1 it is representative of the property as a whole, or whether the trees that are "eight-inch or greater <br />2 DBH" are uniformly distributed on the property. Under these circumstances, the city's confidence <br />3 in the accuracy of a one-acre sample of a 70-acre parcel seems misplaced. <br />4 With respect to CDC 9.1012(3), the city did not adopt findings regarding that provision, at <br />5 least none cited to us, or otherwise adopt the position respondents take on appeal. We understand <br />6 respondents to argue that CDC 9.1012(3) acts as a limited exception to he CDC 5.0232 <br />7 prohibition on clear-cutting. While that seems an unlikely reading of the code, the city may wish to <br />8 address that issue on remand. <br />9 The third assignment of error is sustained. <br />10 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />11 Petitioners argue that the decision fails to show compliance with CDC 6.0323(B), which <br />12 requires that: <br />13 "The following topographic feature, natural resource and other features shall be <br />14 mapped and identified: <br />15 <br />16 "(2) Other natural features. <br />17 "(a) Trees with a circumference of 25 inches or greater measured at a <br />18 point 4.5 feet above ground on the upslope side of the tree." <br />19 Respondents respond that petitioners waived the issue because they failed to raise it below. <br />20 ORS 197.763(1); 197.835(3).5 As discussed in the third assignment of error, petitioners argue <br />s ORS 197.763(1) provides: <br />"An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to [LUBA] shall be raised not later than the <br />close of the record at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal before the local <br />government. Such issues shall be raised and accompanied by statements or evidence <br />sufficient to afford the governing body, planning commission, hearings body or hearings <br />officer, and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue." <br />ORS 197.835(3) provides: <br />Page 13 <br />