development within the boundaries of the hazard area will be subject to the provisions of EC 9.6706 <br />through EC 9.6709 and Base Flood Elevation information will be required as part of the final plat. <br />(d) EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis <br />The applicant indicates that the proposed development includes dedication and construction of public <br />streets and drainages systems. This triggers the requirement for a Geological and Geotechnical <br />Analysis pursuant EC 9.6710(2)(b). However, the applicant argues that a geotechnical analysis is not <br />required because the proposal qualifies for an exemption to that requirement pursuant to EC 9.6710(3). <br />Staff agrees, but argues that this exemption does not absolve the applicant from the requirement that it <br />assure site stability. EC 9.8320(6). <br />EC 9.6710(3)(0 exempts "activities on land included in the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory" <br />from geologic and geotechnical reporting requirements. While the entire site is designated with the <br />/WR overlay, only the resource site (E76 B-3) is "included in the city's acknowledged Goal 5 _ <br />inventory." Therefore, the hearings official respectfully disagrees with the parties that this criterion <br />does not apply to a majority of the site. The evidence shows that a geotechnical analysis •1s warranted <br />to ensure that public and private utilities are installed safely, and to ensure that building sites can <br />accommodate the anticipated development. Therefore, a condition of approval is warranted to require <br />a Level 1 geotechnical report for that portion of the property that lies outside of the Goal 5 resource <br />boundary. <br />(e) EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site. <br />The standards for on-site pedestrian circulation at EC 9.6730 applies to institutional, office, <br />commercial, multi-family, or industrial developments and do not apply to the proposed single-family <br />residential PUD development. <br />(f) EC 9.6735 Public Access Required. <br />As proposed, all lots will have public street access either directly, or by easements consistent with the <br />applicable standards at EC 9.6735. Again, because lots 5 and 6 are not approved in this decision, <br />issues regarding access to areas west of the eastern arm of the riparian corridor are not considered here. <br />(g) EC 9.6750 Special Setback Standards. <br />The applicant indicates that Gilham Road is.designated as major collector with 30 feet west of <br />centerline, consistent with the minimum width set forth in EC Table 9.6870. However, the section of <br />Gilham Road north of Ashbury Street is not identified on the adopted street classification or street <br />right-of-way maps and functions as a local medium volume residential street. Moreover, the applicant <br />does not accurately show the existing right-of-way on the site plans; and staff recommends additional <br />right-of-way dedication in Gilham Road to provide 30 feet of right-of-way west of centerline as <br />reflected on the applicants site plans and in accordance with the applicants site plans and the maximum <br />width established for medium volume residential streets in EC Table 9.6870. With the recommended <br />dedication, a special setback is not required. Otherwise, all of the proposed streets with alignments <br />approved through this PUD would be fully dedicated and improved to city•standards in accordance <br />with EC Table 9.6870 and there are no known planned utility easements or long range infrastructure <br />plans within the development site that dictate a special setback for future public utility easement <br />acquisition to be noted on the final plat. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 31 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1159 <br />