Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />inventory (acknowledged 2005) and also appears to be on the Scenic Sites Goal 5 inventory <br />(acknowledged 1982) as staff indicates. Its status on either inventory is sufficient to exempt <br />the site. <br /> <br />As explained by Staff in their July 31 memo, the Round 1 decision for this site in 2019 (PDT 18- <br />4) applied the then parallel provision in EC 9.8325(4). The 2019 HO decision addressed the <br />standard at page 8: <br /> <br />“Finding: The staff report confirms that subject property is included on the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory (based on the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites <br />Working Paper, which designates the subject site as Natural Sites of Visual <br />Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation.) It is also listed on the 2005 <br />Goal 5 Water Resources Inventory, as reflected in the /WR Water Resources <br />Conservation Overlay zone for this property. Accordingly, this criterion is not <br />applicable to this application. <br /> <br />“Residents of the surrounding area expressed concern that the proposed <br />development would result in the loss of valuable trees on the property, disrupting <br />both the micro-climate and the area’s native habitat. Because this property is <br />included in the city’s Goal 5 inventory, those resources are regulated and <br />protected through the requirements and limitations of that inventory. 4 They are <br />not subject to regulation through this criterion.” <br /> <br />“FN4 A nearby resident expressed concern that the applicant’s depiction <br />of the Goal 5 resource was not accurate. This standard relates to the Goal <br />5 resources as depicted on the City’s Goal 5 inventory and the protection <br />of resources is based on that inventory <br /> <br />The Staff suggests, and the applicant concurs, that the HO should reach the same conclusion here <br />-- same site; same inventoried Goal 5 resources; same same.2 <br /> <br />If the HO is inclined to scratch further at this standard, there is a lot of material to get into. We <br />address each of the issues raised as best we can distill them. <br /> <br />Opponent Wayne Helikson filed a very substantial memo on the applicability of Goal 5 to this <br />site in his July 31 submittal. His points are summarized succinctly on pages 14-15 of his memo. <br />His theories are discussed below. <br /> <br />2 In our hearing letter we included a Map H-3 and suggested it could be the final, consolidated <br />Goal 5 map that exited the acknowledgment process. As staff correctly points out in their July <br />31 memorandum, the applicant has not been able to trace the pedigree of the H-3 map to any <br />verification of acknowledgment. The best evidence of what is acknowledged is the Map H-2, <br />which was addressed by the HO in Round I decision, by the City in its 2005 ordinance adopting <br />the Goal 5 Water Resources program, and by LUBA in reviewing the Goal 5 program in 2001 in <br />its Home Builders decision. 41 Or LUBA 370, 428.