applicant pushes its impacts to the very edge of the property, requiring <br />multiple adjustments to setback requirements for the wall to the west and the <br />buildings on the other sides, while keeping open space in the center. This <br />arrangement does not adequately "screen" the property, nor does it show <br />that the development is "reasonably compatible and harmonious" with <br />adjacent properties as required by EC 9.8320(13). <br />The Hearings Official also erred in deferring consideration of whether there <br />will be adequate screening to a decision that will be made without public <br />input or opportunity to comment. EC 9.83.20(3) requires the applicant to <br />show that there will be adequate screening as part of the tentative plan. On <br />page 14, the Hearings Official finds that "the applicant's approach is <br />insufficient" and later imposes condition of approval 15, but that condition <br />defers the determination of what will be "adequate" to a later time. <br />The Hearings Official erred by relying on the following condition for a <br />finding of consistency with EC 9.8320(3): <br />"Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall submit a report from a <br />certified arborist confirming that the row of cedars on adjacent lands to <br />the north can survive the construction impacts of the proposed <br />development (and include any necessary protection measures to ensure <br />survival). The final PUD plans shall show the location of Building 2 and <br />any related protection measures (e.g. construction fencing for protected <br />CRZ areas) consistent with the arborist's recommendations." Decision <br />at 11. <br />First, as mentioned above, the finding relies on a row of cedars on adjacent <br />lands to the north, which are not under control of the applicant. A finding <br />that these trees can survive the construction impacts of the proposed <br />development in no way ensures that the cedar trees will remain. <br />Second, for a condition to defer an analysis such as this, there must be the <br />same opportunity at the time the analysis is presented for opponents to <br />provide their own evidence and argument and testify at a hearing, which this <br />condition does not provide. <br />EIGHTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval <br />criterion: <br />EC 9.8320(11): The PUD complies with all of the following: <br />(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density <br />requirements for the subject zone. <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 16 November 22, 2013 <br />