paving shall provide for drainage of all such streets and alleys, and <br />construct curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street trees and street lights <br />adjacent to the development site according to the Design Standards and <br />Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways and <br />standards and specifications adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code <br />and other adopted plans and policies. <br />The Hearings Official relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(5), but fails to <br />provide the required specific explanation for how those findings demonstrate <br />compliance with EC 9.6505(3)(b). The discussion under the Second <br />Assignment of Error, above, and which are incorporated here by reference, <br />demonstrates that the Decision is erroneous in this reliance. <br />The Hearings Official and the staff both failed to consider and properly apply <br />the substantial evidence provide by the Public Works Department (PWD) <br />analysis. (See the discussion under Subassignment of Error 10.A, which is <br />incorporated here by reference.) <br />See Conte 10/9 pages 16 to 17. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4.B <br />The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only <br />adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River <br />Road and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would <br />provide sufficient sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed <br />according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />EC 9.6505(4) requires: <br />Sidewalks shall be located, designed and constructed according to the <br />provisions of this land use code, the Design Standards and Guidelines for <br />Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, construction and <br />design standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this code, and other <br />adopted plans and policies. <br />The Hearings Official relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(5), but fails to <br />provide the required specific explanation for how those findings demonstrate <br />compliance with EC 9.6505(4). The discussion under the Second Assignment <br />of Error, above, and which are incorporated here by reference, demonstrates <br />that the Decision is erroneous in this reliance. <br />The Hearings Official and the staff both failed to consider and properly apply <br />the substantial evidence provide by the Public Works Department (PWD) <br />analysis. (See the discussion under Subassignment of Error 10.A, which is <br />incorporated here by reference.) <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 11 November 22, 2013 <br />