<br /> <br /> 8 <br /> <br />197.522 to amend the application in the event the application was denied. The applicant’s appeal <br />statement confirms this understanding. <br /> <br />The applicant stated an intent to amend the proposal as needed to secure an approval, as <br />allowed by ORS 197.522. Nothing in the applicant’s submittal invokes a 197.522 proceeding <br />before the Hearings Official. Nothing in the second open record submitted requested to <br />modify the proposal. The applicant’s submittals to date have been limited to evidence, <br />argument and proposed conditioning in response to staff’s post-hearing change of position <br />and demands. (See Written Appeal Statement, page 3 (emphasis in original)). <br /> <br />For all the reasons discussed above, staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse this portion <br />of the Hearings Official’s decision and consider all the applicant’s evidence and argument submitted <br />on August 14, 2024, as responsive to the evidence submitted during the first open record period. To <br />the extent that those issues (evidence and argument, as summarized above and relevant to the <br />decision) relate to conditions of approval or findings in the Hearings Official’s decision that require <br />further consideration by the Planning Commission, those are further addressed in relation to the <br />remaining appeal issues below. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #2: <br />Applicant argues that because the subject property is listed on the Scenic Sites Working Paper <br />Figure H-2, it is a Goal 5 resource; therefore, the tree preservation standards referenced in EC <br />9.8325 do not apply and the Hearings Official erred by denying applicant’s application. Regarding <br />Goal 5 resources and the inclusion of the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 as evidence, the <br />applicant raises three sub-issues: <br />(a) The Hearings Official erred by assigning to the applicant the burden of proving whether <br />Figure H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper is a part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory. <br />(b) If the Hearings Official cannot determine whether the subject property is on the Scenic <br />Areas inventory, then that piece of the Goal 5 program is not “clear” enough to be <br />applied. <br />(c) The City should decide that the acknowledged Goal 5 Scenic Sites Inventory <br />is shown on Figure H-2. <br /> <br />Additional Background <br />The relevant approval criterion at EC 9.8325(3) states: <br /> <br />EC 9.8325(3): For areas not included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD <br />preserves existing natural resources by compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC <br />9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. <br /> <br />Pursuant to EC 9.8325(3), if the subject property is not included on the City’s acknowledged <br />Statewide Planning Goal 5 inventory, the application must demonstrate compliance with the tree <br />preservation and removal standards in EC 9.6880 to 9.6885. However, if the subject site is included <br />on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the applicant does not need to demonstrate <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 10 of 159