<br /> <br /> 10 <br /> <br />Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation” protected as part of the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. City staff entered into the record “Figure H-2”, titled “Metro Plan <br />Update, Natural Assets and Constraints-Working Papers Scenic Areas” (see Attachment E) during the <br />first open record period as an attachment to a Staff Memorandum dated July 31, 2024. Staff argued <br />that Figure H-2 generally identifies the entire subject property (as well as a large swath of the City’s <br />South, Southwest, and East Hills) as a part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The staff <br />presentation during the public hearing on July 10, 2024, provided a visual illustration showing how <br />the City determined that the subject property is included within the area of visual prominence and <br />prominent vegetation on Figure H-2 using streets as reference points for locating the subject <br />property. The following illustration was shown during the public hearing and included in the staff <br />memorandum dated July 31, 2023. The left side graphic is a blow-up from Figure H-2; the right side <br />graphic is a screen shot from the City’s GIS aerial data. The red lines correlate to the same <br />identifiable streets in both graphics and the yellow star depicts the general location of the subject <br />site in both graphics: <br /> <br /> <br />It was also noted during the public hearing that a protected upland stream corridor exists on the <br />subject property, which is listed on the City’s adopted Goal 5 Water Resources Inventory (2005) and <br />is reflected by the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone placed on this property. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official discusses on pages 9 and 10 of her decision that during the July 10, 2024, <br />public hearing, and in a written hearing memorandum dated July 10, 2024, the applicant argued <br />that with the exception of the protected upland stream corridor on the subject property, the site is <br />not a part of the City’s Goal 5 inventory. However, the Hearings Official then notes that in their <br />August 14, 2024, response testimony, the applicant reversed position and agreed with Planning staff <br />that the entire property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings <br />Official also considered post-hearing testimony from Lloyd Helikson, which extensively analyzed the <br />1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, listed the document’s limitations, and argued that the Scenic Sites <br />Working Paper should not have been the basis for the City’s Goal 5 inventory. While recognizing the <br />limitations of Goal 5 documents drafted more than 40 years ago, on pages 14 and 15 of her decision, <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 12 of 159