decision the Hearings Official found that the location of a Goal 5 resource on the site was <br />sufficient to qualify the entire site as an “area” included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory. The applicant also asserts the Hearings Official erred in “assigning” the applicant the <br />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 to carry <br />that burden. <br />Planning Commission’s Determination <br />The Planning Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that <br />Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources, and that the entire subject property is <br />depicted on Figure H-2. The Planning Commission agrees with City staff and the applicant that the <br />Scenic Sites Working Paper Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources, and that the <br />entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2; therefore, the Planning Commission finds that <br />the subject property is included in the City’s adopted Goal 5 inventory and the Tree Preservation <br />and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 do not apply. <br />Although the Hearings Official refers in several places to Figure H-2 as “unlabeled and undated,” <br />the Planning Commission finds that the legend on the upper right corner of the Figure clearly <br />identifies it as a part of the Natural Assets and Constraints Working Papers and also identifies it as <br />a Figure that depicts Scenic Areas. The cover page of the Scenic Sites Working Paper provides that <br />“[t]his is one of a series of working papers describing the Metro Area’s natural assets and <br />constraints.” The Planning Commission finds that Figure H-2 is clearly intended to be part of, and <br />to depict, the scenic areas narratively described in the Scenic Sites Working Paper. <br />Further, the Planning Commission acknowledges that LUBA has previously determined that both <br />the Scenic Sites Working Paper and Figure H-2 form a portion of the basis for the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Specifically, LUBA held: <br />Identifying the City’s Goal 5 inventory is not an easy task, in part because it was adopted <br />as part of a regional planning process, and in part because the inventory consists, as far <br />as we can tell, of a large collection of various “working papers” and maps. <br />Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428 (2002) (emphasis added). <br />LUBA then went on to discuss the various documents that make up the City’s acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory, including Figure H-2. <br />Significant scenic areas are not listed in any resource list, but instead are mapped at <br />Figure H-2... Buttes, ridgelines, viewpoints with public access, parklands, golf courses <br />and cemeteries are identified as scenic areas on Figure H-2. Apparently, some of the <br />VWWH [significant vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat] sites are also scenic areas. <br />Homebuilders v. City of Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428-29 (2002) (emphasis added). <br />Finally, in 2005, the Planning Commission finds that when the City updated its Goal 5 inventory to <br />include additional riparian, upland wildlife habitat, and wetland sites through the adoption of <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 21 of 42