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