Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885. The fact that a such demonstration might be complicated <br />does not make the standard unclear or subjective. See Piculell v. City of Eugene, 80 Or LUBA 492, <br />495-96 (2019) (LUBA determined that the fact that the Hearings Official and Planning Commission <br />relied on different rationales to determine that a property was located within the boundaries of <br />the South Hills Study did not make EC 9.8325(2), which is applicable to properties within the <br />boundaries of the South Hills Study, either unclear or subjective). This sub-assignment of error is <br />denied. <br />Willow Springs Decision <br />The Planning Commission finds that the text of the Willow Springs decision does not support the <br />applicant’s argument that location of a Goal 5 protected resource (such as a stream) on a portion <br />of a development site automatically means that the entire site is included in the City’s Goal 5 <br />inventory. The Hearings Official’s Willow Springs decision states a few times that the Willow <br />Springs property is included in the City’s Goal 5 inventory, but never explicitly states that Goal 5 <br />protection of a specific identifiable resource extends Goal 5 protections to the entire development <br />site. The Planning Commission finds that the Willow Springs decision does not constitute <br />substantial evidence that Goal 5 protection of a specific identifiable resource extends Goal 5 <br />protections to the entire development site. This sub-assignment of error is denied. <br />Burden of Proof <br />The Planning Commission finds that LUBA’s decisions make it extremely clear that the applicant <br />bears the burden of proof to establish compliance with the applicable approval criteria. <br />Woodburn Petroleum, LLC v. City of Woodburn, ___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA No. 2022-077, January 9, <br />2023, slip op at 6), quoting Wilson v. Washington County, 63 Or LUBA 314, 322 (2011) (“[A]n <br />applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that an application complies with applicable <br />approval standards….”). The Planning Commission finds that the applicant’s statements to the <br />contrary are inconsistent with applicable law. This sub-assignment of error is denied. <br />For all the reasons discussed above, the Planning Commission reverses the portion of the Hearings <br />Official’s decision determining that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the entire subject <br />property is included on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Planning Commission finds <br />that there is substantial evidence in the record to show that Figure H-2 is part of, and clearly <br />depicts, the scenic areas narratively described in the Scenic Sites Working Paper, and that Figure <br />H-2 is one of the documents that forms the City’s adopted and acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br />The Planning Commission also finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to show that <br />the entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2 and “included on the City’s acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory,” and therefore the applicant need not demonstrate compliance with the Tree <br />Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885. <br />Appeal Issue #3: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred when making a finding of compliance with <br />the secondary emergency access standard on a condition prohibiting any parking on the streets <br />with 21-foot paving. <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The relevant approval criterion for this appeal issue is EC 9.8325(4)(a) which requires compliance <br />Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 23 of 42