Committee disagree with that analysis, their interpretations and analyses do not factor in the <br />very numerous, specific recommendations in the Geotechnical investigation to ensure against <br />slope failure, and do not establish that subject to the listed recommendations, the proposed <br />development puts the property at risk for slope failure" (Hearings Official Decision, page 53). <br />Summary o Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the applicant cannot demonstrate that the PUD as currently designed <br />will not be a risk to public health and safety, or prevent soil erosion. The appellant argues that <br />the Hearings Official erred by relying on "future work" by the applicant to address the question, <br />and that EC 9.8320(6) requires that this determination be made at the Tentative PUD <br />application stage, not at the PEPI or building permit stages (staff notes that the appellant does <br />not indicate what specific "future work" is being referred to in its argument). The appellant <br />further asserts that the Hearings Official erred by claiming the applicant's geological reports <br />contain "numerous specific recommendations to minimize the potential for slope failure". The <br />appellant argues that this is not true and that one of the recommendations appears to increase <br />the potential for slope failure by allowing overly steep fill slopes with inadequate drainage (staff <br />notes that the appellant does not indicate which specific recommendation it is referring to). <br />Additional related arguments are summarized below: <br />® The Hearings Official erred in accepting Branch Engineering's explanation of the tree <br />deformation on the site as having resulted from "soil creep" only, and ignoring evidence <br />by GeoScience (on behalf of the appellant) of geomorphic evidence of landslides. <br />® The Hearings Official erred in finding that the deformation exhibited by the pavement of <br />Floral Hill Drive is anthropogenic, and failing to consider the totality of facts in evidence <br />by only accepting statements and opinions by the applicant's consultant. <br />® The Hearings Official erred by approving a design with a level spreader stormwater <br />discharge facility which will significantly increase the risk of off-site impact from slope <br />movements and soil erosion. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />Other than the modification to Condition of Approval #10 as discussed previously under Appeal <br />Issue #5 (related to the approval criteria at EC 9.8320(2) concerning South Hills Study <br />requirements for geotechnical review), there was no error on the part of the Hearings Official in <br />finding conformance with EC 9.8320(6). <br />Since building activity would occur over a long time, first as basic infrastructure is installed, <br />followed by individual homes built by property owners, it is necessary that erosion prevention <br />permits will be required prior to any ground-disturbing activities. <br />A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer was submitted by the applicant and reviewed <br />by Public Works staff. Staff notes that the application is technically exempt from the codified <br />standards because the site is included on the City's adopted Goal 5 inventory according to EC <br />9.6710(3)(e). Regardless, Public Works staff found that those standards have been met with the <br />applicant's report. A condition of approval was imposed by the Hearings Official and modified <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 27 <br />