Eugene Planning Commission <br />May 2, 2018 <br />Page 11 <br />simply dismissed, and the statements by Branch Engineering are incorporated into the findings <br />without any attempt at discussing why Branch's statements are "detailed factual" and GeoScience's <br />apparently "made up". Similarly, whereas the pavement of Floral Hill Drive is flat, both in areas <br />with an overlay and in those areas where original pavement forms the driving surface (see site <br />photos in both GeoScience Addendum, 3/21/18 and Branch Rebuttal 3/28/18), the exception is <br />located where the road crosses the boundary of two of the landslide lobes mapped by GeoScience. <br />The road experiences essentially the same traffic loading along all of its path, and yet shows <br />deformation only in this critical area. Nonetheless, Branch Engineering attributes this to "in my <br />opinion rutting of an old roadway that likely has an inadequate structural section..." <br />In finding that the deformation exhibited by the pavement of Floral Hill Drive is <br />anthropogenic, the HO erred in failing to consider the totality of facts in evidence. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The evidence in the record indicates that the applicant's consultants conducted a half-hearted study <br />of the site designed to find as few problems as possible. Despite not completely succeeding in this <br />quest (finding some evidence of slope stability issues), they presented the foregone conclusion that <br />the proposed development is feasible without an increased risk of slope stability and stormwater <br />impact to the PUD itself and to surrounding areas. <br />Our analysis shows that although development is not impossible, the applicant's work to date is <br />inadequate to ensure that the development will occur without adverse impacts mostly to the Laurel <br />Hill Valley below the site to the east. The geologic constraints of the site have not been sufficiently <br />defined to allow an appropriate engineering design. All other factors aside, this is most pointedly <br />demonstrated by the proposed stormwater disposal system consisting of two 38-foot, side-by-side <br />"level spreaders" on a 50% slope in fine-grained soil with a design discharge of the equivalent of 29 <br />garden hoses. <br />However, the Hearings Official decided to accept statements and opinions from the applicant's <br />consultants apparently without conducting much checking of the underlying evidence or lack thereof. <br />As a result, in her decision and findings regarding the application for Tentative PUD for the Capital <br />Hill PUD, the Hearings Official erred in several regards: <br />For EC 9.8320(2) (South Hills Study) the errors are: <br />1. The HO failed to note that, by their own admission, the investigation conducted by Branch <br />Engineering was "a preliminary study" rather than an "in-depth, detailed analysis". <br />2. The HO failed to consider evidence that Branch Engineering's areally limited work cannot <br />"adequately consider both on-site and off-site impacts" as required by the SHS. <br />