br />record period. <br />• Appeal Issue #2, EC 9.8325(3) – relates to compliance with EC 9.6880 through 9.6885 Tree <br />Preservation and Removal Standards if the site is not on the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Staff <br />recommends modifying the decision and finding the entire site is on the Goal 5 inventory <br />according to the Scenic Sites Working Paper and Map (Figure H-2), and therefore exempt <br />from Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. <br />• Appeal Issue #3, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with the street connectivity standards <br />at EC 9.6815(2)(d) and related standards at EC 9.6870, requiring secondary access for fire <br />and emergency medical vehicles. Staff recommends modifying the decision to find that the <br />secondary access requirements are met and there should be no condition of approval at this <br />time for No-Parking Fire Lane signage. <br />• Appeal Issue #4, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with street connectivity standards at <br />EC 9.6815(2)(b) and the related criteria at EC 9.6815(2)(h), for an exception to providing a <br />street connection for a portion of Randy Lane due to steep slopes. Staff recommends <br />modifying the decision to grant the applicant’s requested street connectivity exception <br />according to EC 9.6815(2)(h). <br />• Appeal Issues #5 & #6, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with street connectivity <br />standards at EC 9.6815(2)(a) and the requirement for the extension of Randy Lane to be a <br />public rather than private street. Staff recommends affirming the Hearing Official’s finding <br />that EC 9.6815(2) requires that Randy Lane be extended as a public street (but not connect <br />to the east) and modifying the decision to include staff’s proposed conditions for right-of- <br />way dedication and public improvements which she found were justified if the applications <br />were to be approved. <br />• Appeal Issue #7, EC 9.8325(5)(d) – relates to compliance with EC 9.6710 Geological and <br />Geotechnical Analysis and why the applicant need not demonstrate compliance with those <br />requirements if the entire site is on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Staff <br />recommends modifying the decision and finding that the entire site is on the City’s Goal 5 <br />inventory, and therefore exempt from the Geological and Geotechnical Analysis <br />requirements at EC 9.6710(6). <br />• Appeal Issue #8, EC 9.8325(5)(j) – references compliance with stormwater standards at EC <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 29 of 159