public health and safety. As noted by GeoSciences, \[i\]t is inconceivable how this system is a) <br />technically viable, and b) consistent with the above recommendation to control the input of water <br />. The Planning Commission finds the Geoscience investigation persuasive and more credible <br />than that of Branch Engineering. <br />As noted above, the Planning Commission finds that the applicants reconnaissance was not <br />performed consistent with the plain text of the applicable criteria. The Planning Commission <br />also finds that EC 9.9630(3)(c) requires that a qualified engineering geologist perform the <br />-site and off-site impact of any development. Based on the <br />applicants review was performed by a Geotechnical Engineer and a <br />Professional Engineer. A Certified Engineering Geologist, Gary Sandstrom, performed the on- <br />site review but Mr. Sandstrom did not perform the off-site review. Because the review does not <br />comply with the requirements of EC 9.9630(3)(c), the applicant has failed to carry its burden. <br />The record contains evidence from Neighbors of a great deal of fallen trees and the deformation <br />of a barn, demonstrating that the barn is being pulled downslope, consistent with an active <br />landslide, according to Geosciences investigation. GeoSciences investigation went further, <br />surveying homeowners within the area mapped by GeoScience as a slope movement deposit. <br />According to that survey, several homes reported not only flooding but also movement. The <br />Planning Commission finds that the investigation into the barn, the survey of homeowners, and <br />GeoSciences expertise are sufficient to demonstrate that the PUD will pose a significant risk to <br />public health and safety. Moreover, the Planning Commission finds that the efforts of Branch <br />Engineering were more limited, resulting in only a visual reconnaissance of off-site impacts, <br />whereas GeoScience engaged property owners and gathered their historic observations. For <br />example, GeoSciences investigation reported that: <br /> <br />\[s\]everal of the homes located closest to the PUD reported issues related to either <br />foundations, or moisture/wetness. At lest one of the homeowners (Karuna Gatton, 2826 <br />Floral Hill Drive) has submitted a letter into the record substantiating that their home has <br />experienced foundation cracking. Occupants of other houses indicated that their house is <br />severely out of level (2710 Floral Hill Drive) or has experienced several water service <br />line breaks in the recent past (2842 Floral Hill Drive). Other reports concern large <br />amounts of water (2708 Floral Hill Drive, 2710 Floral Hill Drive, 2826 Floral Hill Drive <br />and 2942 Floral Hill Drive) by the creek bisecting the small neighborhood. This creek <br />has its headwaters directly below the proposed location of the level spreader storm drain <br />discharge. <br />The Planning Commission finds these personal accounts and the expertise of Geosciences are <br />substantial evidence that ground movement and an existing water problem are present on and <br />directly downslope of the PUD. The Planning Commission finds the testimony of Geosciences <br />persuasive and credible in that these issues will be significantly exacerbated by the proposed <br />development. <br />For the reasons provided above, the Planning Commission finds that the Branch Engineering <br />materials fail to provide an adequate review of the off-site impacts of the proposed development <br />and fail to demonstrate that the PUD will not be a significant geologic risk to public health and <br />4 <br />