2019. <br />Alternate finding <br /> Page 5, last full paragraph: DOAMI should be replaced with <br />DOGAMI. <br />Alternate finding <br /> Page 6 through 7, replace the paragraphs under the bolded heading <br />Planning Commissions Determination with the following: <br />The Planning Commission concludes that the Branch Engineering May 10, 2019 materials fail <br />to address the inadequacies identified by LUBA and that the evidence in the entire record fails to <br />support a conclusion that the proposal complies with the requirements of EC 9.8320(6) and EC <br />9.9630(3)(c) with respect to risks to public health and safety due to geologic related causes. <br />Though Branch Engineering excavated an additional nine (9) test pits, the test pits do not <br />substantially increase the area in which the test pits occur across the property. This was the same <br />basic failure that LUBA identified previously, and it appears as though the applicant has only <br />marginally increased the area in which the test pits occur. The Branch Report notes that the test <br />pits were not arranged in a manner to maximize a certain percentage of the site area, an issue for <br />which LUBA specifically faulted the applicant. The applicant appears to have made the same <br />mistake in determining that the coverage of the site is not an indicator of its thoroughness. The <br />Planning Commission also finds that because the issue here is whether there is a significant risk <br />to public health and safety, addressing the geology of the entire site is an important issue. As <br />noted by Geosciences, it appears as though the additional test pits avoid those areas that are most <br />susceptible to unstable conditions have been avoided: <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 />The Planning Commission understands that an adequate review requires that the applicant <br />address geologically unstable areas, which the applicant has largely avoided both previously <br />and on remand. According to GeoSciences investigation, which the Planning Commission finds <br />persuasive, <br />The Planning Commission <br />further finds that if addressing 20% of the development site was insufficient and inadequate for <br />LUBA, then a slightly greater percentage would be also be insufficient and inadequate, <br />especially when the new test pits avoid the areas of geologic concern. In short, the <br />geotechnical assessment does not appear to have improved itself in any meaningful way because <br />the assessment still avoids the areas of actual slope movement. <br />Though not an approval criterion, the Planning Commission notes that the applicants <br />geotechnical assessment is not a Level 3 analysis because not only does it not satisfy the criteria <br />2 <br />