edge of Capital Drive abutting Lots 18 and 19, all within the existing right-of-way, is roughly <br />proportional to the impact that the proposed development will have on the City's <br />transportation facilities. <br />Appeal Issue #19: C 9.6870 Street Width. The Hearings Official erred in determining <br />compliance with EC 9.6870 Street Width. The street width at the sharp curve o Capital <br />where lots 18 and 19 have a driveway access will not be improved to 21 feet in width, <br />and there is no proposed or existing sidewalk at this part of the CHPUD development. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that the proposed paving and right-of-way widths comply with the <br />widths identified in Table 9.6870. Public Works referral comments confirm that no additional <br />dedication or special setbacks for street right-of-way are required. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by finding that the proposed development <br />meets the standards of EC 9.6870 Street Width since the portion of Capital Drive adjacent to <br />Lots 18 and 19 is less than 21 feet in width and has no sidewalk. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />Low volume local streets are required to have between 20 and 28 feet of paving width along <br />with 45 to 55 feet of right-of-way width. The applicant's proposed street classifications, and <br />paving and right-of-way widths, comply with the widths identified in Table 9.6870, and are <br />sufficient to construct the required improvements in Capital Drive, which includes a 21 foot <br />wide paved street with curbs and gutters on both sides and a 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk on <br />the east side of the street (Staff Report, page 29). However, there was no requirement made <br />for street improvements along the frontage of Lots 18 and 19, which has been addressed with <br />additional findings and a condition of approval that modifies the Hearings Official's decision to <br />require 21 feet of paving and curbside sidewalks along the frontage of these lots, under Appeal <br />Issue #18 above. <br />Appeal Issue #20: EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health <br />and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />Regarding soil erosion, the Hearings Official found, "The applicant provided an analysis to <br />demonstrate that the proposed PUD does not pose a significant risk due to soil erosion. <br />Because of the size of the proposed development, an erosion prevention permit will be <br />required before any ground disturbing activities". The Hearings Official noted that the <br />applicant's geotechnical investigation found no indications of recent or extensive slope failures <br />observed (Hearings Official Decision, page 51). The Hearings Official also agreed with the <br />proposed Public Works condition of approval for a geotechnical analysis for all future permits <br />and concluded that the applicant's preliminary geotechnical investigation provided substantial <br />evidence of no significant risk to public health and safety due to slope failure. The Hearings <br />Official also noted "While the GeoSciences and forestry evaluations provided by the Response <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 26 <br />