Final Order (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

instability on which development is proposed. Our conclusion is also based on the unexplained assumption that the test pit locations are representative of the subsurface conditions on the remainder of the property. LUBA Final Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2018, LUBA Nos. 2018-074 and 2018-080, slip op at 38-39. Planning Commission's Determination The applicant has submitted the following Geotechnical reports, which have been signed and stamped by Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.E. and Gary Sandstorm C.E.G.: In response to LUBA's remand, the applicant submitted a supplemental geotechnical/geologic report entitled: "Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation RE: LUBA Remand" which was signed and stamped by Ronald J. Derrick, P.E., G.E. and Gary Sandstorm C.E.G. and dated May 14, 2019. The applicant also submitted a Technical Memorandum regarding City of Eugene Stormwater review applicability, dated July 8, 2019, and signed and stamped by registered professional engineer Nathan Patterson. In response to LUBA's comments on remand, on March 22, 2019, the applicant excavated nine additional test pits on the site. The applicant then submitted a supplemental Geotechnical Investigation dated May 14, 2019. In that supplemental report the applicant states that the "test pits were not arranged in a manner to maximize a certain percentage of the site area, but rather in accordance with engineering practices and the City of Eugene Standards for Geological and Geotechnical Analysis." The City's Standards for Geological and Geotechnical Analysis are adopted in Administrative Order No. 58-02-25-F. The Planning Commission recognizes that the standards of Administrative Order No. 58-02-25-F are not directly applicable to this tentative PUD application.' Nevertheless, the Planning Commission finds that Administrative Order No. 58-02-25-F provides a useful guide to the requirements for geotechnical evaluations, and specifically the adequacy of test pit locations, and provides helpful context regarding the question of whether the applicant's geotechnical evaluation can be relied upon to determine the application's consistency with EC 9.8320(6) and the applicable geotechnical recommendations from the South Hills Study. City Public Works staff has opined that the placement and quantity of the applicant's test pits (including the nine new test pits) meet the minimum requirements in Administrative Order No. 58-02-25-F for 3 Administrative Order No. 58-02-25-F sets out specific requirements for geotechnical evaluations subject to compliance with EC 9.6710. Those standards are not directly applicable in the case of Capital Hill PUD due to its inclusion on the City's Goal 5 inventory - see EC 9.6710(3)(f) (activities on land included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory are exempt from the requirements of EC 9.6710). Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Remand Page 6