Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 13 <br />while the Ordinance does not purport to adopt that inventory as a Goal 5 resource, it does list the <br />1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper as one of several ‘working papers” that “make up” the City’s <br />inventory of significant goal 5 resources.16 <br />In his August 14, 2024 written response testimony, and in a reversal of his written and oral <br />hearing argument, the applicant’s attorney argues that the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper was <br />actually acknowledged in 1982: <br />“When the City completed its final version of the Goal 5 Water Resources mapping in <br />2005 with Ordinance 20351, Recital E in the Ordinance listed all the other parts of the <br />Goal 5 program, and that listing included the “1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper.” * * * <br />This was not a new Goal 5 analysis, just a statement of the City’s understanding of what <br />had been in acknowledged in 1982. <br />“The admittedly generalized nature of the Scenic Sites Working Paper is not a basis for <br />saying the mapping therein does not include this site if the site can be found and the <br />Working Paper mapping is acknowledged, which it plainly is.” <br />(Bill Kloos August 14, 2024 Applicant’s Written Response Testimony, page 20.) <br />Notwithstanding this argument, whether the 1978 Working Paper mapping established the Metro <br />Plan’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory in 1982, and if so, what that mapping depicts, is far from <br />clear; and, consistent with this attorney’s own earlier argument, that this mapping shows the site <br />to be acknowledged is not “plainly” evident. <br />The Helikson analysis thoroughly explains the limitations of the “Scenic Sites Working Paper, <br />and establishes a solid factual basis for its conclusion that this Working Paper was not intended <br />to be and should not have been the basis for the City’s Goal 5 inventory. As the analysis <br />From the Map, it is difficult to identify any lot, let alone the development lot, as being within one or the other of <br />these broad areas. It might be in one or the other, but the areas do not seem to overlap on the Map. * * * Staff <br />indicated to me: “That is the map we have to work with. I have to find things (like key intersections) on this 1978 <br />map that line up with detailed current maps and then triangulate from those points to figure out where a property is <br />located.” <br />For the “Natural Sites of Visual Prominence” category in the Map, there appear to be about 7 sites in and around <br />Eugene, with one immense site seeming to cover the Southwest, South and East hills (“Hills site”). The Hills site, <br />where the development lot is said to be located, is far too large to have any kind of detail necessary for a proper <br />Goal 5 analysis under the original Goal 5 rule. The description or map of the boundaries of the Hills site are difficult <br />to determine. Lots and Goal 5 resources within the Hills site are not identified.” <br />For the “Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation” category, there are also large sites identified on the map. These large <br />sites have similar problems in terms of the lack of detail regarding the sites, difficulty in determining boundaries, <br />and lack of a description for each site. * * * Lots and Goal 5 resources within the sites included in this category are <br />not identified.” <br />(July 31, 2024 written testimony from Lloyd Helikson, page 9 -10 (citations omitted.) <br />16 In contrast, Ordinance 20315 does explicitly adopt the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay zone and <br />map, which protects the upland stream corridor on the subject property as an acknowledged Goal 5 resource. <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 45 of 159