The Memorandum on Applicable CIR/CUP Standards, submitted by of Dan Terrell on <br />behalf of the applicant, dated May 20, 2016, agrees that when an installation or development <br />is not related to the housing development, vegetation cannot be removed. He states that <br />"Whereas EC 9.724(2) has been interpreted that development must take precedence over <br />vegetation is areas where the CIR housing project is to be constructed and the project does <br />not have to be designed to preserve particular tree or vegetation areas, in areas not to be <br />developed the reverse is the case". P. 5. <br />In addition, the Memorandum submitted by Gabe Flock, Senior Planner on July 8, 2016, <br />states that "The proposal to pipe the stream for providing a supply of irrigation water <br />underscores concerns already raised in the staff report, about the potential for unnecessary <br />vegetation removal under the approval criteria at EC 9.724(2)(b)(1). To the extent that the <br />proposed piping of the stream corridor and the related construction impacts would involve <br />vegetation removal for purposes other than what is necessary for the proposed CIR housing, <br />staff believes the impacts would be in violation of the standard". P. 5. <br />In light of the above discussion, the Commission should hold that the piping of the creek <br />will unnecessarily remove attractive natural vegetation in violation of EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) and <br />reverse the Hearings Official's decision on this issue. <br />Issue 5: The application is too vague for approval. The Commission should hold <br />that the Hearings Official erred in approving the application given the overall <br />vagueness and uncertainties of the application and deny the application. <br />The applicant's attorney stated at the hearing that he advised the applicant, as he had advised <br />all his clients at the time, to file this CIR application to create a "holding place" in order to <br />avoid the more stringent requirements of new laws. Other than filing a subsequent <br />application in 2003 to modify the 1995 CUP, which was denied, the applicant took no <br />further action on the case until May 2016 when a change in the law again required him to act <br />in order not to lose his "holding place". <br />The applicant's Supporting Narrative and First Supplemental Supporting Narrative are <br />extremely vague focusing mostly on the density of the project, and his subsequent <br />memoranda do not provide detailed evidence. The applicant has provided no engineering <br />analysis (other than the sight distance report filed on July 22, 2016) to support his <br />application. He has provided no evidence of a financial commitment to fund the project, <br />and has not obtained a non-profit or other developer to build the project. <br />The applicant, in his Hearing Memorandum, noted that a specific housing developer has not <br />been selected: by definition, therefore, the exact specifications of the housing that will be <br />funded are not known yet. [and] [t]he final, precise footprint of the improvements <br />...can't be known at this moment" P.T. <br />The applicant's Suggested Condition of Approval COA 3, which was incorporated in the <br />final Approval Conditions, also reveals how far the applicant is from having a fixed plan. <br />COA 3 stated that "[e]xcept for the limitation of not more than 172 total units and the <br />development impact area described in these conditions of approval, the site plan is <br />conceptual in nature, is not binding, and the actual development may differ". Applicant's <br />13 <br />