the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. The applicant further argues that the City, not the <br />applicant, has the burden to show what constitutes the City's Goal 5 inventory for Scenic Sites. <br />The applicant notes that in the event that Planning Commission finds the entire site is not on the <br />Scenic Sites inventory, the applicant will request an opportunity to provide the geotechnical <br />certification in an ORS 197.522 proceeding. <br />Planning Commission's Determination <br />As discussed in detail under Appeal Issue #2 above, the Planning Commission finds that the subject <br />property is depicted as a Goal 5 protected area on a map (Figure H-2) that is a part of the City's <br />adopted 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, which was identified by both LUBA and the Eugene City <br />Council as part of the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory and was acknowledged by the Land <br />Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). <br />The Planning Commission finds that because the entire site is included on the City's acknowledged <br />Goal 5 inventory, the applicant is not required to provide evidence demonstrating compliance <br />with EC 9.8325(5)(d) and EC 9.6710(6). <br />The Planning Commission also finds that EC 9.8325(5)(d) and EC 9.6710(6) are clear and objective. <br />Those two code provisions clearly require an applicant to either demonstrate that the subject <br />property is included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, or to demonstrate compliance <br />with the geotechnical standards at EC 9.6710. The fact that such a demonstration might be <br />complicated does not make the standard unclear or subjective. See Piculell v. City of Eugene, 80 <br />Or LUBA 4921 495-96 (2019) (LUBA determined that the fact that the Hearings Official and <br />Planning Commission relied on different rationales to determine that a property was located <br />within the boundaries of the South Hills Study did not make EC 9.8325(2), which is applicable to <br />properties within the boundaries of the South Hills Study, either unclear or subjective.). <br />Based on all the above, the Planning Commission hereby modifies the Hearings Official's decision <br />by determining that Figure H-2 is an acknowledged map of Goal 5 resources and that the entire <br />subject property is depicted on Figure H-2; therefore, the EC 9.6710(3)(f) exempts the applicant <br />from the requirements in EC 9.8325(5)(d) and EC 9.6710(6) for a Geological and Geotechnical <br />Analysis. <br />Appeal Issue #8: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by not finding that the proposed <br />stormwater system can comply with the city standards for stormwater, even if the system must <br />be adjusted in the event Randy Lane must be a public road. <br />Hearings Official's Decision <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 37 through 40 of her decision, under the <br />approval criteria at EC 9.8325(5) which requires compliance with: <br />(j) EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 regarding stormwater flood control, quality, flow control <br />for headwaters area, oil control, source control, easements, and operation and <br />maintenance. <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 24 <br />