March 28, 2018 <br />Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker <br />Hearings Official <br />c/o Nick Gioello <br />Planning <br />City of Eugene <br />via email: nick.r.gioello@ci.eugene.or.us <br />ST <br />RE: REBUTTAL OF BRANCH ENGINEERING 1 OPEN RECORD SUBMITTAL, <br />CAPITAL HILL PUD <br />Dear Ms. Gustafson-Lucker: <br />I am writing this memorandum to provide rebuttal of the 2-page letter dated March 20, 2018 from <br />Branch Engineering, addressing my testimony submitted at the Hearing on the Capital Hill PUD on <br />March 7. I will address Mr. Derrick’s points as arranged in his letter. <br />Introduction <br />Mr. Derrick indicates that the report and addendum submitted last year were “intended to be a <br />preliminary investigation for planning purposes with a concentration on the roadway layout”. <br />I am in complete agreement that the investigation appears to have been “preliminary” and “focused <br />on the roadway”, given that conducting subsurface exploration was limited to the gently sloping area <br />of the Capital Drive/Cupola Drive loop. <br />However, Branch Engineering’s investigative approach <br />fails to meet the requirements of EC 9.6710 (4)(b) and (5)(b) and EC 9.8320 (6) which require <br />investigation (including subsurface exploration) of all areas of a proposed PUD with slopes <br />. <br />greater than 10% <br />In addition, Mr. Derrick’s defense confirms that the layout of the PUD preceded the geotechnical <br />investigation, “placing the cart before the horse”. Ideally, geotechnical conditions would be <br />determined prior to deciding on a layout of both the lots and the infrastructure of a proposed PUD. <br />That way the PUD could be designed to fit into the geologic constraints of the site. This was never <br />done in this case, as the subsurface exploration focused on the pre-determined road alignment and <br />ignored the areas with more pertinent geotechnical/geologic constraints such as landslides. <br /> <br />