emergency response. <br />The South Hills Study's specific recommendations for development standards related to review <br />of on-site and off-site impact of the development require the following: <br />That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development by a <br />qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions: <br />1. All formations: <br />Soil depth of 40 inches and above. <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above. <br />2. Basalt flows: <br />Soil depth of 40 inches and above. <br />Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. <br />3. Eugene Formation: <br />Soil depth of 40 inches and above. <br />Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. <br />4. Basalt flows: <br />Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches. <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above. <br />5. Eugene Formation: <br />Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches. <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above. <br />LUBA found that a reasonable decision maker would not have relied upon the applicant's <br />Geotechnical Investigation to find compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and the applicable South Hills <br />Study policy. LUBA therefore remanded the decision back to the City to allow the City to adopt <br />more adequate findings, based on substantial evidence in the record, regarding compliance <br />with those approval criteria. LUBA's conclusion was based in part on the apparently unrebutted <br />expert testimony of the Neighbors' consultant that no reliable conclusions can be drawn <br />regarding potential for slope failure on the site, because the applicant's test pits were clustered <br />on the least steep portion of the property, encompassed only 20 percent of the property, and <br />were located some distance from two identified areas of soil instability on which development <br />is proposed. LUBA's conclusion was also based on the unexplained assumption that the test pit <br />locations are representative of the subsurface conditions on the remainder of the property. <br />LUBA also explained that Condition of Approval #10, as modified by the Planning Commission <br />appeared to represent an attempt to overcome evidentiary inadequacies in the applicant's <br />Geotechnical Investigation. <br />The following Condition of Approval #10 was adopted by the Hearings Official in her April 20, <br />2018 decision: <br />A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for <br />design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately <br />Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site <br />development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure and residences on <br />Page 3 <br />