(a) The Hearings Official erred by assigning to the applicant the burden of proving whether <br />Figure H-2 in the Scenic Sites Working Paper is a part of the City's acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory. <br />(b) If the Hearings Official cannot determine whether the subject property is on the Scenic <br />Areas inventory, then that piece of the Goal 5 program is not "clear" enough to be <br />applied. <br />(c) The City should decide that the acknowledged Goal 5 Scenic Sites Inventory <br />is shown on Figure H-2. <br />The relevant approval criterion at EC 9.8325(3) states: <br />EC 9.8325(3): For areas not included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the <br />PUD preserves existing natural resources by compliance with the provisions of EC 9.6880 <br />to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. <br />Background <br />When an applicant chooses to have a PUD application evaluated pursuant to the City's <br />Housing/Clear and Objective standards, as this applicant did, if the property that is the subject of <br />the application is not included on the City's acknowledged Statewide Planning Goal 5 inventory, <br />the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the tree preservation and removal standards in <br />EC 9.6880 to 9.6885. However, if the subject site is included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory, the applicant does not need to demonstrate compliance with the City's tree <br />preservation and removal standards. <br />In this case, the applicant has not submitted evidence demonstrating compliance with the City's <br />tree preservation and removal standards. If the subject property is not included on the City's <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the applicant's lack of demonstrated compliance with the City's <br />tree preservation and removal standards is a basis for denial of the application. Therefore, the <br />question on appeal is whether the entire subject property is included on the City's acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory; specifically, whether Figure H-2 is included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory, and whether the entire subject property is depicted on that map. <br />City staff have always taken the position that 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 both the Eugene City Council and the Oregon Land Use Board of <br />Appeals (LUBA) as part of the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory and was acknowledged by <br />Oregon's Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). <br />The applicant initially argued to the Hearings Official that a different map (Map 3) was <br />acknowledged by LCDC instead of Figure H-2. Map 3 does not depict the subject property as a <br />Goal 5 protected area. The applicant initially argued to the Hearings Official that only the stream <br />running through the subject property is protected by Goal 5; the rest of the property is not <br />protected. Planning staff agreed with the applicant that the stream corridor is protected by Goal 5 <br />but continued to take the position that the entire site is included as part of the City's Goal 5 <br />inventory by way of the Scenic Sites Working Paper, as demonstrated by its depiction on Figure H- <br />2., and as discussed in more detail below. <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 10 <br />