note in the eastern portion of the property. The evidence supports a finding that there are no significant <br />natural features outside of the inventoried Goal 5 riparian corridor that will be affected by the <br />proposed development. <br />EC 9.8320(4)(a)(2) applies to the western portion of the site, which includes North Gilliam Creek, a Goal 5 <br />Category D riparian corridor inventoried and adopted in the Goal 5 Natural Resource Plan (Upland <br />Wildlife Habitat Site E76 B-3). The North Gilham Creek channel splits along the north property line of <br />Lot 5 and runs north to south along the eastern and western portions of lots 5 and 6. This Goal 5 site and <br />associated riparian vegetation constitute significant natural features. The applicant acknowledges the <br />inventoried resource includes a 20-foot setback from top of bank (p. 15), but does not identify the adopted <br />Goal 5 Water Resource site itself. Likewise, the site plans show the channels with a 20-foot conservation <br />setback from the identified top of bank and do not identify the Goal 5 resource boundary. In addition, the <br />Natural Features Assessment incorrectly indicates that the Goal 5 site excludes the channel along the west <br />property line. <br />This application marks yet another foray into the Water Resources Conservation Overlay (/WR) <br />provisions set out in the city's Goal 5 Resource refinement plan and EC 9.4900 through 9.4960. In this <br />case, the applicant disputes staffs identification of the /WR conservation area that protects the <br />drainage ditch located on the western third of the site. The Goal 5 riparian corridor map for the area, <br />which is at a 1 inch: 1,620-foot scale, depicts the edge of the overlay to include approximately one-half <br />of lots 5 and 6. The applicant disputes the extent of the resource site, arguing that the Goal 5 Plan maps <br />are ambiguous, and must be interpreted consistently with the text of the plan, which identifies the area <br />for protection based on the riparian vegetation located on the site and are not intended to preserve non- <br />native grass located between the two arms of the riparian corridor. <br />A. Burden to Identify the Conservation Area <br />The /WR overlay applies to the entire site, although the protective provisions of EC 9.4900 et. seq. <br />only apply to the resource site itself. The city argues that it is applicant's burden to demonstrate that its <br />proposal meets the Goal 5 plan and EC 9.4920 provisions, and in doing so, the applicant must properly <br />identify the boundaries of resource site and the conservation setback as part of its burden of proof. The <br />applicant concedes that it has the burden to demonstrate that it is feasible to comply with the <br />conservation setbacks and lot coverage standards, but argues that it is the city's responsibility to <br />identify the boundaries of the resource site and "top of bank" (the line that identifies the reference for <br />establishing the 20-foot setback) which define the limits of the /WR conservation area. , <br />ORS 227.173 requires that <br />"approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and <br />criteria * * * set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of <br />a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan <br />for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and <br />comprehensive plan for the city as a whole." <br />The hearings official interprets this standard to require the city to identify the applicable standards and <br />criteria, and review the application against those standards. It does not require the applicant to discern <br />the applicability of the standards in the first instance. Viewed in that way, the city has initial burden to <br />identify the boundaries of the /WR resource site and explain the methodology it used to establish the <br />top of bank. In turn, the applicant has the burden of demonstrating that its proposal satisfies the <br />standards as applied by the city. Here, that means that, given the boundaries of the /WR resource site, <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 11 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1139 <br />