(Hearings Official Decision, page 54). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred in finding that the proposed PUD will not <br />be an impediment to emergency response. The Fire Marshal's comments indicate emergency <br />access will be improved, not that it will be adequate. Removal of on-street parking does not <br />remedy the substandard road width and lack of a 5-foot sidewalk. The Fire Marshal's office <br />raised many other concerns in the record about emergency access, but the Hearings Official <br />only focused on removal of parking from Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />There was no error on part of the Hearings Official in finding conformance with EC 9.8320(6) <br />regarding emergency response. Staff concluded for the same reasons as the Hearings Official <br />listed, that the proposed development complies with this criterion. The removal of parking <br />from both sides of Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive elicited revised comments from the Fire <br />Marshal's office indicating improved emergency access and evacuation capabilities along the <br />route. Additional public health and other necessary infrastructure improvements which include <br />the addition of two fire hydrants, major improvements to the EWEB water delivery <br />infrastructure, the requirement to sprinkle new residential units, and the addition of the Cupola <br />Drive which provides a street loop system that efficiently allows for fire safety and emergency <br />services vehicles to safely and efficiently maneuver once on site, will contribute significantly to <br />a reduced risk to public health and safety. <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 #22: The Hearings Official erred in not requiring fire sprinklers in the <br />proposed development. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The requirement for fire sprinklers was not addressed in the Hearing Official's Decision. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The applicant has stated that fire sprinklers would be installed in all new homes to be <br />constructed. There is no requirement in the Hearings Official's decision to actually include the <br />fire suppressing sprinklers in this proposed development. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 29 <br />