Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />were done with the level of care and skill exercised by other current geotechnical professionals. <br />The GeoScience, Inc. report is also stamped, and presumably contains the same report <br />limitations, although none isset forth in the report. ThePlanning Commission should make its <br />own credibility determinations regarding the competinggeotechnical analyses in this proceeding. <br />Which professionals are more believable? <br />Applicants have been unable to determine from the record the credentials for Professor <br />Dorsey. Because the record lacks any evidence regarding her credentials, she cannot be <br />considered an expert witness, despite her qualifications as a professor and obvious knowledge of <br />earth sciences. That said, her statements do not go to the specifics of the proposal’s design; they <br />insteadexpress abstract concepts (runoff from impervious surfaces can cause problems to steep <br />sloped areas) that warrant the considerations given by the analysis that supports the proposal. <br />Unfortunately, Professor Dorsey alsoraises issues that are beyond the scope of the remand and <br />have been waived. Nothing Professor Dorsey states refutes the Branch Engineering analysis or <br />otherwise warrants denial of the application. <br />Conclusion <br />LUBA remanded the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Capital Hill PUD <br />on a single issue –geotechnical considerations. LUBA remanded for the Planning Commission <br />to determine whether the PUD will pose a significant risk to public health and safety due to soil <br />erosion or slope failure (EC 9.8320), and whether there has been adequate review of both on-site <br />and off-site impacts by a qualified engineering geologist (EC 9.9630). <br />Neighbors submitted graphic evidence of how landslides could occur given DOGAMI’s <br />recent slide-hazard mapping andargued slideswould impact off-site properties if they didoccur. <br />However, that evidence is no different than the sites for many completed PUDs in the City, and <br />for much of the City’s vacant buildable residential landsinventory. Such sites can be safely <br />developed. Given the geotechnical evidence in the record, this site can be too,and the proposed <br />conditions of approval will ensure that it is. <br />GeoScience makes many allegations in its remand evidence, particularly concerning <br />stormwater issues. Besides the fact that stormwater is a resolved issue and outside the scope of <br />remand, Branch Engineering has responded by explaining how GeoScience’s analysis <br />mischaracterizes the storm analysis and makes claims regarding stormwater runoff that are <br />incorrect and that do not follow professional engineering standard methodology. In the end, the <br />stormwater runoff release rate to the east of the project will be less after the project is <br />constructed than it presently is now.There will be no off-site impacts. <br />12 <br />