and requirements of its land use approvals. Accordingly, staff's recommendation and the <br />Hearings Official's decision appropriately includes conditions of approval that will become <br />enforceable requirements with violations subject to civil penalty, and which will govern the <br />City's approval of development and use of the proposed lots into the future, regardless of <br />change in ownership over time. <br />The Planning Commission concludes that the Hearings Official correctly imposed a condition of <br />approval that prohibits above-ground structures and grading activity in all preservation areas <br />(Hearings Official Decision, page 38).This condition is necessary to ensure that ensure <br />compliance with the Tentative PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8320(4)(b) regarding tree <br />preservation. However, the Planning Commission finds that more explicit language is necessary <br />to protect trees from impacts from the construction of structures that do not require building <br />permits, and to address the applicant's proposed fencing along the eastern boundary of the <br />subject site. Accordingly, the Planning Commission modifies Condition of Approval #8 as <br />follows: <br />8. The final plans shall include a note that states: <br />Within the individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19, and on <br />Tracts A, B, C, and D, no above ground structure that Fequi' a bull ing peFmit <br />or fence shall be constructed; there shall be no impacts to preserved trees; and <br />no grading activity shall be allowed. The only exceptions is are: 1) within Tract A, <br />where the storm drainage facility and associated grading and maintenance, as <br />shown on the site plans, is allowed; and 2) the applicant's proposed 6 -foot tall <br />agricultural pass-through fence shall be allowed along the entire southern, <br />eastern, and northern boundaries of the Tract A preservation area, and the <br />preservation area along the northern boundary of Lot 5, on the subject <br />property. The placement of the agricultural fence shall occur under the <br />direction of a certified arborist, consistent with and documented by, a report <br />from the arborist demonstrating that no preservation trees will be negatively <br />impacted by the fence. <br />The modification of Condition of Approval #8 also provides consistency with the purpose <br />statements as described in the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study. The proposed <br />modification to require the placement of the agricultural fence at the direction of a certified <br />arborist so that no preservation trees are negatively impacted is also consistent with the tree <br />preservation policies and Development Standards section of the South Hills Study. <br />Based on the available information in the record, and with this modification to Condition of <br />Approval #8, the Planning Commission finds that the application complies with EC 9.8320(4)(b) <br />as it relates to tree preservation. <br />Appeal Issue #14: EC 9.8320(4) - The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to <br />the natural environment by addressing the following. The Hearings Official failed to <br />consider all the attributes of significant trees in establishing compliance with EC <br />9.8320(4). <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 20 <br />