Finally, the Planning Commission finds that when the City updated its Goal 5 inventory in 2005 to <br />include additional riparian, upland wildlife habitat, and wetland sites through the adoption of <br />Ordinance No. 20351, the City Council took the opportunity to clearly identify the documents that <br />make up the City's adopted and acknowledged Goal 5 inventories, including the 1978 Scenic Sites <br />Working Paper and to list them in Ordinance No. 20351. <br />Based on all the above, the Planning Commission hereby affirms the Hearings Official's <br />determination that Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources but reverses the <br />portion of the Hearings Official's decision finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the <br />entire subject property is included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Planning <br />Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that Figure H-2 is <br />part of, and clearly depicts, the scenic areas narratively described in the Scenic Sites Working <br />Paper, and there is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that Figure H-2 is one of the <br />documents that forms the City's adopted and acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The Planning <br />Commission also finds that there is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the <br />entire subject property is depicted on Figure H-2 and is therefore "included on the City's <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory;" therefore, the applicant need not demonstrate compliance with <br />the Tree Preservation and Removal Standards at EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885. <br />Because the Planning Commission has determined that the entire subject property is included in <br />the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the Commission need not address the applicant's sub - <br />assignments of error. However, in the interest of a thorough decision that addresses all the issues <br />raised by the applicant, the Commission provides the following analysis of the applicant's sub - <br />assignments of error below. <br />The Clear and Obiective Requirement <br />The Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's finding that a disagreement over <br />"what, if any, Goal 5 resource was acknowledged" does not make EC 9.8325(3) "sufficiently <br />ambiguous" so that it is not clear and objective under ORS 197A.400. <br />Specifically, the Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's determination that: <br />[D]espite the applicant's attempt to introduce an "ambiguity" into this evaluation, the <br />question [of] whether or to what extent the Goal 5 resource on the property was <br />acknowledged in 1982 does not render EC 9.8325(3) "ambiguous." As LUBA explained in <br />2022 [in] an appeal of the City's Accessory Dwelling ordinance [in] Conte v. City of Eugene <br />_ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2021-092 (May 9, 2022)1 "complicated does not equate to <br />ambiguous." Rather, LUBA explained: <br />To be "clear" for purposes of ORS [197A.400], a standard must be "clear enough for an <br />applicant to know what he must show during the application process," it must be <br />"easily understood and without obscurity or ambiguity," and it must not be capable of <br />multiple constructions that support diametrically opposed conclusions. <br />(See Hearings Official's Decision, page 11). <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 15 <br />