Appeal Agenda 2025-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428 (2002). After summarizing different categories of inventoried resources (for purposes of determining whether, or the extent to which various provisions of the City’s Land Use Code Update (LUCU) impacted continued Goal 5 compliance) LUBA did appear to recognize that the Scenic Sites Working Paper map formed the basis of the acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Thus, while it is far from clear, it appears that 1982 Metro Plan acknowledged the Scenic Sites Working Paper as part of the [City’s] acknowledge[d] Goal 5 inventory. Consequently, while the Helikson analysis clearly articulates the limitations of that Working Paper and establishes that it was likely a preliminary assessment that was not intended to create a Goal 5 inventory of specific Goal 5 resource sites, it is what the City has adopted. And, that adoption cannot be collaterally attacked through the review of this application. [Footnote 17] The LUBA finding states: “Significant scenic areas are not listed in any resource list, but instead are mapped at Figure H-2. *** Buttes, ridgelines, viewpoints with public access, parklands, golf courses and cemeteries are identified as scenic areas on Figure H-2. Apparently some of the VWWH [significant vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat] sites [are also scenic areas.] Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428-29 (2002).” (Hearings Official’s Decision, page 14). The Hearings Official considered the narrative Scenic Sites Working Paper and Figure H-2 to be separate documents and determined that although the Working Paper is part of the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, there was not enough evidence in the record to conclude that Figure H-2 was acknowledged, or to conclude that the entire subject property was identified as a Goal 5 protected area on any document acknowledged by LCDC. The Hearings Official ultimately determined that, except for the clearly identified stream corridor located on the subject property, the record does not demonstrate that the subject property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Hearings Official declared that unless the applicant demonstrates that the entirety of the subject property is included in the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory or provides a demonstration of compliance with EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards, the criterion at EC 9.8325(3) is not satisfied. Summary of Applicant’s Argument The applicant argues that if the Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources, then the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 do not apply because the entire site is identified on Figure H-2 and therefore the entire site should be considered a Goal 5 resource. The applicant also argues that the mapped Goal 5 Water Resource (stream) located on a portion of the site operates to make the entire site a Goal 5 resource. The applicant points to Exhibit G of the applicant’s August 14, 2024, submission - the Hearings Official’s decision on the Willow Springs Subdivision application (ST 04-12) - and argues in that Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 20 of 42