I , <br />subsequent proceeding, the subsequent proceeding must include the statutorily <br />2 re q and that 'a lied to the initial proceeding) <br />q pp <br />6 <br />3 ; <br />„ F <br />The city arid: QMC'respond, and we :agree; that the-planning• commission <br />Y 4 <br />did,. not defer .,findings of compliance with EC:, 9.8320(5)(b) : The planning <br />z <br />S r, <br />commission. found tii`e proposal complies with'-EC 9;8320(5)(b),, based in part'.. <br />on''--`Condition 20.... That =Condition: 20 includes- a requirement.,to obtain .all <br />L - <br />7 : <br />required; permits to, 'improve Oakl'eigh Lane, "potentially including: a city <br />8 <br />en zneer ermit issued pursuant toa the PEPI Process does not. mean that ' the <br />g P. ; <br />#1 <br />city -engineer. will .evaluate ,or re=evaluate;: compliance .with EC 9:8320(5}(b) as <br />h0 : <br />part "of that . process... `At most, the city engineer`,would :apply whatever <br />1.1 <br />-PEPI/PIDS standards : apply .to a city engineer .permit.. That the, city engineer <br />12 <br />mi t have the authorit to rant a variance to .whatever PEPI/PIDS,standards <br />gh. y g <br />s <br />f. <br />13: <br />would apply to .the city engineer permit; :and-'might. or. might not- exercise- that <br />1;4 <br />authority in a future permit' process lias nothing to do with compliance with EC <br />15 <br />9.8320(5)(b); .'and certainly. does not'--.represent a :potential. deferral of a. <br />16. ' <br />determination of compliance with EC ,9.8320(5)(b). Stated differently;. <br />e <br />x <br />17' <br />determining- whether 20'' 'feet : of pavement is .sufficient to comply,with EC <br />` <br />t&, <br />9::8320.5 b does not re quire the Tanning, commission to evaluate or 'resolve <br />19 <br />technical construction details such., a' those- that are resolved in the PEPI ' <br />20:. <br />process. <br />m <br />- <br />Page 18 <br />3 <br />