1 percent of the property, and some distance from two identified areas of soil <br />2 instability on which development is proposed. Our conclusion is also based on <br />3 the unexplained assumption that the test pit locations are representative of the <br />4 subsurface conditions on the remainder of the property. Moreover, we agree <br />5 with the Neighbors that Condition of Approval 10 appears to represent an <br />6 attempt to overcome acknowledged evidentiary inadequacies in the <br />7 Geotechnical Investigation. As such, the city erred in specifying that the more <br />8 detailed and comprehensive geotechnical analyses required by Condition of <br />9 Approval 10 be reviewed and approved outside of the scope of any public <br />10 proceeding on the application. Rhyne, 23 Or LUBA 442. <br />11 The Neighbors' consultant also criticized the Geotechnical Investigation <br />12 for failing to address off-site impacts of PUD development. As noted, EC <br />13 9.9630(3)(c) requires an "adequate review of both on-site and off-site <br />14 impact[.]" The Neighbors appear to be correct that the Geotechnical <br />15 Investigation provides at best conclusory statements regarding off-site impacts. <br />16 The hearings official and planning commission rejected all challenges to the <br />17 Geotechnical Investigation, including criticism regarding inadequate <br />18 consideration of off-site impacts. But the findings do not cite to any evidence <br />19 addressing off-site impacts or explain why the Geotechnical Investigation <br />20 provides an adequate review of off-site impacts. The apparent lack of evidence <br />21 on this point may be the reason that the planning commission felt compelled to <br />22 modify Condition of Approval 10, to require that all public improvement and <br />Page 39 <br />