I Petitioners argued to the city that any development within Zone 6 that might involve removal <br />2 of trees within the 75-foot vegetative buffer would be subject to city regulations governing tree- <br />3 cutting, and therefore will be consistent with city code. Record 216, 349.5 According to <br />4 petitioners, the city's ttee-cutting and stormwater regulations require evaluation of any adverse <br />5 impacts on adjoining properties, including windthrow and drainage impacts. Petitioners contend that <br />6 the existence and potential applicability of such regulations is highly relevant to whether the <br />7 proposed modification, which effectively voids the 1995 CUP conditions requiring a vegetative <br />8 buffer in Zone 6, will impact adjoining properties. Citing Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or <br />9 App 849, 852-53, 604 P2d 896 (1979) for the proposition that the decision maker must address <br />10 focused evidence and concerns raised below regarding compliance with applicable standards, <br />11 petitioners contend that the hearings officer failed to consider petitioners' arguments on this point, <br />12 and remand is necessary to adopt findings addressing the issue of whether the city's tree cutting and <br />13 stortnwater regulations suffice to ensure that the proposed modification will not result in significant <br />14 impacts to surrounding properties, for purposes of EC 9.8110(2). <br />15 Intervenors respond that mere citation to the city's tree cutting ordinances is insufficient to <br />16 obligate the hearings officer to address whether those ordinances (1) provide equivalent protection <br />' Petitioners cite to the following portions of the application and written argument to the hearings officer, <br />respectively: <br />* * [A]ny tree removal that will take place on the excised Zone 6 area will continue to be <br />subject to the tree removal provisions of the Eugene Code (EC) either under EC Chapter 6, if <br />tree removal is done without a related land use approval, or under EC Chapter 9, if tree removal <br />is done as part of an associated land use approval. Consequently, any tree removal done in <br />the excised Zone 6 following approval of this modification application will be done subject to <br />the criteria in the Eugene Code, which is what [ 1995 CUP condition of approval no. 81 requires. <br />Therefore the proposed modification is not materially inconsistent with the conditions of the <br />original approval" Record 349. <br />"[Opponents'] fourth objection * * * is directed towards the `buffer' that they argue will be <br />removed by the decision. The buffer between the cemetery and existing residential uses will <br />remain as a result of this decision. Cemetery uses will not extend south of the proposed roads. <br />Likewise, the on site vegetation will remain. This decision does not authorize any tree removal <br />from the subject property. Any future tree removal will have to be consistent with the <br />provisions of the Eugene Code. That is what was required by the CUP, and that is what <br />continues to be required by the current code." Record 216. <br />Page 13 <br />