PDF Page 59 <br />incorporated into the planning and design of the project. We recommend that more site <br />specific geotechnical studies be conducted once the project grading and building plans <br />have been developed." (See Page 4 of the Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June <br />28, 2013, Branch Engineering) <br />What this standard requires is "adequate review." "Adequate" is a relative term. Adequate for <br />what? Here the application is not for approval to build anything. It is for the most conceptual <br />approval (tentative PUD), which will give the applicant the right to apply for Final PUD and then <br />tentative subdivision approval and then final subdivision approval. "Adequate" in this context <br />means adequate to support conceptual approval. A demonstration of compliance with the <br />more detailed requirements of the code for geotechnica) analysis can come later, when those <br />standards are actually triggered. <br />The City has a firm track record of approving Tentative PUDs under this standard based on <br />studies just like the one submitted here, and imposing a condition requiring more detailed <br />analysis prior to actual development. <br />For example, see The Jewel on Bailey Hill (PDT 08-1)(Oct. 24, 2008) at page 6 (included as <br />Prehearing Submittal Exhibit 3-1.4). This was a 116 unit PUD on 33 acres: <br />"The applicant has submitted a preliminary geotechnica) analysis prepared by <br />GeoScience Inc dated November 16 2007 which generally concludes that the <br />subject property is well suited for the proposed development and that which <br />concludes that it will be practical to construct the proposed improvements using <br />conventional construction techniques. The report notes earthflow slope <br />movement present in the swale in the southern and southwestern portion of the <br />site, but that the extent of the feature appears to be essentially limited to the <br />area already set aside for Goal 5 (the Goal 5 resource corridor). Staff notes that <br />this area would be further evaluated in the event that this area is proposed for <br />development in conjunction with the abutting property to the south. Public <br />Works staff conceptually concurs with the subject assessment and <br />recommendations from the Geotechnical reconnaissance will be implemented <br />during the Privately Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI).process. <br />"Public Works staff cohfirms that the geotechnical assessment indicates that the <br />test pit areas do not have the formations of concern in this policy (i.e. shallow <br />soil depth over rock). However, it is possible that these conditions may be <br />present in other locations on the property that were not tested. Additionally the <br />report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and <br />construction of the proposed improvements and recommends that a qualified <br />geotechnica) professional be retained during construction to periodically review <br />excavations performed along.the infrastructure alignments, To implement these <br />recommendations, the following condition of approval is warranted: <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 2S <br />108 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 863 <br />