<br /> <br /> 22 <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />As discussed in detail under Appeal Issue #2 above, the subject property is depicted as a Goal 5 <br />protected area on a map (Figure H-2) that is a part of the City’s adopted 1978 Scenic Sites Working <br />Paper, which was identified by the City Council as part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory <br />and was acknowledged by Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Staff believes <br />there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Planning Commission to determine that Figure H-2 <br />is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources and that the entire subject property is depicted on <br />Figure H-2 as an area of visual prominence and prominent vegetation; therefore, the entire subject <br />property is included in the City’s adopted Goal 5 inventory. <br /> <br />Because the entire site is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the applicant is not <br />required to provide evidence demonstrating compliance with EC 9.8325(5)(d) and EC 9.6710(6). <br /> <br />In response to applicant’s arguments about whether the applicable criteria are clear and objective, <br />the Planning Commission should find that EC 9.8325(5)(d) and EC 9.6710(6) are clear and objective. <br />An applicant must either demonstrate that the subject property is included in the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, or the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the <br />geotechnical standards at EC 9.6710. The fact that a demonstration might be complicated does not <br />make the standard unclear or subjective. See Piculell v. City of Eugene, 80 Or LUBA 492, 495-96 <br />(2019) (LUBA determined that the fact that the Hearings Official and Planning Commission relied on <br />different rationales to determine that a property was located within the boundaries of the South <br />Hills Study did not make EC 9.8325(2), which is applicable to properties within the boundaries of the <br />South Hills Study, either unclear or subjective.). <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 that the entire subject property is depicted on <br />Figure H-2; therefore, the applicant is also exempt according to EC 9.6710(3)(f), from the <br />requirements for a Geological and Geotechnical Analysis. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #8: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by not finding that the proposed stormwater <br />system can comply with the city standards for stormwater, even if the system must be adjusted in <br />the event Randy Lane must be a public road. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The Hearings Official addressed this issue on pages 37 through 40 of the decision, under the <br />approval criteria at EC 9.8325(5) which requires compliance with: <br /> <br />(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control for <br />headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and <br />maintenance. <br /> <br />The Hearings Official noted that based on the Revised Public Works Referral Comments (dated July <br />30, 2024), the requirement to construct Randy Lane as a public street may impact the applicant’s <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 24 of 159