physical development, use of the site, and impacts on surrounding properties! The hearings officer <br />2 concluded that the proposed removal of Zone 6 from the 1995 CUP satisfied neither criterion. In <br />3 addition, the hearings officer concluded that the additional modification suggested by city staff-to <br />4 allow development in Zone 6 to use roads and utilities within the remaining CUP area---was <br />inconsistent with EC 9.8110(2). <br />6 A. EC 9.8110(1) <br />7 Petitioners first challenge the hearings officer's conclusion that removal of Zone 6 from the <br />8 1995 CUP footprint is "materially inconsistent with the conditions of the original approval." The <br />9 hearings officer determined that the proposed modification was inconsistent with Condition 17, <br />10 which the hearings officer understood to require a 75-foot vegetative buffer along the southern <br />11 periphery of the CUP site s <br />Z EC 9.8110 provides: <br />"After the effective date of the approval of the conditional use permit, modifications to the <br />approved conditional use permit may be considered in accordance with the Type II application <br />procedures contained in EC 9.7200 through 9.7230, Type H Application Procedures. The <br />planning director shall approve the request only if it complies with the following criteria: <br />"(1) The proposed modification is not materially inconsistent with the conditions of the <br />original approval; and <br />"(2) The proposed modification will result in insignificant changes in the physical <br />appearance of the development, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding <br />properties. <br />"If the requested modification does not meet the criteria for approval, the application will be <br />denied. The applicant may submit the requested modification as a new'conditional use permit <br />application based on Type III procedural requirements. Nothing in this land use code shall <br />preclude the applicant from initiagy submitting the requested modification as a new conditional <br />use permit application." <br />' The hearings officer's decision state, in relevant part: <br />"ITlhe question that must be addressed here is what impact the removal of this property from <br />the CUP will have on compliance with Condition 17. That condition requires that the buffer <br />along the southern periphery of the CUP be at least 75 feet wide. The applicant proposed that <br />buffer, using the property it now proposes to remove from the CUP, in order to ensure <br />compatibility, a; required by former EC 9.702(a). Removal of that property will remove the <br />existing 75-foot buffer. Removal of that buffer, however, does not remove the condition, which <br />was found necessary, in Conditions 7 and 17, to establish compatibility and thus conpliance <br />Page 9 <br />