INTRODUCTION <br />This report presents the results of a review of available information regarding the issues of slope <br />stabilityand soil erosion in the area proposed for the Capital Hill PUD. The work included review <br />of the applicant’s geotechnical consultant’s report (Branch Engineering 2/6/17) and an addendum <br />to that report (Branch Engineering, 5/30/17), stormwaterplans for the PUD, published maps of <br />landslides from DOGAMI, and original mapping of likely slope movement features in the vicinity <br />of the PUD on LiDAR “hillshade” maps. The review was performed for the Capital Hill PUD <br />Response Committee consisting of members of the Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood Association <br />and the Fairmount Neighbors. The review was conducted in its entirety by Dr. Gunnar Schlieder, <br />an Oregon Certified Engineering Geologist with 29 years of experience working in the Eugene area. <br />The review was tailored to address several portions of Eugene Code Chapter 9, including EC 9.6710 <br />(Geological and Geotechnical Analysis) and EC 9.8320 (6) (TPUD Approval Criteria General -PUD <br />will not present a risk to public safety...). <br />At present it is unclear whether EC 9.6710 (Geological and Geotechnical Analysis) is applicable to <br />the proposed development because the status as an Acknowledged Goal 5 Resource is unknown. <br />On the one hand, the application addresses the approval criteria as if it were not included in the <br />City’s Acknowledged Goal 5 Inventory and presents a map indicating that the subject propertyis not <br />included. <br />But on page 20 of the Staff Report staff indicates "...the subject property is included on the City’s <br />acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, per the April 12,1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper... ". However, <br />that working paper and its presumed map is not in evidence, and nowhere to be found on the City's <br />web site. In fact, none of the information about Goal 5 resources on the City's web site includes the <br />subject property. Judging from the title "Scenic Sites Working Paper" it would indicate that this was <br />a preliminary document, and not officially adopted by City Council. <br />EC 9.8320(6) Requires that: T <br />he PUD will notbe a significant risk to public health and safety, including <br />but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response. <br />The Eugene Code is silent on the details of implementing this code provision but does address the issueof <br />geotechnicalrisk and its assessment under EC 9.6710. If EC 9.6710 is not applicable, this leaves no guidance <br />in the code on how to address the issue of geotechnical risk in the specific case of this PUD. Therefore, it <br />appears that a prudent approach would be to at least use the provisions of EC 9.6710 as guidance. The <br />applicant’s representatives apparently agree with this approach as they purport to have conducted the <br />equivalent of a Level 2 Geotechnical Assessment per EC 9.6710. <br />Therefore, this review addresses the geotechnical hazards of the site as relevant to both EC 9.6710 <br />and EC 9.8320 (6). By necessity, the review focuses on the issues of slope stability and soil erosion <br />which affect the planned PUD to a large degree. The applicable code sections are quoted as <br />following: <br />1 <br />Capital Hill PUD Geotechnical Review, GeoScience, Inc. 3/7/18 <br /> <br />