<br />The Response Committee once again underscores its position that many of these items should be <br />under the purview of CC&Rs, a draft of which has never been produced. A clear demonstration <br />of the clarification needed, but not available, is that City Staff apparently is NOT AWARE that <br />the 8/22/17 Applicant, in the middle of Page 26 of 67, indicates <br /> Is fencing allowed or not? <br /> <br />The Response Committee can find no other notation in the 8/22/17 Application regarding <br />fencing between lots other than on Page 56 which indicates under Fences Proposed Height <br />Interior Yard <br /> <br />Does this mean that fencing between individual lots will be proposed at a later time? If so, what <br />design standards will apply to fencing? <br /> <br />Given that the Application is replete with errors and inconsistencies, the Response Committee <br />perhaps, a holdover from another application used as a model for this one. <br /> <br />Had the community and City S <br />not exist. <br /> <br />The Response Committee points out that it has located in excess of 25 places in the 8/22/17 <br />Application and supporting documentation (site plans, etc.) that CC&Rs are referred to. That is, <br />the Applicant relies on CC&Rs to promise that a number of approval criteria will be met at some <br />unspecified time in the future. <br /> <br />This approach has two significant problems. The most glaring of which is that no CC&Rs are <br />presented in the 8/22/17 Application, as the Response committee has previously pointed out in <br />numerous places throughout our response documentation. So, it is impossible for the Hearings <br />Official to ascertain whether it is even theoretically possible that the approval criteria will be <br />met. <br /> <br />The second problem is that CC&Rs are not enforced by the City. They are an enforcement <br />mechanism that relies on private civil litigation, either by a homeowners association or by an <br />aggrieved individual. Thus, even if CC&Rs were present in the 8/22/17 Application, they cannot <br />be relied upon as evidence to suggest that an approval criteria will be met in the future. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />A list of all the places within the 8/22/17 Application where the Applicant relies upon CC&Rs to <br />meet conditions of approval has been provided as an Attachment to the Committees 3/7/18 <br />Response Document. <br /> <br />Therefore, the Response Committee repeats its position that the proposed development does not <br />comply with EC 9.8320 (10) and therefore, <br /> <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />