I permit.8 Thus, petitioners argue, outside HPCD zones tree removal may be authorized under <br />2 CDC 9.1010(B)(2) at the time of building permit approval, without obtaining a Type II <br />3 development permit, but within HPCD zones such tree removal requires a Type II <br />4 development permit.9 <br />5 Petitioners may be correct that CDC 9.1010(E) would require a Type II development <br />6 permit for tree removal to site dwellings on individual lots within the HPCD zone, but <br />7 petitioners do not explain why CDC 9.1010(E) or any other code provision compels that such <br />8 future tree removals be evaluated as part of a PUD application seeking a tree removal permit <br />9 that does not propose removing any trees to site dwellings on individual lots. Petitioners <br />10 may also be correct that the city's interpretation of CDC 9.1010 to effectively allow <br />11 piecemeal cutting of regulated trees over a series of applications may undercut the <br />12 prohibition on "clear cutting.".10 However, that there may be loopholes that undercut the <br />13 "clear-cutting" prohibition does not mean that the city's interpretation is subject to reversal <br />8 CDC 9.1010(E) provides: <br />"Tree Removal in Overlay Districts: Except as provided below, no removal of regulated trees <br />shall be permitted within a Hillside Physical Constraint, Flood Plain, or Natural Resource <br />Overlay District, without a Type II Development Permit." <br />9 The city points out that CDC 9.1010(E) has since been amended to provide an exception for removal of <br />regulated trees within 10 feet of the outer edge of the outline of a proposed single family residence or related <br />site improvements, so that such tree removals no longer require a Type II Development Permit. The city argues <br />that any building permit/tree removal applications for individual lots within the subdivision will be governed by <br />the amended CDC 9.1010(E), and therefore petitioners' arguments under former CDC 9.1010(E) are essentially <br />moot. It seems unlikely to us that if the CDC in effect at the time of the challenged PUD/tree removal permit <br />required evaluation of trees to be removed for dwellings, subsequent amendments to the CDC would moot a <br />challenge that the city failed to conduct that required evaluation. However, we need not address that argument, <br />because we agree with the city that nothing in CDC 9.1010 or elsewhere cited to us requires that the city <br />determine in this decision which and how many trees will be removed for dwellings. <br />10 The city also points out that Condition of Approval 6(c), a condition imposed in the city's initial decision <br />and not challenged by petitioners, requires that the CC&Rs for the subdivision include a restriction against <br />removing regulated trees on individual lots where the result would leave fewer than one tree per 1,000 square <br />foot of lot area. We understand the city to argue that that condition effectively ensures that development of <br />individual lots will not run afoul the prohibition on "clear-cutting," as that prohibition is applied to applications <br />to develop individual residential lots in the PUD. <br />Page 14 <br />