proposal includes the creation of streets and sidewalks within the development, which enable future <br />access to the multi-use path in Sterling Woods Drive to the north, Gilhain I:oad, and the undeveloped <br />city Park site to the south. This standard is satisfied. <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through <br />9.8680 where applicable. <br />The proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 15 trips during peak periods, <br />which is lower than the 100-trips-per-peak-hour standardthat triggers a Traffic Impact Analysis. In <br />addition, no special site conditions trigger the requirement under the provisions of EC 9.8650 through <br />EC 9.8680. This standard does not apply. , <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health ,and safety, including but not <br />limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment <br />to emergency response. <br />Neighbors testified that the proposal will add surface and stormwater to an area that is already <br />susceptible to flooding, and that discharges into the riparian corridors and stormwater drains will <br />overwhelm local systems, aggravating waterway pollution. Staff concluded that the standard had not <br />been satisfied, because the development of lots 5 and 6 will require drywel] systems that are not <br />generally allowed. In addition, staff asserted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the <br />proposed culvert crossing will be sized and designed to accommodate the appropriate stormflows. <br />Finally, staff concluded that the applicant's failure to address the /WR overlay provisions <br />correspondingly undermined its demonstration of compliance with respect Lo EC 9.8320(6). <br />The applicant responds with evidence that soakage trenches can adequately accommodate stormwater <br />from lots 5 and 6. As an alternative, the applicant argues that it can apply for an adjustment to the <br />stormwater development standards to allow for stormwater discharge into the ditch pursuant to <br />EC 9.4930(3)(h). The applicant asserts that conditions of approval can be imposed to preclude <br />development on lots 5 and 6 until it is demonstrated that soakage trenches can be accommodated <br />within the development envelopes on the site or the adjustment is granted. Finally, the applicant also <br />argues that conditions can be imposed to avoid the placement of structural Fill over the soakage <br />trenches. The hearings official concludes that for other reasons, development on lots 5 and 6 as <br />currently configured is not appropriate at this time. Therefore, the applicant will not need to install <br />soakage trenches as part of this development, unless the applicant revises its plan to meet resource site <br />and conservation setbacks. If the applicant seeks to develop in that area, it will need to demonstrate <br />that the stormwater design for that portion of the site will satisfy storinwatcr standards. <br />With respect to flood hazard, the proposed development is partially located within a designated flood <br />hazard area and future development will be subject to flood hazard standards that are sufficient to <br />address flood risks, as further addressed under EC 9.8320(11)(c). , <br />With regard to soil stability, Public Works staff indicates that the applicant has not submitted <br />information necessary to establish suitability for the proposed use. Staff concedes that the site does not <br />appear to exhibit any inherent soil stability hazards, conditions such as soil moisture and shrink/swell <br />may affect foundations and pavement integrity. The applicant stated that a Level One Geological and <br />Geotechnical Analysis will be provided upon request; however; one is not included in the record. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 24 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1152 <br />