PDF Page 50 <br />The South Hills Study was addressed in detail in the 1981-1982 acknowledgment process. It <br />was relied upon in the Metro Plan as part of the city's Goal 5 program to limit impacts on <br />acknowledged scenic areas. See DLCD Staff Report (August 14, 1981) at 15-16. For a summary <br />overview of SHS in the Goal 5 program, see Home Builders Assn, of Lone County v, City of <br />Eugene, 41 Or LUBA 370, 428, 431 (2002). <br />The South Hills area was identified as a visual resource in the Goal 5 scheme, DLCD Staff Report <br />(August 14, 1981) at 15-16. The visual resource area included most of the South Hills area, and <br />was shown on Map H-2, which appeared in the Scenic Sites Working Paper. supporting the <br />Metro Plan.3 The DLCD Staff Report explained that the South Hills study included an ESEE <br />analysis. Id. at 16 para 1. It included a range of policies limiting residential development in the <br />South Hills. Id. at 15 para 6. The residential density cap (5 du/acre east of Friendly Street) is one <br />of those implementing measures. <br />For a general discussion by the Hearing Official for how the SHS fits into the Goal 5 Scenic Sites <br />inventory, see Hearing Official Decision, Deerbrook PUD, PDT 12-1 (Sept. 21, 2012), reversed <br />Planning Commission Decision, PDT 12-1 (Dec. 17, 2012), affirmed, Southeast Neighbors <br />Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA . (LUBA No. 2013-004, July 12, 2013), <br />oppeol pending. The Hearing Official and Commission decisions are Exhibits 2-1.3 and 2-1.4, <br />respectively, in the applicant's Prehearing Exhibits. - <br />(b) Without the right to the 5 du/ac cap, then the owner is not assured the right to <br />develop any housing. <br />One of the most dominant themes in the Staff Report is that the applicant should propose <br />fewer units. The Staff Report explains that with fewer units the applicant could do a better job <br />preserving other things, such as: leave the steeper slopes undeveloped (page 9 para 1); <br />develop with fewer streets (page 12 para 2); leave more vegetation (page 12 para 2); leave <br />more of the heavily forested area (page 13 Para 3); and so on. <br />Each time the development density is reduced, it is possible to save other resources that the <br />SHS intends to be preserved -steep slopes, views, vegetation, trees, riparian vegetation <br />associated _with crossings, and the like. There is an indirect correlation between developing <br />housing consistent with the cap and preserving resources/values that are supposed to be <br />preserved. That leads to the logical conclusion that the best PUD is one that does not allow any <br />housing, or maybe, say, just one house on the 120 acres. One couldn't do a better job of <br />achieving the SHS objectives than that- maintaining the status quo ante. Looking at the SHS <br />objectives, it would be hard to make a case for putting a second dwelling on the site. <br />3 See: id. at 4,*Aem 1 and at 15-16; Scenic Sites Working Paper (April 12, 1978) at Figure H-2, which 15 part G to the <br />Natural Assets and constraints Working Paper (April 12, 1978). The Working Paper is Exhibit 2-1.2. <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 16 - <br />99 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 854 <br />