Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />plan actually reduces water in potential slide areas by conveyanceof waterto a more suitable <br />point of disposal). <br />This approach to technically addressing sensitive South Hills sites has proven effective <br />time and time again. The Planning Commission should not change how the standards are applied <br />and should resist the Neighbors’recommendations for more test pits, poison pill conditions of <br />approval anddenial of a proposal for whichthe evidence in the records demonstrates compliance <br />with all of the applicable approval criteria. <br />Applicant’s geotechnical analysis has included a Certified Engineering Geologist <br />throughout the process. <br />Multiple Neighbors and their representatives have alleged that the Branch Engineering <br />analysis is inadequate because it was not conducted by a Certified Engineering Geologist as <br />required by the code. <br />Applicants find these claims a bit perplexing, basically because the professional stamp <br />for Gary Sandstrom, CEG (Certified Engineering Geologist) is found on everytechnical report <br />submitted by Branch Engineering in this proceeding.See, Branch Engineering submittal on <br />remand.This includes the Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation on Remand (May 14, 2019), the <br />Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation (February 6, 2017), and the Geotechnical Investigation <br />Addendum (May 30, 2017). Just because these reports are alsostamped by a Professional <br />Engineer (Branch Engineering’s Principal Geotechnical Engineer), does not negatethe fact that a <br />CEG has been involved in all of the technical work and site reconnaissance conducted on the <br />subject property. One wonders whether Neighbors’ experts have actually reviewed the <br />geotechnical analysis prepared by the CEG for this proposal. The only documents that are <br />signed by Ronald Derrick, PE,aloneare the March 20, 2018 and March 28, 2018 rebuttals to <br />arguments submitted by Neighbors. <br />As for allegations that Gary Sandstrom, CEGdid not participate in the off-site review <br />(Malone, June 18, 201\[9\], p. 3), that assertion is contrary to the record. The May 30, 2017 <br />Addendum specifically statesthat Mr. Sandstrom traversed not only the subject property, but the <br />surrounding area toevaluate and map geologic surface features. Claims that a CEG was not <br />involved as part of the on-site and off-site geotechnical analysis are without merit. <br />The Planning Commission should reject neighbors’ arguments and conclude the <br />application’s geotechnical reports were prepared by a CEG. <br />The vast majority of building sites have been analyzed <br />Having convinced LUBA that the findings about the test pit locations are not adequate, <br />the Neighbors continue with a holiday fireworks displayof arguments related to the “percentage <br />area of coverage” of the geotechnical test pits.It is time to shut down that nonsense. <br />3 <br />