I building permits include a site-specific geotechnical analysis that addresses, <br />2 among other things, "potential off-site impacts." A condition of approval that <br />3 requires that additional or confirming information be submitted at the building <br />4 permit stage could, in other circumstances, represent a permissible "belt and <br />5 suspenders" approach to ensuring compliance with an approval criterion, if the <br />6 local government adopts an adequate finding, supported by substantial <br />7 evidence, that the approval criterion is satisfied. In the present case, however, <br />8 the apparent lack of specific evidence and findings in the present record <br />9 regarding off-site impacts suggests that the modification to Condition of <br />10 Approval 10 was intended to overcome evidentiary insufficiencies in <br />11 determining compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). <br />12 For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Neighbors that remand is <br />13 required for the city to adopt more adequate findings, based on substantial <br />14 evidence, regarding compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c). If the <br />15 city cannot determine based on substantial evidence in the record that EC <br />16 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c) are complied with, and the city chooses to defer <br />17 that issue to a subsequent proceeding, that subsequent proceeding must provide <br />18 notice and opportunity for public participation, consistent with Rhyne, 23 Or <br />19 LUBA 442; see also Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or App 150, 171 P3d <br />20 1017 (2007). <br />Page 40 <br />