Open Record 1st Period (6-13-19 to 6-18-19)

(geomorphic) features consistent with the presence of landslide terrain are located in the southeastern portion of the property, where GeoScience mapped the largest of the slope movements affecting the PUD property directly. Despite that admission, the applicant did not excavate any test pits in that area. GeoScience also explains that the applicants attempts to reduce the risk from the existing landslide by preventing water from being released onto the areas of concern for landslide activity, that same water is being discharged directly above the existing Ribbon Trial and existing houses and Floral Hill drive in an area shown by GeoScience as being at the center of a large slope movement. Even more problematic is that the location of the level spreaders with a slope of almost 50%, water is proposed to be discharged at a rate of 144 gallons per minute. GeoScience points out that there is no evidence to establish that the soil conditions in this area to absorb or otherwise convey the water, and it is all the more troubling because the applicant acknowledges that it must \[c\]ontrol the input of water onto slopes within the moderate and deep landslide susceptibility zones and on existing deep landslides. The applicant is proposing to do exactly what the applicant advises against. GeoScience estimates that roughly 99.43% of the water delivered via the level spreaders will bubble out of the level spreaders and run downhill across the Ribbon Trial and towards the homes below. This falls dangerously short of ensuring that \[t\]he PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, EC 9.8320(6), and it is clearly not an adequate review of on- and off-site impacts. Moreover, EC 9.9630(3)(c) is specific about who should be performing the adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development, and that is a qualified engineering geologist. Based on the applicants submissions, the review was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer and a Professional Engineer. A Certified Engineering Geologist, Gary Sandstrom, performed the on-site review but Mr. Sandstrom did not perform the off-site review. As such, the applicant has failed to satisfy the plain text of the EC 9.9630(3)(c). As it relates to Condition of Approval 10, the proposed findings are wholly inadequate. The applicant alleges in the proposed findings that \[t\]he evidence in the record establishes that with properly designed and constructed foundation, roadways and public facilities, impacts to on-site geography will be minimal and not adverse to public health and safety, and there will be no off-site impacts due to slope failure, soil erosion or stormwater. The problem here is that there has been no actual site-specific demonstration that the foundations, roadways, and public facilities will not be adverse to the public health and safety. That is the entire reason the Planning Commission deferred the issue. To now abandon that subsequent stage of site-specific review is dangerous, to the say the least, especially in light of GeoSciences review. To ensure the public safety of those living around and below the proposed PUD, it is imperative that the condition of approval not be amended and that site-specific analysis occur at the time of any future development. Neighbors and the public should be able to review that analysis in a manner providing the same process (right to notice, right to comment, right to a hearing, and right to appeal) as was initially provided in this application. To do otherwise significantly jeopardizes the safety of the neighbors to the proposed development. Regardless, it appears as though the newly modified Condition (as set forth in the proposed findings) still requires the City to provide notice, opportunity for comment, and a hearing because the Condition defers discretionary 3