Attachment D <br />Specifications (3)(b) Streets and Alleys, (4) Sidewalks, and (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 4.A: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also serves as the only vehicular access to and from the <br />development site, would be paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870 (or exempt). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 4.B: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River road <br />and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient <br />sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 4.C: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by bicyclists to and from River Road and <br />to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient bike <br />accessways that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />The appellant states that the HO relied on his findings for EC 9.8320(5), but failed to provide an <br />explanation for how those findings demonstrate compliance with the improvement specifications for <br />streets, sidewalks, and bicycle paths (accessways). The appellant also refers to Appeal Issue 10 to claim <br />that the HO failed to consider and properly apply the evidence provided by PW (i.e. constitutional <br />findings for right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property ) in the context of EC <br />9.8320(11)(b). The HO responded to EC 9.8320(11)(b), as follows: <br />The Hearings Official generally concurs with Staff's findings for EC 9.6505(3 & 4) and adopts <br />those findings by this reference. The Hearings Official also incorporates the findings above <br />for EC 9.8320(5) by this reference. <br />EC 9.6505(3) requires that any streets adjacent to the proposed development be paved by <br />the developer consistent with applicable street width standards. The evidence discussed in <br />the findings for EC 9.8320(5) demonstrates that the applicant will be able to accommodate <br />the necessary right-of-way, street width, and sidewalks if necessary along the portion of <br />Oakleigh Lane adjacent to the subject property. <br />Public right-of-way dedication is being required along the north property line, overlapping <br />an existing worn path between the terminus of Oakleigh Lane and the easterly City <br />parklands, to enable a future bicycle and pedestrian access way. Refer to the previous <br />findings and condition at EC 9.8320(5), which are incorporated by reference. (HO Decision, <br />Page 38). <br />The staff findings that the HO adopted to address EC 9.6505(3) and (4) were as follows: <br />EC 9.6505(3)(b) requires the developer to pave streets adjacent to the development site to <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 6 <br />