by the Planning Commission as discussed above with respect to Appeal Issue #5. That modified <br />approval condition is necessary to guarantee that the recommendations in the applicant's <br />geotechnical analysis are carried out during future development of individual lots. The report <br />concludes that the site is geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed <br />development, and includes a number of construction recommendations including the design <br />and construction of the proposed residential building pads and foundations and public <br />infrastructure improvements. Public Works staff concurred with this initial geotechnical <br />assessment, and the Hearings Official agreed based on all the available evidence in the record. <br />As modified, the condition will require adherence to the recommendations in the preliminary <br />geotechnical report as well as all subsequent geotechnical analyses required to be submitted <br />with each permit as the site develops over time. The modified condition also ensures that the <br />subsequent geotechnical analyses address potential off-site impacts. With these modifications, <br />the Planning Commission finds that EC 9.8320(6) is met. <br />The development site is at the top of a hill, outside of any flood hazard areas, and does not <br />create a flood hazard. A discharge point for the Cupola Drive is located at the bottom of the <br />conservation area between Lots 13 and 14. Runoff for this drainage basin will be collected into <br />various underground storage tanks that will reduce the peak discharge rate and release into the <br />eastern conservation area west of the Ribbon Trail, via level spreaders. Based on existing <br />topography, the proposed drainage system closely mimics existing runoff locations and the <br />peak discharge rate being released out of each level spreader mimics that of the existing <br />conditions (Staff Report, pages 49 and 51). <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 #21: 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, storm water or flood <br />hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. The Hearings Official erred in <br />finding that the evidence in the record indicates the proposed PUD will not be an <br />impediment to emergency response. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that the Fire Marshal's initial review comments described the <br />restricted access along Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive south of the proposed development <br />as currently causing significant delays in Fire Department response for several reasons: <br />unusually high opposing traffic, a collision of vehicles, road construction, construction vehicles <br />related to residential housing, down trees or wires, and other drivers attempting ill-timed turn <br />around attempts or trying to park. Those comments also expressed concern with the potential <br />impact on the timely response of fire vehicles responding to major medical emergencies and <br />fire incidents. The Hearings Official noted that that the Fire Marshal's office indicated that <br />minimizing the restriction along Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive leading up the development <br />site would greatly improve fire and emergency respond times. The Fire Marshal's review <br />comments recommended that, "No Parking- Fire Lane" signs be installed on both sides of <br />existing roads that lead up to the Capital Hill PUD area (Hearings Official Decision, page 53). <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 28 <br />