(a) That the proposed development activity will not be impacted by &Pr <br />potential stability problems or any of the following site.conditions: springs or <br />seeps, depth of soil bedrock, variations in soil types, or a combination of these <br />conditions; or <br />(b) If proposed development activity will be impacted by any of the conditions <br />listed above the methods for safely addressing the impact of the conditions. This <br />subsection also requires the applicant to state that the development will occur in <br />accordance with the Engineer's statement." <br />The applicant submitted the above certification, prepared by Gunnar Schlieder, <br />Ph.D., CEG, GeoScience, Inc. Dr. Schlieder, an Oregon certified engineering geologist, <br />is a local expert in geology; the City has employed his services numerous times, <br />including the development of local standards for geotechnical analysis applicability <br />and report contact requirements. In his August 22, 2012 letter, Dr. Schlieder <br />responds to the concerns raised by opponents and certifies the following: <br />However, the fact that slope movements are present in the vicinity of the site <br />does not automatically indicate that the site itself is underlain with such <br />features. GeoScience's test pits prove that it is not. The geological/geotechnical <br />information developed by GeoScience does indicate the presence of variable <br />thickness of expansive soil over portions of the site. The 2/4/2007 report <br />addresses this issue both for infrastructure and foundations, with <br />recommendations tailored to the specific conditions found in nine different <br />design areas which were distinguished on the site. <br />The presence of expansive soil on the site does not represent a. threat to public <br />health and safety, as the shrink-swell related movement is very slow and limited <br />in magnitude. If appropriate construction practices are employed, which have <br />been listed for each design area in the February 4, 2007 GeoScience report, <br />there is no risk to public welfare from the presence of these soils on the PUD, <br />Dr. Schlieder provides specific recommendations for road construction, underground <br />utilities, general grading, erosion control, slope stability, use of native materials, <br />foundations, drainage, and supervision of construction and road grading on pages 11 <br />through 15 of the February 4, 2007 report. The PC confirms that this meets the test <br />of EC 9.6710(6) and the related approval criterion at EC 9.8325(7)(d). <br />PC Decision: Rather than finding error with the HO's decision regarding compliance with EC <br />9.8325(7)(d) based on the Goal 5 inventory exception provision provided at EC <br />9.6710(3), the PC modifies the HO's decision to affirm that Applicant has met the <br />requirements of EC 9.6710(6) with Dr. Schlieder's certification, dated August 22, <br />2012, and the geotechnical analysis and recommendations provided in Dr. <br />Schlieder's February 4, 2007 report, To ensure compliance, the following condition <br />of approval is warranted: <br />Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 24 <br />27 <br />