does not believe the applicant would be unable to show complia Rit24 <br />Standards Review; the hearings official only notes that the current record <br />does not support a finding of compliance. (See page 32 of HO decision.) <br />This uncertainty has been removed by the PC's determination, under the appeal. <br />issues above, that the HO erred in relying on the Matthews Map. The PC finds that it <br />is appropriate to defer Standards Review approval as a condition of final PUD <br />approval. <br />PC Decision: The PC reverses the HO's basis for denial under EC 9.8325(11) by relying on the <br />Applicant's maps, rather than the Matthews Map, for evaluating the applicable <br />approval criteria. The PC affirms that Standards Review approval should be required <br />as a condition prior to final PUD approval. (The condition of approval is listed as #6 <br />at the end of this Final Order). <br />SEIU Appeal Issue #6: Geotechnical Requirements <br />"The site is not exempt from the cgeotechnical requirements of EC 9.6710(6). <br />PC Findings: The approval criterion at EC 9.8325(7)(d) requires the PUD to comply with the <br />geotechnical analysis standards at EC 9.6710. EC 9.6710(6) specific to Needed <br />Housing applications, which states: <br />Unless exempt under 9.6710(3)(a)-(f J, in lieu of compliance with subsections (2), <br />(4), and (5) of this section, applications proposing needed housing shall include a <br />certification from an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist or an Oregon <br />licensed Civil Engineer with geological experience stating <br />The referenced exemptions at EC 9.6710(3) state: <br />The following activities are exempt from the requirements of this section:.. . <br />(f) activities on land included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br />The HO concluded that the PUD is exempt from the geotechnical requirements at EC <br />9.6710 because the subject property is included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 <br />inventory. The HO determination is based on the Goal 5 Inventory shown on Figure <br />H-2 of the Scenic Sites Working Paper. The SEN assert that the HO finding is <br />incorrect and should be reversed by the PC, because they believe the adopted Scenic <br />Area"map is too ambiguous. <br />The PC finds that it is not necessary to evaluate the Scenic Area map because the <br />Applicant does not rely on an exemption to fulfill the relevant approval criterion at <br />EC 9.8325(7)(d). The Applicant initially sought compliance with EC 9.6710(6)(b), <br />without the exception provision, by providing "...certification from an Oregon <br />licensed Engineering Geologist or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer with geological <br />experience stating: <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 23 <br />26 <br />