I <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />adequately consider both on-site and off-site impacts, the planning commission <br />modified Condition of Approval 10 to state: <br />"A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific <br />recommendations for design and construction standards, shall be <br />provided with any applications for Privately Engineered Public <br />Improvements (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site <br />development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure <br />and residences on individual lots. The development proposed with <br />each permit shall adhere to the recommended standards for design <br />and construction as contained in the felate preliminary <br />geotechnical analysis approved for the tentative PUD, as well as <br />any additional geotechnical analyses required for individual <br />permits. The geotechnical analyses required for individual permits <br />shall also address potential off-site impacts." Record 17. <br />(Strikethrough text deleted by the planning commission; italicized <br />text added by the planning commission). <br />Under the second assignment of error, the Neighbors argue that the <br />hearings official and planning commission's findings of compliance with EC <br />9.8320(6) based on the Geotechnical Investigation are not supported by <br />20 substantial evidence in the record. Relatedly, under the third assignment of <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />error, the Neighbors argue that the planning commission erred in imposing <br />Condition of Approval 10, because the condition represents an impermissible <br />deferral of finding compliance with EC 9.8320(6) to a subsequent building <br />permit approval process that does not provide notice or public participation, <br />contrary to Rhyne, 23 Or LUBA 442. <br />The city's response brief adopts the Dreyers' response to the second <br />assignment of error, but makes no response of its own. The Dreyers argue that <br />Page 36 <br />