1 Marshal's updated comments that the Fire Marshal was not (or no longer) <br />2 asserting that the PUD was an impediment to emergency response. The original <br />3 comments requested two specific measures to improve emergency access. <br />4 After two responsive measures were put in place or proposed, the Fire Marshal <br />5 issued updated comments noting the two measures and the improved <br />6 emergency access. The improved comments did not expressly state, one way or <br />7 another, whether the Fire Marshal believed that the PUD constituted an <br />8 impediment to emergency response, considering the two measures in place. <br />9 Nonetheless, a reasonable person could conclude that with the two measures in <br />10 place, responding to the only two specific requests made by the Fire Marshal, <br />11 and in the absence of an express statement otherwise, that the Fire Marshal did <br />12 not claim (or no longer claimed) that the PUD is an impediment to emergency <br />13 response. Accordingly, the Neighbors have not demonstrated that the hearings <br />14 official's findings on this issue are unsupported by substantial evidence. <br />15 C. Adequate Screening <br />16 EC 9.8320(3) requires a finding that the PUD "will provide adequate <br />17 screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated <br />18 building locations, bulk, and height." The hearings official found compliance <br />19 with EC 9.8320(3), based on: (1) the proposed open space tracts on the <br />20 property, which the hearings official found would provide substantial screening; <br />21 (2) the proposed residential development on the western half of the property <br />22 would be mostly obscured from view from the adjacent residential area to the <br />Page 43 <br />