2nd Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-22-18 to 3-30-18)

Ms. Virginia Gustafson-Lucker March 28, 2018 Page 3 If the ridge were indeed underlain by massive igneous rock, as stated in the Branch Engineering Addendum of May 30, 2017, slope movements in this area would be unlikely. However, regardless of the published geologic maps, the vast majority of the site is clearly underlain by sandstone, which according to the maps is dipping to the NE at 11 E. Mydiagrammatic cross section conservatively shows a dip of 10 degrees for the sandstone, which is very close to the mapped dip. Therefore, the dip-slope-failure mechanism proposed in my previous submission is quite clearlya perfectly viable explanation for the observed slope instability on the east side of the ridge. The limited reliability of published geologic literature is the reason that EC 9.6710 requires subsurface exploration . to determine actual site conditions Biased Assessment The bias in the distribution of the test pits, which are located only in the gently sloping area not exhibiting evidence of slope movement is obvious even to the untrained eye. No further rebuttal is necessary. th However, Mr. Derricks statements regarding the landslide at E. 30 Avenue are incorrect. The slide I was referring to is located 0.36 miles from the S boundary of the proposed PUD and occurred in 1995. The report by Squier and Associates was written in 1996, as evidenced by the map of their th test pits, which is attached. Mr. Derrick may be confusing this slide with another one along E 30 Avenue located about 0.6 miles to the SE, which occurred during the 1980s when the access road to LCC was constructed. The reason for mentioning the 1996 slide at the W-bound exit ramp for Spring Boulevard was the fact that this slide is located along the same E-facing and E-dipping slope and likely resulted from placement of fill for the ramp embankment on a pre-existing failure deposit. This is very similar to the setup which is likely to occur along the east edge of the development portion of the proposed PUD, where fills will likelybe placed at the top of the slope to support houses and driveways. Placement of Level Spreaders This is the most interesting part of Mr. Derricks rebuttal. At face value, Mr. Derricks statements show that he is in complete agreement with mytestimonyregarding the placement of one of the PUDs main storm drainage systems: Little can I say on this topic, it is not the best idea in my opinion. Three claims I would like (emphasis added) .... to be able to make are: Clearly, Mr. Derrick recognizes that he cannot make these statements, given the design of the PUD which does not consider the geologic constraints of the site. And finally, Mr. Derrick states: I am not sure where that more suitable point of disposal is but it would be nice to find one.