I was inadequate to demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8230(6) and EC <br />2 9.9630(3)(c). <br />3 The hearings official considered the Geotechnical Investigation, as <br />4 supplemented, and the criticisms of the Neighbors' geotechnical consultant, and <br />5 chose to rely on the former to conclude that EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c) <br />6 are met. The hearings official explained that choice by noting that the <br />7 Neighbors' consultant failed to take into account the numerous, specific <br />8 recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. Record 104. However, the <br />9 hearings official agreed with the city public works department that a condition <br />10 of approval was appropriate "to ensure that the PUD will not create any <br />11 significant risk of slope failure." Id. The hearings official imposed Condition <br />12 of Approval 10, requiring that any applications for public improvements or <br />13 building permits must be accompanied by a site-specific geotechnical analysis <br />14 from a certified engineer and must adhere to the recommendations in the <br />15 Geotechnical Investigation and the site-specific analyses. <br />16 On appeal to the planning commission, the Neighbors argued in relevant <br />17 part that the hearings official improperly deferred findings of compliance with <br />18 applicable criteria, including EC 9.8320(6), to a subsequent proceeding that <br />19 does not provide an opportunity for notice or public participation, contrary to <br />20 Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447 (1992). In response to <br />21 arguments regarding compliance with EC 9.8230(6), to the effect that the <br />22 Geotechnical Investigation was only a "preliminary" analysis that did not <br />Page 35 <br />