addition to adherence with the specific recommendations included in that report, Public Works <br />referral comments also recommend the following condition of approval below to ensure that the <br />PUD will not create any significant risk of slope failure. <br />A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for <br />design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately <br />Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site <br />development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure, and residences on <br />individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the <br />recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the related <br />geotechnical analysis. <br />The hearings official agrees with this Public Works recommended condition; and also agrees that <br />the applicant's preliminary geotechnical investigation provides substantial evidence that the PUD <br />will not be a significant risk to public health and safety due to slope failure. While the <br />GeoSciences and forestry evaluations provided by the Response Committee disagree with that <br />analysis, their interpretations and analyses do not factor in the very numerous, specific <br />recommendations in the Geotechnical investigation to ensure against slope failure, and do not <br />establish that subject to the listed recommendations, the proposed development puts the property <br />at risk for slope failure. <br />S'tormwater or Flood Hazard: The proposed development site is located outside of any flood <br />hazard areas and does not create a flood hazard. Stormwater flood control requirements are <br />further addressed below, under the related standards at EC 9.8320(10)(j). <br />Emergency Response: This criterion requires a finding that the proposed PUD will not be an <br />impediment to emergency response. <br />As explained in the Staff Report, the Fire Marshal's initial review comments described the <br />restricted access along Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive south of the proposed development <br />as currently causing significant delays in Fire Department response for several reasons: <br />unusually high opposing traffic, a collision of vehicles, road construction, construction vehicles <br />related to residential housing, down trees or wires, and other drivers attempting ill-timed turn <br />around attempts or trying to park. Those comments also expressed concern with the potential <br />impact on the timely response of fire vehicles responding to major medical emergencies and fire <br />incidents. The Fire Marshal's office indicated that minimizing restrictions along existing <br />roadways leading up to the development site would greatly improve the ability of the fire <br />department and other emergency responders to respond quickly. To improve access to the site <br />the Fire Marshal's office recommended that, "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs be installed on both <br />sides of existing roads that lead up to the Capital Hill PUD area. <br />In addition to the Fire Marshal's recommendation, the City received a petition signed by 31 area <br />residents, titled, "Petition of Concerns Over Hazardous Street Parking on Capital Drive", <br />requesting an investigation of the increase in parking in the 2600 block of Capital Drive based on <br />the residents' concern regarding hazardous conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and <br />emergency responders. In response to these concerns, the City's Traffic Engineer executed <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 53 <br />