development, provided that specific recommendations described in the investigation are <br />incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Additional discussion of the <br />geotechnical issues and Eugene Code requirements are found at EC 9.8320(6) and EC <br />9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis, later in this report. A condition of <br />approval is recommended at EC 9.8320(6) to ensure the recommendations of the <br />applicantÈs geotechnical/geologic investigation are carried out during future <br />development of the site. <br />Based on the available information and findings above, and with the condition of <br />approval as recommended at EC 9.8320(6) of this report, staff concludes that the PUD is <br />consistent with the applicable policy language. <br /> <br />Hearing testimony by Geologist Gunnar Schleider (his findings are attached as an <br />appendix to the Joint Response Committee report) demonstrates the inadequacy of the <br />applicantÈs geotech report and the false conclusions the city provides based on misleading <br />and inaccurate analysis. In brief: the applicantÈs geotech experts (Branch Engineering) <br />avoided making test pits where they would have found problems. They avoided testing <br />areas where houses are proposed on the east side of the slope, they ignored or failed to <br />analyze LIDAR data that shows landslide scarps in the middle of the proposed PUD, they <br />proposed preserving a stretch of land between lots 17 and 18 because of landslide danger <br />when the more significant landslide danger exists to the north on the slope. <br /> <br />That developments be reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of <br />different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open <br />space. <br /> <br /> <br />The Eugene Planning Staff argues: <br />The common area and individual conservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19 will <br />effectively act as one large continuous open space. These areas are also relatively steep <br />and heavily vegetated. This area is also identified on the Geotechnical Investigation <br />addendum (dated May 30, 2017) as any development in this area would require <br />significant grading and loss of vegetation. By preserving this area the applicant has <br />demonstrated a commitment to protecting the visual impacts for users of the Ribbon <br />Trail. Staff notes that the proposal also includes a preservation area along the northeast <br />boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public open space of <br /> <br />