Eugene Planning Commission <br />July 9, 2019 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />that the property can be developed safely. The geotechnical evidence in thisrecord demonstrates <br />that the site can be developed safely, and if properly developed there will be no adverse on-site <br />or off-site impacts. <br />Neighbors’ poison pill introduces a further discretionary element to the geotechnical <br />analysisdone at the site-development stage. Instead of simply evaluating the geologic conditions <br />of a building site and stating the engineering requirements to build on those conditions safely,the <br />languageurged by Neighbors andimposed by the Planning Commissionrequired a subjective <br />determination regarding the off-site impacts(if any) ofa properly constructed foundation for a <br />single house. It is that discretionary determination that LUBA held requires a public hearing. <br />Neighbors’ attorney was fully aware in the initial proceeding that the modifications that the <br />Neighbors were requesting to Condition 10 would be fatal on appeal to LUBA.Neighbors’ <br />attorney has been around the block on these matters. <br />Neighbors’ attorney is right in one respect –it is imperative that Condition of Approval <br />10 remainas proposedand require a site-specific geotechnical study as Branch Engineering has <br />always advised and the Hearings Officer imposed. However, Neighbors’ attorney is incorrect <br />that the condition should remain unamended and continue to have the poison pill of discretionary <br />decision-making involved as part of the objective geotechnical engineering analysis Condition <br />10 had coming from the Hearings Officer. <br />The Planning Commission should conclude that the proposal willadequately mitigate <br />potentialadverse on-site and off-site impacts and that Condition of Approval 10 should be <br />amendedto impose only the objective house-or PEPI-specific geotechnical analysis and <br />consistency with the Branch Engineering general construction recommendations. <br />Condition 10is not a contradiction ofEC 9.6710(3). EC 9.6710 discusses the purpose of <br />geological and geotechnical analyses, when they’re required, exemptions and the different <br />categories of analysis. However, the exemptions do not applyin instances when a condition of <br />approval imposes a geotechnical analysis requirement. Here, the condition is imposed to seek <br />specific recommendations for design and construction standards for site development, based on <br />the precise geologic site conditions, and imposes the requirement that the development proposed <br />be consistent with those recommendations. That is not in conflict with EC 9.6710(3). <br />The Planning Commission should approve the application with the Condition of <br />Approval 10 as proposed. <br />The Geotechnical work on remand was done during the wet season. <br />Neighbors Kim and John Toner contend that the geotechnical analysis was done during <br />the dry season when conditions were most favorable for good resultsand “before the rains cause <br />instability”. <br />While the Toners are correct that the initial 10 exploratory test pits were conducted in <br />September 2016, that fact is not as significant as they seek to make it. Soil borings of the type <br />8 <br />