Federal law). <br />c. Prominent topographic features, such as ridgelines and <br />rock outcrops. <br />d. Wetlands, intermittent and perennial stream corridors, and <br />riparian areas. <br />e. Natural resource areas designated in the Metro Plan <br />diagram as "Natural Resource" and areas identified in any <br />city-adopted natural resource inventory. <br />2. For areas included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory: <br />a. The proposed development's general design and character, <br />including but not limited to anticipated building locations, <br />bulk and height, location and distribution of recreation space, <br />parking, roads, access and other uses, will: <br />(1) Avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of <br />attractive natural features and vegetation, and <br />(2) Avoid conversion of natural resource areas <br />designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan to <br />urban uses when alternative locations on the property <br />are suitable for development as otherwise permitted. <br />b. Proposed buildings, road, and other uses are designed and <br />sited to assure preservation of significant on-site vegetation, <br />topographic features, and other unique and worthwhile <br />natural features, and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard. <br />Finding: As explained in the Staff Report, and further confirmed in the staff's March 21, 2018 <br />memorandum, the City planning staff has concluded that the subject property is included on the <br />City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The staff rely on the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites <br />Working Paper, which designates the subject property as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and <br />Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. After questioning the City's assessment, the applicant <br />appears to accept the city's determination. The Response Committee's Geotechnical Engineer, <br />Gunnar Schlieder, disputes that determination. He surmises that "judging from the title "Scenic <br />Sites Working Paper" it would indicate that this was a preliminary document, and not officially <br />adopted by City Council. (GeoScience, Inc. Report, March 7, 2018.) However, he does not <br />provide any evidence to dispute the City's assessment. Based on the city's assessment, the <br />hearings official also agrees that the subject property is included in the City's acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory and, accordingly, the provisions of EC 8320(4)(a)(2) apply to the proposed <br />tentative PUD. <br />EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2)(a) requires that the PUD be designed and sited to minimize impacts to the <br />natural environment by addressing the proposed development's general design and character, <br />including but not limited to anticipated building locations, bulk and height, location and <br />distribution of recreation space, parking, roads, access and other uses, in order to (1) avoid <br />unnecessary disruption or removal of attractive natural features and vegetation, and (2) avoid <br />conversion of natural resource areas designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan to urban <br />uses when alternative locations on the property are suitable for development as otherwise <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 33 <br />