<br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 16 <br />applicant submitted into the record – define what sites were included in the acknowledged Goal <br />5 inventory, it is not possible to determine that the area outside the clearly-identified footprint of <br />the acknowledged Goal 5 stream corridor on the site, was in 1982 – or is today – part of the <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Responding to the applicant’s initial argument and evidence that the property was not subject to <br />the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the July 31, 2024 staff memorandum concluded: <br /> <br />“Staff is also somewhat confused as to why and how the applicant would introduce this <br />new issue now, given the implications. * * * * * <br /> <br />“* * * [A]lthough staff disagrees with Kloos’ argument, if he is correct and the site, <br />except for the stream corridor, is not a Goal 5 resource, then according to EC 9.8325(3) <br />and EC 9.8520(8) the tree preservation standards at EC 9.6855 would apply to the <br />subject applications. Since the applicant has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate <br />compliance with EC 9.6885, that would be a basis for denial.” <br /> <br />(July 31, 2024 City Staff Memorandum, pages 8-9.)18 <br /> <br />Based on the acknowledgement evidence provided by the applicant, and without any evidence to <br />the contrary to document that, in fact, the entire property is part of the City’s acknowledged Goal <br />5 inventory, it appears that except for the clearly identified stream corridor, this Record does not <br />demonstrate that the remainder of the property is within the Goal 5 inventory. Accordingly, this <br />criterion requires that the applicant establish that the PUD preserves existing natural resources by <br />compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal <br />Standards. The application does not include such a demonstration. <br /> <br />Unless and until the applicant establishes either that Map 3, which it submitted into the record, is <br />not “Map 3, General Plan Technical Report” relied upon in the DLCD acknowledgement of the <br />City’s Goal 5 inventory and otherwise demonstrates that the entirety of the subject property is <br />part of the acknowledge Goal 5 inventory; or provides a demonstration of compliance with EC <br />9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards, this criterion is not satisfied. <br /> <br />18 The staff memorandum goes on to explain the apparent reason for the applicant’s position that the <br />property is not a part of the Goal 5 inventory: <br /> <br />“It appears that the applicant is making the argument about Goal 5 regulations because he believes <br />that ORS 197.A.420, the middle housing rules and the Model Code create an entitlement to construct <br />middle housing on any lot or parcel where the base zone allows development of a single-unit <br />dwelling, except if the lot or parcel is subject to regulations adopted pursuant to a Statewide Planning <br />Goal. In the case of the subject site, the applicable Statewide Planning Goal is Goal 5; therefore, the <br />applicant believes if it can show that Lot 39 is not subject to a Goal 5 regulation, the applicant would <br />be entitled to build middle housing on Lot 39, notwithstanding EC 9.8325(8)(a). However, that is <br />simply not true. * * * The applicability of Goal 5 regulations to L ot 39 is not dispositive to the <br />question of whether middle housing is allowed on that lot.” <br /> <br />The issue of whether middle housing is allowed on Lot 39 is addressed below under the EC 8.8325(8) <br />findings. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 48 of 159