Admin Order 58-02-25-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Finding: Yes. Comment 26: In order to establish a level plaYing field for Engineering Geologists and Engineers, would it be reasonable to establish a requirement for similar years of experience? Finding: Engineering Geologists are required to be educated in soils and have field experience in Engineering principles to qualify to sit for the Certified Engineering Geologist exam. While Professional Engineers are experienced in engineering principles there is no requirement that their experience include soils to sit for the professional exam. The City asks that professional engineers have 4 years experience in soils to submit geological and geotechnical reports. No change is being made to this provision as a result of this comment. Comment 27: It is not clear what level of analysis would be required for projects that do not involve land use applications for subdivisions, site reviews and planned unit developments. Finding: Pursuant to EC 9.6710(3), a geological and geotechnical analysis is required for: (1) proposed tentative planned unit development, site review, and subdivision application on properties with slopes equal to or greater than 5%; and (2) developments proposing public improvements. Thus, unless the land use application proposes to dedicate or construct a public street or alley or the construction of public drainage systems or public wastewater sewers, no analysis is required for any other type of land use application except subdivisions, site reviews and PUDs (with slopes equal to or greater than 5%). No change is being made to the Rule as a result of this comment. Comment 28: Who will protect the public from risk to life-safety for projects exempted in R-9.6710-D and constructed on a site that contains geotechnical or geologic risk? What is the purpose for exempting these types ofprojects? Finding: The exemptions set forth at R-9.6710-D were established by ordinance and are listed in Section 9.6710 of the Eugene Code, 1971. No change is being made to this provision as a result of this comment. Comment 29: The City should table consideration of the proposed Administrative Rule, or work with affected professionals to develop language that is consistent with state law and current standards of practice. Finding: Throughout the drafting of this Rule, the City engaged in an exchange with design professionals from around Oregon. Further, the City obtained comparative rules from other agencies that deal with geologic and geotechnical issues, such as the Oregon Board of Geologist Examiners, the United States Department of Agriculture, Marion County, the City of Salem, the City of Gresham, the City of San Diego, California, and the Department of Geology and Mineral Industry. This Rule has been reviewed by the Oregon State University Geological Engineering professionals, the Oregon State Board Examiners of Engineers and Land Surveyors (OSBEELS), the Oregon State Board of Geologist Examiners (OSBGE), and geological Administrative Order - 6 R:\ADMINO RD\RULES\03 geotech2ao. wpd(03/26/03)