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 #16: EC 9.8320(4)(c) Restoration or Replacement: The Hearings Official <br />asserted a claim unsupported by evidence that priori pacts on trees from existing <br />development have diminished, thus implying that impacts from proposed CHPUD <br />would have similar effect. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that protection of the natural resources must be evaluated within <br />the context of the allowed use. Over time, the ridgeline has been slightly modified; as the <br />natural features, and particularly the tree canopy, has grown back in those residential areas, <br />the impacts have been mitigated. With the proposed common and private preservation areas <br />and the proposed restoration plans, the development complies with the level of protection <br />contemplated by the Metro Plan and South Hills Study (Hearings Official Decision, page 38). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred in asserting that over time the ridgeline <br />has been slightly modified and those impacts have been mitigated with the regrowth of the <br />tree canopy, and therefore the proposed development complies with the level of protection <br />contemplated by the Metro Plan and South Hills Study. The appellant argues that the Ridgeline <br />Park purpose statement of the South Hills Study seeks to mitigate development above 901 feet <br />elevation. The removal of trees above 901 feet will likely cause other trees to fall, and the <br />approval of this PUD fails to protect trees above 901 feet elevation. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />With the required notes on the plan and specific conditions of approval that govern tree <br />preservation, restoration and replacement, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with <br />the code criteria. The applicant will be required to replace any identified preservation trees lost <br />during construction such as street widening, new street, driveways, stormwater facilities, <br />sewer, utilities and fences. In the future, the loss of any identified preservation trees will be <br />replaced by the Homeowner's Association, and any identified preservation trees lost within the <br />individual lot preservation areas of Lots 5 and 8 through 19, will be replaced by the lot owner, <br />except for preservation trees lost naturally without human intervention (Staff Report, page 24). <br />By requiring replacement trees for any identified preservation trees that are lost during <br />construction, the Hearings Official found that the proposed development complies with the <br />level of protection for residential use contemplated by the Metro Plan and South Hills Study. <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 #17. EC 9.6820(1) Cul-de-Sacs or Emergency Vehicle Turnarounds; EC <br />9.8320(5)(b) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems. The <br />Hearings Official erred in allowing the final 125 feet of Capital Drive to remain <br />unimproved, causing unsafe conditions. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 22 <br />