conservation areas in future development, eventual lot sales, and resulting home construction. <br />General promises are not sufficient to ensure that future actions conform to approval conditions. <br />A specific error is evident in the Hearings Official's assigning Condition 8. Although this <br />Condition recognizes the need for explicit protection of "the individual preservation areas of Lot <br />5 and Lots 8 through 19, and on Tracts A, B, C, and D" (DHO, p. 2), its scope and effectiveness <br />would be limited. Condition 8 is insufficient to actually protect such areas once the ap lip cant <br />sells the individual lots. Thus, the Hearings Official errs in accepting Applicant's putative <br />compliance with Condition 8 as satisfaction of Criterion EC 9.8320 (4) (b). This Criterion would <br />not be satisfied in this manner, and the application should be denied. <br />Specifically, we reject the claim that Condition 8 and others on tree preservation "provide <br />additional clarity and assurance." [See DHO, p. 34: "The applicant has proposed to include notes <br />on the plan set regarding tree preservation conditions. These notes, which are made conditions of <br />approval, provide additional clarity and assurance regarding the tree preservation requirements <br />and allowed development."] <br />[See DHO, p. 38: "Finally, planning staff have requested, and the applicant agrees, to the <br />following condition to ensure that the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan will clearly define what <br />activities are allowed within preservation areas: On the final plans, include a note that states: <br />`Within the individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19, and on Tracts A, B, C, <br />and D, no above ground structure that requires a building permit; no impacts to preserved trees; <br />and no grading activity shall be allowed.' <br />Given that there is no dispute regarding the fact that over one-third of the site is not buildable, <br />the applicant's site plans assign adjacent non-buildable preservation areas to individual lots. Why <br />is it designed this way? Regardless of whether the applicant's intent is financial (i.e., more <br />income from selling larger lots), what results are site plans that resemble a traditional lot-by-lot <br />development. <br />The alternative would be retaining the unity of the preservation and conservation areas and <br />assigning them to the common ownership and protection of a Home Owners Association. <br />Without HOA ownership and regulations, who will police and enforce the conditions on <br />individual lot owners? Condition 8 has no permanent teeth. It reveals that the proposed CHPUD <br />would lead to development that would be inferior to a traditional lot-by-lot design on the <br />buildable areas of the available land. There is no conceptual design for unit development or <br />architectural integrity for the proposed CHPUD. <br />This Tentative CHPUD Application states repeatedly (at least 11 times) that there are no plans <br />are included for building units. Lots will be sold for buyers to construct individual dwellings. <br />Thus, the proposal ignores PUD design opportunities and reverts to lot-by-lot development, <br />because applicant negates the meaning of Planned Unit Development by not planning to develop <br />any units. <br />The Application also states (at least 8 times) that no specifications are proposed for Covenants, <br />Conditions, and Restrictions [CC&Rs] or Home Owners Association [HOA] requirements and <br />16 <br />