Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 2, 2018 <br />Page 6 <br />In this case, the main arguments raised by GeoScience were the following: <br />1. There is ample evidence, both in mapping by DOGAMI and in a geomorphic review by <br />GeoScience of the immediate vicinity using LiDAR hillshade maps, that slope movements <br />are present, which affect both the PUD property itself, and the properties located at the <br />eastern base of the ridge, in the vicinity of Floral Hill Drive! <br />2. The applicant's engineering geologist indicated the presence of two landslide scarps on <br />the PUD property itself, in the vicinity of (then) Lot 16.5 <br />3. The applicant's geotechnical consultants (Branch Engineering) conducted subsurface <br />exploration on the 20% of the PUD property.' The investigation was deemed preliminary.' <br />4. The subsurface investigation was conducted only in the areas with the least likelihood of <br />producing evidence of previous slope movements. Areas previously identified as having <br />evidence of slides were not assessed as part of the test pit program.' <br />5. Even this limited "preliminary" investigation was conducted in a shoddy manner, using <br />non-standard engineering methods, and drawing wrong conclusions regarding even the most <br />basic geologic data at the site (bedrock type).' <br />6. Given the preliminary nature of the geotechnical investigation conducted by the applicant, <br />both the PUD's design and the boiler-plate recommendations contained in the report (see also <br />Item 2.b., below) are based on too little information to permit the conclusion that the <br />development does not pose a risk to public health and safety.10 <br />4GeoScience Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum Capital Hill PUD, <br />March 7, pp. 2&3 and associated Figures. <br />5Branch Engineering Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation Capital Hill PUD, 2/6/17, pp 6, 7, and Fig. 1 <br />'Branch Engineering Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation Capital Hill PUD, 2/6/17, p 5, Fig. 1, and logs. <br />'Branch Engineering Rebuttal, 3/20/18 p.1, second paragraph. <br />GGeoScience Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum Capital Hill PUD, <br />March 7, p. 4 <br />9GeoScience Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum Capital Hill PUD, <br />March 7,pp5&6. <br />10GeoScience Technical Review, Geotechnical/Geologic Assessment and Addendum Capital Hill PUD, <br />March 7, p. 8 <br />