for a Level 2 analysis but it fails to provide site-specific geotechnical design of facilities such <br />as, but not limited to, streets, foundations, utilities, retaining walls and structures due to geologic <br />constraints. The Planning Commission finds that no site-specific information required by a <br />Level 3 analysis has been provided. This informs compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and lends <br />support to a finding that the applicant has not <br />not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion, <br />slope failure, stormwater or flood hazar <br />The Planning Commission also finds that the applicants geotechnical analysis while it falls <br />short in its scope and adequacy tends to confirm the findings of GeoSciences prior work. As <br />noted by GeoScience, the applicants geotechnical analysis shows that large portions of the <br />eastern half of the PUD have been subject to slope movement. TP-12, the only test pit installed <br />in an area GeoScience identifies as a slope movement head scarp\[,\] <br /> This not only demonstrates that the geotechnical consultant has <br />not provided adequate test pits across the site but also confirms the accuracy of GeoSciences <br />investigation. <br /> <br />For the reasons provided above, the Planning Commission finds that the Branch Engineering <br />materials on remand fail to provide an adequate review of the on-site impacts of the proposed <br />development and fail to demonstrate that the PUD will not be a significant geologic risk to public <br />health and welfare under EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). Moreover, the Planning <br />Commission finds that GeoScience has provided substantial evidence that the PUD will be a <br />significant geologic risk to public health and welfare under EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). <br />Alternate finding <br /> Pages 7 through 8, the findings below the bolded Planning <br />Commissions Determination should be replaced with the following: <br />The Planning Commission concludes that the Branch Engineering May 10, 2019 materials fail <br />to adequately address issues identified by LUBA regarding off-site impacts and that the evidence <br />in the entire record supports a finding that the proposal fails to comply with requirements of EC <br />9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). The Planning Commission finds the submissions of <br />GeoSciences to be more persuasive and credible than that of Branch Engineering. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the primary geologic risks to off-site public health and <br />safety are from landslides and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. The Planning <br />Commission finds GeoSciences investigation persuasive in identifying a slope of almost 50% on <br />which water is proposed to be discharged at a rate of 144 gallons per minute. As noted by <br />GeoSciences, that same water is being discharged directly above the existing Ribbon Trial and <br />existing houses and Floral Hill drive in an area shown by GeoScience as being at the center of a <br />large slope movement. GeoScience notes that there is no evidence to establish that the soil <br />conditions in this area to absorb or otherwise convey the water, and it is all the more troubling <br />because the applicant acknowledges that it must \[c\]ontrol the input of water onto slopes within <br />the moderate and deep landslide susceptibility zones and on existing deep landslides. <br />GeoScience estimates that roughly 99.43% of the water delivered via the level spreaders will <br />bubble out of the level spreaders and run downhill across the Ribbon Trial and towards the <br />homes below. The Planning Commission finds that this will create a significant risk to the <br />3 <br />