d. Significant visual impact. <br />As reflected on the applicant's site plans and in other supporting application materials, the <br />steepest slopes and higher percentage of vegetation occur on the eastern side of the PUD site. <br />The Tract A preservation area runs the entire length of the eastern border. All of the lots that <br />border Tract A (Lots 5, and 8 through 19) also contain varying sized preservation areas. These <br />combined preservation areas will locate potential building sites on these lots closer to the top <br />of the ridgeline that this site is located on. This will in effect provide clustering of home sites <br />where less trees and vegetation are located. Although contrary to the above purposes of <br />clustering development areas in the lowest elevations and preserving open space in the highest <br />elevations, the physical characteristics of the site, with the steepest slopes and higher <br />percentage of vegetation in the lowest elevations, preclude these purposes. The greatest <br />degree of previous site disturbance has occurred in the higher elevations of the site. This <br />includes the previous construction of three homes, a multi-unit building, a barn and grading of <br />a dirt vehicle trail where the proposed private road (Cupola Drive) would be located. It also <br />appears that a number of trees were removed over the preceding years since the number of <br />mature trees at the highest elevations of the site are significantly fewer than in the lower <br />elevations with minimal ground disturbance. Clustering of home sites in the mid- to higher <br />elevations will limit the ground disturbance and allow for the preservation of more trees and <br />vegetation, which is consistent with the above policies to the extent possible, given the existing <br />site conditions and constraints. <br />A key factor involved in the correct interpretation of this policy relates to its use of the word <br />"encourage." While the policy itself requires that the PUD procedures be utilized for the <br />purposes listed, the word "encourage" affords substantial latitude in determining the meaning <br />and effect of the policy on a given development proposal. As such, the Hearings Official did not <br />err in her analysis of "overall impacts" since requiring strict compliance with the purposes listed <br />would actually run afoul of the South Hills Study intent, based on the existing site <br />characteristics and constraints discussed above (e.g. requiring development impacts to be <br />located on the steepest slopes at lower elevations, and where most existing significant trees <br />exist). Accordingly, the Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's interpretation <br />as the proper method to apply the policy given the circumstances, and to the extent that it can <br />even be applied as an approval standard. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue I#5: EC 9.8320(2) - The Hearings Official's findings regarding the <br />consistency of the application are based on two errors: <br />1. She failed to consider that, by their own admission, the investigation conducted by <br />Branch Engineering was "a preliminary study" rather than an 'in-depth, detailed <br />analysis. " <br />2. She failed to consider evidence that Branch Engineering's really limited work <br />cannot "adequately consider both on-site and off-site impacts" as required by the <br />SHS. For discussion see Appendix A, Memorandum from Gunnar Schlieder, Ph.D., <br />CEG, GeoScience Inc. dated May 2, 2018. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 8 <br />