Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 19 <br /> <br /> <br />(a) The dispute over the meaning of the standard is sufficiently ambiguous that it <br />may not be applied at all. <br /> <br />The standard is: <br /> <br />“(3) For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory, the PUD preserves existing natural resources by <br />compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree <br />Preservation and Removal Standards.” <br /> <br />What is the meaning of “areas” for purposes of applying this standard? There are at least two <br />reasonable meanings that result in different impacts in terms of the Tree Preservation and <br />Removal Standards. <br /> <br />The first meaning is that the acreage that is exempt from the tree preservation standards is <br />limited to the footprint of the mapped Goal 5 resource. That seems to be the position in the July <br />31 Staff Memo at 9. This is also the position taken by opponent Wayne Helikson in his July 31 <br />detailed analysis of Goal 5 as it relates to this site. <br /> <br />The second possible meaning is that the entire project site is exempt if there is an inventoried <br />Goal 5 resource on the site. Under that meaning, if none of the site is mapped as a Goal 5 Scenic <br />Area, the entire site is still exempt from the Tree Preservation standards because there is a Goal 5 <br />Water Resources corridor on the site. This Hearing Official has previously given the standard <br />this meaning in her approval of the Willow Springs Subdivision, ST 14-12 (Aug. 10, 2004). A <br />copy of the Decision, Companion zone change, and site plan are Exhibit G hereto. That was <br />“needed housing” tentative subdivision approval decided under clear and objective standards. <br />The standard in EC 9.8520(7) was: <br /> <br />“For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the <br />subdivision will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with all of the <br />following: (a) The proposal complies with EC 9.6880 through 9.6885 Tree <br />Preservation and Removal Standards * * * *” <br /> <br />The site plan included with the decision shows that the site had a wetland site that was on the <br />initial, interim, acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The presence of that Goal 5 resource site was <br />enough to insulate the entire subject property from the Tree Preservation standards. This <br />Hearing Official found: <br /> <br />“The subject property is included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory as <br />containing significant vegetation, wildlife and wetlands.” <br /> <br />Both interpretations are plausible, which makes the standard ambiguous. Because it is <br />ambiguous the standard may not be applied at all. See Walter v. City of Eugene, 73 Or LUBA <br />356 (2016), aff’d without opinion 281 Or App 461, 383 P3d 1009 (2016)(standard requiring PUD