Appeal Issue #27: The Hearings Official erred on Page 76 of her Decision because under EC <br />9.8320(10)(k) she did not address the issue of the prohibition of individual lot fencing within the <br />proposed PUD. The Applicant indicates, on Page 56 of the 8/22/17 Application, the code <br />requirements for interio' and front yard fencing height and setbacks. The Application then <br />indicates "None [i.e., nofencing] proposed at this time." <br />However, as the Response Committee pointed out on Pages 133 through 137 of its Response <br />Document, the Applicant failed to mention anywhere throughout its Application or post-Public <br />Hearing communications, except in a one line sentence on Page 26 of the 8/22/17 Application, <br />that "In addition, the CC&Rs for the project will prohibit the construction of fences between <br />individual lots." <br />However, this prohibitive statement by the Applicant on Page 26 of the 8/22/17 Application, <br />should be prohibit future lot owners from constructing fences between individual lots. The <br />Response Committee expressed at length its concerns on this issue (and the issue of the 6 foot <br />perimeter fence also not", mentioned in any narrative written communication by the Applicant) on <br />Pages 133 through 137 of its Response Document. (Note that the Response Committee also <br />raised the issue of the perimeter fencing at the 3/7/18 Public Hearing.) <br />The Hearings Official erred in that she did not address the prohibition of individual lot fencing <br />(which is a departure from EC 9.3820 Fences in future CC&Rs as a Condition of Approval or as <br />a required notation on the final plans. <br />The omission by the Hearings Official to neither include this requirement as a Condition of <br />Approval or as a required notation on the PUD's final plans is reliance on a future act to satisfy a <br />current condition. <br />Assignments of Appeal, Criterion 11 <br />Appeal Issue #28: The Hearings Official erred in dismissing 9.8320 (11) in five lines by <br />referring to her previous discussions of Criterion (5), (6), and (7) and alleging that these <br />discussions "establish that the proposed PUD will have minimal off-site impacts" (DHO, p. 77). <br />The Hearings Official failed to evaluate the evidence in the record that contradicts her finding. <br />This cursory dismissal is a serious error in judgment and ignores our careful analysis of detailed <br />evidence of the off-site impacts on road, traffic, and emergency response conditions. There are a <br />number of crucial errors, inaccuracies, and omissions in the evidence and analysis presented in <br />both the application and the staff materials, as well as in the Hearings Official's discussions. See <br />above, our discussion atend of Criterion 7 summarizing evidence on the inadequacy of the <br />existing street system. <br />Because the Hearings Official assumes that any and all matters regarding Criterion 11 are <br />adequately considered and limited to discussion of previous criteria; we must strongly emphasize <br />that the range and extent of off-site impacts generated by this particular proposed development <br />must be fully considered. They apply to the mandatory approval standard of Criterion 11, which <br />29 <br />