<br /> <br /> 12 <br /> <br />In summation, the Hearings Official determined that except for the clearly identified stream <br />corridor, the record does not demonstrate that the subject property is included in the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings Official declared that unless the applicant <br />demonstrates that the entirety of the subject property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory or provides a demonstration of compliance with EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation <br />and Removal Standards, the criterion at EC 9.8325(3) is not satisfied. <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that if the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of <br />Goal 5 resources, then the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 do <br />not apply because the entire site would be considered a Goal 5 resource. The applicant also argues <br />that the mapped Goal 5 Water Resource (stream) located on a portion of the site operates to make <br />the entire site a Goal 5 resource. The applicant points to Exhibit G of the applicant’s August 14, <br />2024, submission - the Hearings Official’s decision on the Willow Springs Subdivision application (ST <br />04-12) - and argues in that decision the Hearings Official found that location of a Goal 5 resource on <br />the site was sufficient to qualify the entire site as an “area” included on the City’s acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory. The applicant also asserts the Hearings Official erred in “assigning” the applicant <br />the burden of proving whether Figure H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper is a part of the <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory; instead, the applicant argues that the City should have that burden. <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />Staff agrees with the applicant that the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 is an acknowledged <br />map of Goal 5 resources, and the entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2; therefore, the <br />subject property is included in the City’s adopted Goal 5 inventory and the Tree Preservation and <br />Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 do not apply. <br /> <br />Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to <br />determine that Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources, and the entire subject <br />property is depicted on Figure H-2. <br /> <br />Although the Hearings Official refers in several places to Figure H-2 as “unlabeled and undated,” the <br />legend on the upper right corner of the Figure clearly identifies it as a part of the Natural Assets and <br />Constraints Working Papers and identifies it as a Figure that depicts Scenic Areas (see Attachment E, <br />page 8) The cover page of the Scenic Sites Working Paper provides that “[t]his is one of a series of <br />working papers describing the Metro Area’s natural assets and constraints.” (see Attachment E, <br />page 1). Figure H-2 is clearly intended to be part of, and to depict, the scenic areas narratively <br />described in the Scenic Sites Working Paper. Further, LUBA has determined that both the Scenic <br />Sites Working Paper and Figure H-2 form the basis for the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory: <br /> <br />Identifying the City’s Goal 5 inventory is not an easy task, in part because it was adopted as <br />part of a regional planning process, and in part because the inventory consists, as far as we <br />can tell, of a large collection of various “working papers” and maps. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 14 of 159