currently inadequate they are available.' Opponents' arguments concerning the inadequacy of <br />public facilities and services do not provide a basis for denying the application. <br />Many of the opponents' arguments regarding traffic, noise, disturbances, views, and storm <br />water are based on the alleged adverse impacts the proposed CIR housing development would <br />have on the opponents' use and enjoyment of their properties. While those would be valid and <br />relevant arguments under a standard CUP application, such adverse impacts are not a consideration <br />. Therefore, except as discussed <br />under EC 9.724(2), except as discussed later under EC 9.724(2)4 <br />later, opponents' arguments regarding adverse off-site impacts do not provide a basis for denying <br />the application. EC 9.724(2)(a) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.724(2)(b) provides: <br />"The proposed project is designed to: <br />"1. Avoid unnecessary removal of attractive vegetation; <br />"2. Provide setbacks or screening as necessary when possible and <br />practical to ensure privacy to adjacent outdoor living areas; and <br />"3. Provide safe and usable parking, circulation, and outdoor living <br />areas as well as ingress and egress." <br />EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) requires that the proposed project is designed to "[a]void unnecessary <br />removal of attractive vegetation." The CIR housing application proposes to remove substantial <br />amounts of vegetation. All of the vegetation contained within the U-shaped site plan is proposed <br />to be removed to construct the proposed road, buildings, and facilities. Opponents argue that the <br />proposal violates EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) because so much vegetation is proposed to be removed. <br />According to opponents, too much vegetation would be removed, in particular the large trees that <br />currently provide a buffer on the southern portion of the property. The staff report states that there <br />The applicant and staff have proposed conditions of approval to improve public facilities and services. <br />a Under current EC 9.8090(2) the conditional use approval criteria provide: "The location, size, design; and operating <br />characteristics of the proposal are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate <br />development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following factors: (a) The proposed building(s) mass and <br />scale are physically suitable for the type of density of use being proposed. (b) The proposed structures. parking lots, <br />outdoor use areas or other site improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare and <br />odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through other design techniques, <br />such as screening and increased setbacks. (c) If the proposal involves a residential use, the project is designed, sited <br />and/or adequately buffered to minimize off-site impacts which could adversely affect the future residents of the subject <br />property." <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 6 <br />