1 1. Vegetative Buffer <br />2 With respect to whether the required buffer must be vegetative, we agree with intervenors <br />3 and the hearings officer that the site plan and other conditions imposed in the 1995 CUP and the <br />4 1998 CUP agreement make it reasonably clear that the buffer was intended to be vegetative in <br />5 character. <br />-6 2. Consistency with Condition 17 <br />7 With respect to whether removal of Zone 6 from the CUP footprint, and hence elimination <br />8 of the requirement for a vegetative buffer in Zone 6, would be consistent with condition 17, the <br />9 hearings officer's decision implicitly rejects petitioners' argument that the sole purpose of condition <br />10 17 is to buffer existing residential uses south of the property line. Instead, the hearings officer <br />11 appears to view condition 17 more broadly as intended to ensure compatibility between cemetery <br />12 uses within the CUP footprint and adjoining non-cemetery uses outside the CUP footprint <br />13 According to the hearings officer, condition 17 does so by requiring a buffer along the southern <br />14 periphery of the CUP area, which as proposed and approved in 1995 was in Zone 6. Therefore, <br />15 the hearings officer concluded, amsistency with condition 17 requires a similar buffer within the <br />16 southern periphery of the CUP area, once Zone 6 is removed from the CUP footprint. Because <br />17 petitioners did not propose any buffer within the southern periphery of the CUP area after Zone 6 is <br />18 removed, the hearings officer rejected the proposed modification as inconsistent with condition 17 <br />19 and therefore not compliant with EC 9.8110(1). <br />20 The hearings officer's understanding of the purpose of condition 17, and hence what <br />21 consistency with condition 17 means for purposes of EC 9.8110(1), is plausible and supported by <br />22 the record. Petitioners' different view of the purpose of condition 17 is also plausible and has <br />23 support in the record. However, petitioners' disagreement with the hearings officer on this point <br />24 does not establish that the hearings officer misconstrued condition 17 or committed reversible error <br />25 in concluding that the proposed modification was inconsistent with condition 17. <br />Page 11 <br />