C.E.G., Certified Engineering Geologist. Their original report was supplemented by post- <br />hearing submittals responding to the Schlieder report and his post-hearing submittals. <br />It is important to keep in mind that the Branch Engineering report was an initial report on the site <br />done for site planning purposes. The ultimate conclusion of the report, stated in the Executive <br />Summary, was: "Our findings are that the proposed development is feasible from a <br />geologic and geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations within this report are <br />incorporated into the design and construction of the project." And the report concluded at page <br />7: "In our opinion there are no significant geologic hazards that would impede or otherwise <br />restrict the planned development as proposed. The proposed development will not adversely <br />impact the proposed site or adjacent properties." <br />The Schlieder lecture and report picked at details in the Branch Engineering Study. His report <br />concludes at page 10 that "[t]he PUD's design also fails to satisfy the requirements of EC <br />9.8320(6)." This conclusion does not target the ultimate conclusion of the Branch Engineering <br />Report that the development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, that there are no <br />significant geologic hazards that would impede the proposed development, and that further <br />geotechnical study is appropriate at each stage of the physical development process. <br />The post-hearing submittals of Branch Engineering and Schlieder get into a back and forth on <br />geotechnical issues. See especially the Branch Engineering March 20 response to the Schlieder <br />hearing presentation/report, which appears at Hearing Exhibit J to the Schirmer Satre March 21 <br />letter. <br />The city's take on the adequacy of the applicant's geotechnical work, as related to the relevant <br />questions at this stage of the review process, is stated at Staff Report 45: <br />Public Works staff confirms that the applicant's analysis, prepared by Ronald J. Derrick, <br />P.E., G.E. of Branch Engineering, Inc., which is dated February 6, 2017, meets the Level <br />One and Level Two Analysis requirements of EC 9.6710(4)(a) and (4)(b), which consists <br />of a compilation of record geological data, site conditions, sub-surface investigation and <br />testing and a report discussing site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed <br />development and other applicable standards. The report concludes that the site is <br />geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. The report also <br />includes a number of construction recommendations including the design and <br />construction of the proposed residential building pads and foundations and public <br />infrastructure improvements. Public Works staff concurs with this initial geotechnical <br />assessment. Adherence to the report recommendations will be required during the <br />subsequent PEPI permit, and building and site development processes, based on the <br />condition of approval recommended previously under EC 9.8320(6). <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />