Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

inventory, in accordance with the April 12, 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper, which designates the subject site as Natural Sites of Visual Prominence and Prominent and Plentiful Vegetation. Notwithstanding this exemption, both the South Hills Study Development Standards policy and the requirements at EC 9.8320(6) regarding slope failure, require a geotechnical evaluation. To the extent the requirements of 9.6710 can inform the analysis required by the other code requirements, those criteria remain relevant to this evaluation. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical/geologic investigation and addendum, based on the South Hills Study Development Standards policy. Public Works staff confirms that the applicant's analysis, prepared by Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.E. of Branch Engineering, Inc., which is dated February 6, 2017, meets the Level One and Level Two Analysis requirements of EC 9.6710(4)(a) and (4)(b), which consists of a compilation of geological data, site conditions, sub-surface investigation and testing and a report discussing site and soil characteristics in relation to the proposed development and other applicable standards. The report concludes that the site is geologically and geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. The report also includes a number of construction recommendations including the design and construction of the proposed residential building pads and foundations and public infrastructure improvements. Public Works referral comments (page 14) concur with this initial geotechnical assessment. Adherence to the report recommendations will be required during the subsequent PEPI permit, and building and site development processes, based on the condition of approval identified under EC 9.8320(6). The Response Committee submitted its own geotechnical evaluation. Based primarily on interpretation and extrapolation of LIDAR mapping and DOGAMI reports, the review by Dr. Gunnar Schlieder of GeoSciences takes issue with nearly every finding of the applicant's investigation. Obviously, based on their evaluations and approaches, qualified professionals can reach different conclusions. However, for purposes of compliance with the City's PUD criteria, and using the standards of EC 9.6710(4) as guidance, the question is whether the applicant has sustained its burden to establish that it has completed an adequate Level One and Level Two Analysis. Essentially, the applicant must establish that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. To be certain, additional work must be completed. To that end, the applicant's report includes an extensive list of recommendations for additional geotechnical work that must be completed to ensure that the public and private facilities within the PUD are located, designed and constructed in a manner that provides for public health, safety and welfare. Dr. Schlieder's concerns regarding slope stability are addressed above in findings of compliance with EC 9.6820(6). However, as noted in those findings, while challenging much of the Geological and Geotechnical Analysis, Dr. Schlieder does not establish that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of an adequate Level One and Level Two Analysis. And, significantly, his review does not establish how the numerous recommendations of the applicant's preliminary report will not adequately address his concerns or otherwise are inadequate to ensure that the PUD features are located, designed and constructed in a manner that provides for public health, safety and welfare. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 68