lotswillbeunlikeanythinginthesurroundinghistoricneighborhoodsandSouthHillsresidential <br />area. <br />Thereisnoarchitecturalintegrityandno“comprehensivesiteplans”\[See EC9.8300(2),EC <br />9.8320(1),(2),(10)\].Wehavestressedthatmerelyproposingthetightestclusteringpossible <br />doesnotconstituteeffectivequalitydesign.FortheproposedCHPUD,aswehaverepeatedly <br />stated,theconstraintsofthesite,withatleast30%unbuildable,hasledtopoordesignchoices <br />forlotlayout.ThusApplication’sdiscussionofenvironmentalquality,treehealthandremoval, <br />and“onelargerpreservationarea”(pp.65-66of67)isarehashofpreviousclaimthatwe <br />addressthroughoutourdiscussionsof EC9.8320. <br />Weshouldpointoutseveralfurthererroneousclaims.Preservingtheunbuildableforested <br />acreagewouldnotgain“benefits”frombeingpreserved;rathertreesinthesepreservationareas <br />wouldbejeopardizedbytheharvestingofallthetreesforroadandinfrastructureconstruction <br />andeventualhomeconstruction.Further,itistotalspeculationthat: <br />“Thoughtfulplanningbytheownerofeachofthelots,alongwiththeCCRsthatwillguidethe <br />re-vegetatingoftheproperties,willreducethefirehazardthatcurrentlyexistsonthishillfor <br />existingresidentsandfutureresidents.Allofthehomeswillberequiredtohavesprinkler <br />systems,furtheraddingtothefiresafetyofthisarea”(p.66of67). <br />SincenoCCRsareproposedorincluded,theseclaimsaresimply“aspirations,”asApplication <br />callsanystatementregardingCCRs(p.30of67).Regardingsprinklers,elsewhereApplication <br />states: <br />“Allnewunitsdevelopedonthesubjectpropertywillbesprinklered,whichisanoption <br />typicallysupportedbytheFireDepartmentstaffwhensecondaryaccessisnotavailable.This <br />aspectcanbereviewedattimeofbuildingpermit”(p.41of67). <br />Thus,whilesprinklers“willberequired”ononepage,theyare“anoption”thatcanbe <br />“reviewed’onalaterpage.However,wemustemphasizethatsprinklersinhouseswouldnotbe <br />muchhelpinfightingfiresinforests. <br />Finally,wehavedeterminedthatthestormdrainagesystemasproposedisflawedand <br />inadequate\[See 9.8320(1)PolicyE.2,(10)(j),and(11)\], <br />ThereisnothingintheApplicationtosupporttheclaimthatownersoflotsintheproposed <br />CHPUDwouldexercise“thoughtfulplanning,”andprotectandreclaimvegetationontheir <br />property.Rather,thereisaninstructiveexampleoftheApplicantbeingfinedforcuttingtrees <br />acrossfromhishousetoimprovehisview.Lotownersmightchoosethesamestrategyand <br />acceptthefinetocutprotectedtreesinthe“preservation”or“conservation”areasontheirlots. <br />Oncethetreesarecutandthedamagedone,theviolationswouldnotbeabletobemitigatedin <br />relationtotheremainingtreesandenvironment.Theresultwouldnotbejudgedas“harmonious <br />withadjacentandnearbylanduses.” <br />TheApplicationfailstomeettherequirementsofEC9.8320(12)andshouldbedenied. <br />176 <br /> <br />