Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 20 <br /> <br />layout “shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than one local street” may not be applied <br />because it is not sufficiently clear and objective). <br /> <br />(b) The Helikson argument, that the text and maps in the Scenic Sites Working <br />Paper are too generalized to be applied to this specific site, is not supported by the <br />acknowledgement documentation. (Helikson Memo at 14.) <br /> <br />The Helikson memo asserts that Map H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper is too vague to be <br />applied to this specific site. Staff point to that map as being acknowledged by the LCDC and as <br />including the subject property. The Staff Memo at page 9 locates this site on map H-2. It is a <br />generalized map, but it is not so generalized that the subject property cannot be located. <br /> <br />As noted above in the Round I approval, this Hearing Official found this site to be mapped as <br />significant in the Scenic Sites Working Paper. <br /> <br />Half of the 2001 LUBA decision in Home Builders, reviewing Goal 5 compliance of the city’s <br />recodification of Chapter 9, found the Working Paper and its map H-2 to show the acknowledged <br />resources. LUBA found: <br /> <br />“Significant scenic areas are not listed in any resource list, but instead are mapped <br />at Figure H-2, which appears in the Home Builders Appendix III, 117. Buttes, <br />ridgelines, viewpoints with public access, parklands, golf courses and cemeteries <br />are identified as scenic areas on Figure H-2.” 41 Or LUBA 370, 428-429. <br /> <br />When the City completed its final version of the Goal 5 Water Resources mapping in 2005 with <br />Ordinance 20351, Recital E in the Ordinance listed all the other parts of the Goal 5 program, and <br />that listing included the “1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper.” See Exhibit F to the City’s July 31 <br />Memo at page 2, Recital E. This was not a new Goal 5 analysis, just a statement of the city’s <br />understanding of what had been acknowledged in 1982. <br /> <br />The admittedly generalized nature of the Scenic Sites Working Paper is not a basis for saying the <br />mapping therein does not include this site if the site can be found and the Working Paper <br />mapping is acknowledged, which it plainly is. <br /> <br />(c) The Helikson argument that the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper and its maps, <br />including Map H-2, are not acknowledged because they do not contain a proper <br />Goal 5 analysis is an unpermitted collateral attack on the acknowledgment order. <br /> <br />Mr. Helikson puts the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper through his filter of a proper Goal 5 <br />analysis and concludes the analysis was deficient and, therefore, the material therein isn’t <br />acknowledged. He says the same for the recital in the 2005 Ordinance 20351 that the Working <br />Paper is a part of the Goal 5 program. <br /> <br />He is correct that the Goal 5 analysis is loose. LUBA recognized this, too, when in the Home <br />Builders decision it stated it is difficult to nail down the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 program.