identifies the U-shaped area adjacent to a riparian corridor which contains riparian vegetation, and a <br />portion flood plain is included within the area depicted on Map 15. Therefore, hearings official <br />concludes that the staff's identification of the boundaries of the resource site on this property <br />appropriately interprets the Goal 5 Resource map. 14 <br />C. Identification of the Conservation Setback <br />EC 9.4920(1) provides in relevant part that the "component areas of the /WR conservation area for <br />Goal 5 Water Resources Sites are described and defined as follows: * * * <br />"(b) For riparian corridor sites not listed in [EC 9.4920(1)(a)], the /WR conservation area <br />consists of the area within the Goal 5 Water Resource Site and the area within the <br />applicable conservation setback." <br />"(c) The conservation setback for a particular riparian corridor or upland wildlife habitat is <br />determined based on whether it is a Category A, B, C, D or :E stream in the [Goal 5 <br />Plan.] Conservation setbacks are measured horizontally from the top of the high bank <br /> <br />[I ] For conservation setback distances measured from the top of the,high bank, <br />the top,of high bank is the highest point at which the bank meets the grade of the <br />surrounding topography, characterized by <br />"[a] an abrupt or noticeable change from a steeper grade to a less steep grade, <br />"and <br />"[b] where natural conditions prevail, by a noticeable change from topography <br />or vegetation primarily shaped by the presence and/or movement of water to <br />topography not primarily shaped by the presence of water. Where there is more <br />than one such break in the grade, the uppermost shall be considered the top of <br />high bank." 15 <br />Development within /WR conservation areas is limited, and no more than 33 percent of any newly <br />created lot may be included,in a /WR conservation area. EC 9.8515(1)(a). <br />With the exception of the bermed bank located in the eastern portion of lots 5 and 6, the city agrees <br />with the applicant's depiction of the conservation setback. The parties also agree that the bank located <br />on the eastern boundaries of Lots 5 and 6 is augmented by material dredged from the drainage ditch <br />and piled along the edge. However, the parties dispute the importance of that fact. The applicant <br />established the "top of bank" on this site by identifying the "natural grade" of the slope immediately <br />adjacent to the berm. According to thelapplicant, this approach is consistent with EC 9.4920(1)(c)[1], <br />which describes the "top of the high bank" as the "highest point at which the bank meets the grade of <br />the surrounding topography." The applicant contends that the "grade of the surrounding topography" is <br />identified by the elevation of the property on the landward side of the berm. The applicant asserts that <br />14 The hearings official also disagrees with the applicant that staff s approach to this application is inconsistent with their <br />approach to other applications, namely the Nottingham Place and Westmoreland applications Those sites included resource <br />sites with other defining characteristics that affected the scope of the resource designation With respect to the <br />Westmoreland application, staff and the applicant agreed with the delineation of the resource site and the "top of bank." <br />Therefore, there was no need for an extended discussion regarding whether the applicant had adequately established the <br />boundaries of the resource site or its corresponding conservation setback <br />" The hearings official uses the format adopted by the parties and LUBA in The Picullel Group <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 14 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1142 <br />