<br /> <br /> 13 <br /> <br />Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428 (2002) (emphasis added). LUBA then goes on <br />to discuss the various documents that make up the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, including <br />Figure H-2. <br /> <br />Significant scenic areas are not listed in any resource list, but instead are mapped at Figure <br />H-2.... Buttes, ridgelines, viewpoints with public access, parklands, golf courses and <br />cemeteries are identified as scenic areas on Figure H-2. Apparently, some of the VWWH <br />[significant vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat] sites are also scenic areas. <br /> <br />Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428-29 (2002) (emphasis added). <br /> <br />Finally, in 2005, when the City updated its Goal 5 inventory to include additional riparian, upland <br />wildlife habitat and wetland sites through the adoption of Ordinance No. 20351, the City Council <br />took the opportunity to clearly identify the documents that make up the City’s adopted and <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventories, including the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper and to list them in <br />Ordinance No. 20351 (see Attachment F). <br /> <br />As demonstrated in the Staff Memorandum dated July 31, 2024, and in this Agenda Item Summary <br />(AIS), the subject property is clearly located within the scenic areas depicted on Figure H-2. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission should find that there is substantial evidence in the record to show that <br />Figure H-2 is part of, and clearly depicts, the scenic areas narratively described in the Scenic Sites <br />Working Paper, and that Figure H-2 is one of the documents that forms the City’s adopted and <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Planning Commission should further find that there is <br />substantial evidence in the record to show that the entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2 <br />and is therefore “included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory.” <br /> <br />The Planning Commission should modify the Hearings Official’s decision by determining that Figure <br />H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources and the entire subject property is depicted on <br />Figure H-2; therefore, the subject property is included in the City’s adopted Goal 5 inventory and <br />the applicant need not demonstrate compliance with the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards <br />at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885. <br /> <br />To the extent that the Planning Commission determines that Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of <br />Goal 5 resources, and the entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2, the Commission need <br />not address the applicant’s sub-assignments of error. However, in case it is helpful to the <br />Commission, staff has provided an analysis of the applicant's sub-assignments of error below. <br /> <br />The Clear and Objective Requirement <br />Planning staff agrees with the Hearings Official’s finding that a disagreement over “what, if any, Goal <br />5 resource was acknowledged” does not make EC 9.8325(3) “sufficiently ambiguous” so that it is not <br />clear and objective under ORS 197A.400. Specifically, Planning staff agrees with the Hearings <br />Official’s determination that: <br /> <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 15 of 159