Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 12 As the staff correctly referenced, the 2019 decision approving a PUD for the subject property includes the following finding: “The staff report confirms that subject property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory (based on the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, which designates the subject site as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation.) It is also listed on the 2005 Goal 5 Water Resources Inventory, as reflected in the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone for this property. (Braewood Hills Third Edition Phases 5 & 6 PUD, May 15, 2019 Hearings Official Decision, page 8.) However, while this finding indicates that as between the City and the applicant, an argument could be made that this issue could be considered a “a settled matter,” in fact this issue was not raised in the 2018 application.14 Further, while the time for appealing the 2018 application has long since passed, in fact this is not the same application. This is a new application, which must be reviewed on its own merits. The public has the right to raise any issues related to compliance with the applicable approval criteria as they apply to the present application. And, in fact, public testimony does challenge the City’s assertion that all of the subject property is an acknowledged Goal 5 resource. In written testimony submitted July 31, 2024, a concerned citizen, Lloyd Helikson, provided an extensive analysis of the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper and its relationship to both the 1982 Metro Plan Goal 5 acknowledgment and the City’s 2005 Ordinance updating its Goal 5 inventory and concludes that the 1978 Working Paper, and the Map on which the City relies, was never adopted as part of the City’s Goal 5 inventory. As analyzed and explained in detail in the Helikson testimony, and as evidenced by the language itself, Ordinance 20351 (adopted in 2005) does not purport to acknowledge the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper (or any of the other working papers referenced in Finding E of that Ordinance.) Rather, in recitals, it describes those papers as “inventories [that] make up the entire inventory of significant Goal 5 resources within the City of Eugene.” Thus, the City’s reliance on that Ordinance alone as being the document that adopted the April 12, 2078 Scenic Sites Working Paper as part of the Goal 5 inventory, is not consistent with the Ordinance itself.15 However, 14 At the beginning of the applicant’s oral presentation at the July 10, 2024 public hearing on the present application, the applicant’s attorney suggested that he believed this hearings official’s finding in the 2019 decision was incorrect. He testified, at length, why he disagreed with City’s determination that the portion of the subject property outside the area subject to the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone was within the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. 15 As explained in post-hearing written testimony submitted by Lloyd Helikson: “The Working Paper does not identify particular lots. * * * It states: “A map has been prepared as part of this paper that shows where these scenic standards have been identified in the Metro Area.” * * * The Map identifies broad areas of land in the Metro area as having several categories, which categories staff indicates apply to the development lot (Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and sites within the Presence of Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation.’) * * *