determination.” <br />The proposed development does not minimize impacts and preserve existing trees “in areas of significant <br />conflict.” <br />3. Geotechnical Evaluation <br />Of particular concern, with regard to the Hearings Official’s deferral of approval issue, is her decision <br />with regard to 9.9630 (3) (c) that states “that adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any <br />development by a qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions.” Dr. <br />Gunnar Schlieder’s geotechnical analysis for the Response Committee makes clear that the applicant’s <br />geotechnical report does not constitute an “adequate review” of the site. <br />The Hearings Official and City Staff indicate that a future “geotechnical analysis from a certified <br />engineer, with specific recommendations for design and construction standards, shall be provided with <br />any application for Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits <br />and site development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure and residences on individual <br />lots.” However, this deferral as quoted from Condition of Approval # 10, does not avail the public access <br />to the approval process. <br />According to Dr. Gunnar Schlieder, only 20% of the proposed PUD area was assessed by the applicant’s <br />geotechnical investigation. The remaining analysis of the PUD area is dependent upon future compliance <br />with Condition of Approval #10. Consequently the Hearings Official is relying on future analysis to <br />ensure that the site will not be a risk to public health and safety. But, EC 9.8320 (6) stipulates that this <br />determination be made at the Tentative PUD Application stage, not at any future approval stage such as <br />the PEPI process, site development permits, or building permits. <br />4. Fencing <br />This issue is discussed at the bottom of Page 28 and the top of page 29 in the Community Appeal <br />document dated 5/7/2018. <br />The Committee is appreciative of Staff’s supportive position regarding the applicant’s proposal to build a <br />6-foot-high see-through agricultural type fence along the eastern boundary line of the subject property. <br />Staff indicates that the presence of this type of fence would “nullify the utility of Tract A as a wildlife <br />corridor.” However, the Committee points out that this same type of fencing also appears to be proposed <br />for a substantial portion of the project’s southern boundary to the point where the southern property line <br />meets “neighbor’s fence at Lot 4” and perhaps along the property’s entire northern boundary which abuts <br />Hendricks Park. See notes on Site Plan L 2.0. The Committee maintains that existing wildlife corridors <br />are also present in Hendricks Park and at the southern boundary of Tract A where it borders the southern <br />edge of Lot 19. <br />Therefore, the Committee requests that Staff’s current proposal to eliminate the 6-foot fence at the eastern <br />boundary be expanded to include any similar fence along the northern and southern property boundaries. <br />The Committee also maintains its position that the Hearings Official erred in her decision because she did <br />not address the issue of allowable fencing between individual lots. Throughout the applicant’s several <br />hundred pages of written submissions, the prohibition of fences between individual lots is only mentioned <br />in one sentence on page 26 of 83 of the 8/22/17 Application, wherein it states: “In addition, the CC&Rs <br />for the project will prohibit the construction of fences between individual lots.” The Hearings Official’s <br />failure to require documentation of this prohibition either in a Condition of Approval or as a binding <br />notation on the final site plan also nullifies the subject property’s “wildlife corridor” characteristic that the <br />applicant touts throughout the submission. <br />Ќ <br /> <br />