As the applicant demonstrates, under EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) if CIR housing construction is <br />proposed for a particular area then the vegetation gets removed. In areas that are not proposed for <br />development, the vegetation is to be preserved. The CIR housing proposal only proposes to remove <br />vegetation in the areas proposed for development. The application proposes to retain the remaining <br />vegetation. The applicant has suggested conditions of approval that further protect remaining <br />vegetation. While it is true that a large amount of vegetation is proposed to be removed, under the <br />reasoning in Woodleaf Village it is not unnecessary removal. Furthermore, the applicant is not <br />even proposing to develop to the maximum allowable density. <br />As discussed earlier, the applicant proposes to pipe the currently exposed creek in the <br />southwestern portion of the property. Opponents argue, among other things, that in order to pipe <br />the creek that additional vegetation would have to be removed. According to opponents, because <br />the applicant does not have to pipe the creek (and they also argue piping the creek is prohibited) <br />removing vegetation to pipe the creek is unnecessary. The applicant explains that piping the creek <br />is necessary to get sanitary lines under the creek to reach City facilities south of the property and <br />that it is necessary to remove vegetation to get storm water to the creek. Opponents have not <br />pointed to anything in the 2002 EC that would prohibit piping the creek. 1 agree with the applicant <br />that piping the creek is part of the CIR housing development and therefore removing vegetation <br />for that development is not unnecessary. EC 9.724(2)(b)(1) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) requires that the proposed project is designed to "[p]rovide setbacks or <br />screening as necessary when possible and practical to ensure privacy to adjacent outdoor living <br />areas." Currently there is at least a 75-foot buffer in Zone 6 for residences to the south and <br />southwest of the property. The proposed CIR housing would eliminate much but not all of the <br />buffer on the southern boundary and would eliminate all of the buffer on the western boundary <br />where Cathedral Way would connect to West 40`h Avenue. Opponents argue that eliminating so <br />much of the 75-foot buffer would not provide enough of a setback along the southern and western <br />boundaries. According to opponents, adjoining residences need to be screened from the proposed <br />use to protect their privacy. The staff report found that it was not clear that EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) is <br />satisfied. <br />"Based on the applicant's June 9, 2016 site plans, trees and vegetation generally <br />provide adequate screening along the southern and southwestern property lines, <br />assuming preservation of such areas is conditioned. However, along the western. <br />property line (just south of the proposed connection of the private street to W. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 8 <br />