<br /> <br /> 9 <br /> <br />compliance with the City’s tree preservation and removal standards because the City’s adopted Goal <br />5 protection measures apply to the site. In this case, the applicant has not submitted evidence <br />demonstrating compliance with the City’s tree preservation and removal standards. If the subject <br />property is not included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the applicant’s lack of <br />demonstrated compliance with the City’s tree preservation and removal standards is a basis for <br />denial of the application. The question on appeal is whether the entire property is depicted on a <br />map that is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Planning staff believes that the subject property is depicted as a Goal 5 protected area on a map <br />(Figure H-2, see Attachment E) that is a part of the City’s adopted 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, <br />which was identified by the City Council as part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory and was <br />acknowledged by Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The applicant <br />initially argued to the Hearings Official that a different map (Map 3) was acknowledged by LCDC <br />instead of Figure H-2. Map 3 does not depict the subject property as a Goal 5 protected area. The <br />applicant argued that only the stream running through the subject property is protected by Goal 5; <br />the rest of the property is not. Planning staff agreed that the stream corridor is protected by Goal 5 <br />but continued to take the position that the entire site is protected by the Scenic Sites Working <br />Paper, as demonstrated by its depiction on Figure H-2. <br /> <br />Following the public hearing, the applicant changed its position to mirror that of Planning staff; that <br />is, the applicant began to argue that the entire property is a protected Goal 5 area, that the entire <br />property is discussed in the Scenic Sites Working Paper, and that it is depicted as a Goal 5 area on <br />Figure H-2. The applicant also argued that the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has <br />already determined that Figure H-2 and the Scenic Sites Working Paper are part of the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings Official thoroughly considered the arguments made <br />by the applicant, Planning staff, and other interested parties, and ultimately determined that, while <br />the City’s adopted Scenic Sites working paper is part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, <br />given the confusion about which map was acknowledged by LCDC, the applicant had not sufficiently <br />demonstrated that the entire subject property is included in the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Because the <br />applicant had not either: (1) demonstrated that the entire subject property was protected by Goal 5 <br />and therefore the City’s tree preservation and removal standards did not apply; or (2) demonstrated <br />compliance with the tree preservation and removal standards, the Hearings Official denied the <br />application. <br /> <br />The specific question in this appeal is therefore whether the entire subject property is protected by <br />Goal 5 because it is shown on a map that was acknowledged by LCDC as part of the City’s Goal 5 <br />inventory. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />On pages 8 through 16 of her decision, the Hearings Official discusses whether the subject property <br />has status as a “Goal 5 site,” and questions if this site is included in its entirety in the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official questions the City’s finding from the July 2024 staff report that the April 12, <br />1978, Scenic Sites Working Paper designates the subject property as one of the “Natural Sites of <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 11 of 159