the applicants proposed findings is rather startling because LUBA faulted the applicant for not <br />adequately addressing the site. Specifically, the applicant had only addressed 20% of the site <br />1 <br />(andthe applicant has done little more in furtherance of an adequate review on remand). <br />Clearly, the thoroughness of the report is product of the coverage of the site. This is because the <br />applicant previously avoided the steepest areas and those areas that contained landslides. As <br />noted by GeoScience, \[a\]lthough the number of test pits may satisfy the minimum requirement <br />for the area of the PUD, the placement precludes compliance with the purpose of EC 9.6710, <br />which is intended to ensure that public and private facilities in developments in areas of known <br />or potential unstable soil conditions are located, designed, and constructed in a manner that <br />provides for public health, safety, and welfare. EC 9.6710. Indeed, GeoScience notes that: <br />even after the latest round of test pits, the portions of the PUD property with the highest <br />potential for unstable soil conditions (the steep slopes on the east side of the property) <br />have been mostly left out of the assessment. Where the assessment encountered evidence <br />of actual slope movements (TP-21), no further test pits were installed that would allow a <br />definition of the problem in terms of lateral extent and configuration or the mechanism of <br />movement. Without such a definition of the problem, it is impossible to determine what <br />effect the proposed development will have on stability of the existing slide. <br /> <br />The applicants geotechnical assessment has not improved itself in any meaningful way because <br />it still avoids the areas of actual slope movement. <br />Next, and even more surprising, is that the geotechnical assessment fails to provide a site- <br />specific geotechnical design of any of the facilities for the PUD. This means that the applicant <br />2 <br />has not overlaid any of the proposed structures within the most concerning areas. These failures <br />mean that the applicant has not carried its burden to establish that \[t\]he PUD will not be a <br />significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, <br />stormwater or flood hazard, . EC 9.8320(6). Even more concerning is that the applicant is <br />proposing to do away from the requirement for further geologic review, as was required under <br />Condition of Approval 10, without having any site-specific review of the development in relation <br />to geologic concerns. The City is approaching very dangerous territory by approving <br />development without knowing where the development will actually occur, especially when it is <br />conceded that landslides exist in these particular areas. <br />While the applicants geotechnical report fails in its scope, it does confirm the accuracy <br />of GeoSciences prior work, which shows that large portions of the eastern half of the PUD <br />have been subject to slope movement. TP-12, the only test pit installed in an area GeoScience <br />identifies as a slope movement head scarp\[,\] proved GeoSciences mapping correct. The <br />applicants geotechnical consultant also now concedes despite prior denials that topographic <br /> <br />1 <br /> According to GeoScience, the applicant has gone from addressing 20% of the development site <br />to now somewhere between a quarter to a third of the PUD property\[.\] If addressing 20% of <br />the development site was insufficient, then there is little to establish that slightly more would be <br />adequate, especially when the new test pits avoid the areas of geologic concern. <br />2 <br /> The failure to establish site-specific development over the geotechnical design means that, as a <br />matter of law, is not a Level 3 Investigation. <br />2 <br />