2., and as discussed in more detail below. <br /> <br />Following the public hearing before the Hearings Official, the applicant changed its position to <br />mirror that of Planning staff; that is, the applicant began to argue that: the entire property is a <br />protected Goal 5 area; the entire property is discussed in the Scenic Sites Working Paper; and the <br />entire property is depicted as a Goal 5 area on Figure H-2. The applicant also argued that the <br />Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has already determined that Figure H-2 and the Scenic <br />Sites Working Paper are part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings Official <br />thoroughly considered the arguments made by the applicant, Planning staff, and other interested <br />parties, and ultimately determined that, while the City’s adopted Scenic Sites working paper is <br />part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, given the confusion about which map was <br />acknowledged by LCDC, the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that the entire subject <br />property is included in the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Because the applicant had not either: (1) <br />demonstrated that the entire subject property was protected by Goal 5 and therefore the City’s <br />tree preservation and removal standards did not apply; or (2) demonstrated compliance with the <br />tree preservation and removal standards, the Hearings Official denied the PUD and Tentative <br />Subdivision applications. <br /> <br />Therefore, the specific question before the Planning Commission is whether the entire subject <br />property is protected by Goal 5 because it is shown on a map that was acknowledged by LCDC as <br />part of the City’s Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />On pages 8 through 16 of her decision, the Hearings Official discusses whether the subject <br />property has status as a “Goal 5 site,” and questions if this site is included in its entirety in the <br />City’s 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 />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” during the first open record <br />period as an attachment to a Staff Memorandum dated July 31, 2024. Staff argued that Figure H-2 <br />generally identifies the entire subject property (as well as a large swath of the City’s South, <br />Southwest, and East Hills) as a part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />The staff presentation during the Hearing Official’s public hearing on July 10, 2024, provided a <br />visual illustration showing how the City determined that the subject property is included within <br />the area of visual prominence and prominent vegetation on Figure H-2 using streets as reference <br />points for locating the subject property. The following illustration was shown during the public <br />hearing and included in the staff memorandum dated July 31, 2023. The left side graphic is a blow- <br />up from Figure H-2; the right side graphic is a screen shot from the City’s GIS aerial data. The red <br />lines correlate to the same identifiable streets in both graphics and the yellow star depicts the <br />general location of the subject site in both graphics: <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 18 of 42