<br /> <br /> 11 <br /> <br />the Hearings Official ultimately concluded that in 1982, the Scenic Sites Working Paper “and other <br />similar working papers, likely did form the basis for the Metro Plan Goal 5 acknowledgment” and <br />therefore the Scenic Sites Working Paper is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Additionally, the Hearings Official recognized that LUBA: <br /> <br />Did appear to recognize that, in 1982 the Metro Plan acknowledgment relied on the <br />imprecise Working Papers as the basis for [the] Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory. As LUBA <br />explained: <br /> <br />Identifying the City’s Goal 5 inventory is not an easy task, in part because it was <br />adopted as part of a regional planning process, and in part because the inventory <br />consists, as far as we can tell, of a large collection of various “working papers” <br />and maps. <br /> <br />Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428 (2002). <br /> <br />After summarizing different categories of inventoried resources (for purposes of <br />determining whether, or the extent to which various provisions of the City’s Land Use <br />Code Update (LUCU) impacted continued Goal 5 compliance) LUBA did appear to <br />recognize that the Scenic Sites Working Paper map formed the basis of the <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />[Footnote 17] The LUBA finding states: <br />Significant scenic areas are not listed in any resource list, but instead are mapped <br />at Figure H-2. *** Buttes, ridgelines, viewpoints with public access, parklands, golf <br />courses and cemeteries are identified as scenic areas on Figure H-2. Apparently <br />some of the VWWH [significant vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat] sites [are <br />also scenic areas.] Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428-29 <br />(2002). <br /> <br />Thus, while it is far from clear, it appears that 1982 Metro Plan acknowledged the Scenic <br />Sites Working Paper as part of the [City’s] acknowledge[d] Goal 5 inventory. <br />Consequently, while the Helikson analysis clearly articulates the limitations of that <br />Working Paper and establishes that it was likely a preliminary assessment that was not <br />intended to create a Goal 5 inventory of specific Goal 5 resource sites, it is what the City <br />has adopted. And, that adoption cannot be collaterally attacked through the review of <br />this application. (See Hearings Official’s Decision, page 14). <br /> <br />The Hearings Official considered the narrative Scenic Sites Working Paper and Figure H-2 to be <br />separate documents and determined that although the Working Paper is part of the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, there was not enough evidence in the record to conclude either <br />that Figure H-2 was acknowledged, or that the entire subject property was identified as a Goal 5 <br />protected area on any document acknowledged by LCDC. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 13 of 159