Furthermore, in his interpretation of the requirements of EC 9.6505(4), the <br />Hearings Official failed to consider the context clearly showing Council's <br />intent, specifically the provisions of EC 9.6820(4) that require public <br />accessways to provide safe circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists for a cul- <br />de-sac longer than 150' in length. The statements related to EC 9.6820 under <br />Subassignment of Error 2.A are incorporated here by reference. <br />SUBASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4.C <br />The Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only <br />adjacent to, but also is and will be used by bicyclists to and from River Road <br />and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide <br />sufficient bike accessways that are located, designed and constructed <br />according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />EC 9.6505(5) requires: <br />Bicycle Paths and Accessways shall be designed and constructed <br />according to provisions of this land use code, the Design Standards and <br />Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways, <br />construction and design standards adopted pursuant to Chapter 7 of this <br />code, 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(5). 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 />Furthermore, in his interpretation of the requirements of EC 9.6505(5), the <br />Hearings Official failed to consider the context clearly showing Council's <br />intent, specifically the provisions of EC 9.6820(4) that require public <br />accessways to provide safe circulation for bicyclists for a cul-de-sac longer <br />than 150' in length. The statements related to EC 9.6820 under Subassignment <br />of Error 2.A are incorporated here by reference. <br />Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 12 November 22, 2013 <br />