Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

the instruction to use the five-foot intervals (and tried to use other methods), does not mean that the 20% rule here is not clear and objective. Similarly, there is no methodological difference between how staff measured slope and how Mr. Matthews (for Southeast Neighbors) measured slope-As explained below, both used the five-foot contour maps and both used a 25-foot measuring tool. Where the measuring tool touched two contour lines, the slope equals or exceeds 20 percent. Staff evaluated the slope between the five-foot contour intervals, as shown on sheets L2.0 and L3.0 of the applicant's plans, and concluded that site slopes exceed 20 percent in several locations. Staff highlighted those areas on Attachment C to the original staff report. The original staff report described the lots and portions of the subject property that staff evaluated as unbuildable due to this criterion. The supplemental staff report noted that the applicant's alternative site plan addressed the concerns raised in the original staff report, including evaluating the slope in 5-foot increments. The site plan and other PUD drawings that the applicant submitted on August 22, 2012 are consistent with the alternative site plan that the staff evaluated in the supplemental staff report. Southeast Neighbors provided testimony and evidence about the areas on the development site that exceeded 20 percent slopes. Southeast Neighbors' expert, Kevin Matthews, Artifice, Inc., testified that staff's approach to measuring slope was a good approach, but that a slight change would result in a more accurate measurement. Mr. Matthews demonstrated how using a 25-foot diameter circle (at scale, of course) rather than a 25-foot square (again, at scale) would ensure the most accurate measurement. In short, this is because if the square become skewed (such that it measures in a diamond shape rather than a square shape), it could capture areas that are less than 20 percent slope, or miss areas that are 20 percent slope or greater. Using a 25-foot diameter circle eliminates the problem of skewing the measuring tool because it is not possible to skew a circle. Mr. Matthews also did his analysis using computer software, but not mapping or design software such as GIS or CAD, rather than by hand. See Letter from Kevin Matthews to Charlie Tebbut (Aug. 20, 2012). It is not clear to the hearings official whether the software resulted in more accurate information, but the hearings official believes that the circular shape of the measuring tool did provide more accurate information. Mr. Matthews' map shows that staff's approach was remarkably accurate. Mr. Matthews' map shows only a few large areas not included on staff's map, but all of those are outside of the specific spots shown for development. Additionally, Mr. Matthews's map shows slight increases in the size of areas that staff had marked as slopes of 20 percent or greater. The hearings official believes that substantial evidence in whole record shows that staff's and Mr. Matthews' maps accurately measured slope, but that Mr. Matthews' map provides slightly most accurate information of slopes equal to or greater than 20 percent. His approach is essentially identical to the staff's approach, except for the shape of the measure tool, so the hearings official concludes that Mr. Matthews' map shows the areas that the applicant must avoid pursuant to this criterion. Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 13