I that modify any R-1 developments standards, such modifications must undergo <br />2 city review and approval. <br />3 Under the third assignment of error, the Neighbors argued that the <br />4 hearings official erred in "deferring" a finding of compliance with EC <br />5 9.8320(3) to a subsequent proceeding that does not provide notice or <br />6 opportunity for public participation. According to the Neighbors, whether the <br />7 PUD provides "adequate screening" for purposes of EC 9.8320(3) depends in <br />8 part on the bulk and height of the particular future dwellings that will be <br />9 proposed at the building permit stage, and the permissible bulk and height of <br />10 those dwellings could be subject to future-adopted CC&Rs that could include <br />11 modified bulk and height standards, modifications that would be reviewed and <br />12 approved by city staff in a discretionary, but non-public process. <br />13 We disagree with the Neighbors. The hearings official correctly noted <br />14 that nothing in EC 9.8320(3) or any other tentative PUD approval requires that <br />15 the city evaluate any particular dwellings that might be applied for at the future <br />16 building permit stage. Because the PUD application did not propose any <br />17 particular buildings, EC 9.8320(3) does not require that in evaluating whether <br />18 the PUD provides "adequate screening" the city must also evaluate the bulk or <br />19 height of the actual dwellings that would be proposed at the building permit <br />20 stage. The Neighbors do not argue that subjecting building permit approvals to <br />21 R-1 development standards that govern bulk and height represents a "deferral" <br />22 of any aspect of finding compliance with EC 9.8320(3). Instead, the Neighbors <br />Page 45 <br />