regarding pedestrian safety warranting a TIA. Again, the appellant has <br />identified no error in the Hearings Official's decision. <br />3. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under EC 9.8320(6) Concerning Public Health and Safety. <br />Under its Third Assignment of Error, the appellant reiterates its now <br />familiar argument that Public Works Department findings in support of the <br />City's action means that Oakleigh Lane must be widened along its entire length <br />so as not to be an impediment to emergency response. However, as is set forth <br />above, the applicant has failed to provide evidence establishing that Oakleigh <br />Lane would be at risk without the street being widened, and the comments to <br />which it refers relate solely to the exaction to widen Oakleigh Lane on the subject <br />property. In fact, Public Works acknowledged that "the existing paved surface <br />provides safe passage for two-way vehicular traffic, bicycles, pedestrians and <br />emergency vehicles." HO Decision, p. 26 (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the <br />appellant's assignment of error provides no basis for reversal or remand of the <br />Hearings Official's decision. <br />4. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under EC 9.8320(11) Concerning Streets, Sidewalks and <br />Bicycle Paths. <br />The appellant's argument under its Fourth Assignment of Error is difficult <br />to follow. It alleges variously that the Hearings Official failed to make "specific" <br />findings under EC 9.6505(3)(b), (4) and (5). These provisions require <br />improvement of public streets and alleys, and that sidewalks, and bicycle paths <br />and accessways be constructed in accordance with Eugene Chapter 7. City staff <br />imposed a condition of approval requiring OMC to submit an Irrevocable <br />Petition for Public Improvements to provide street and alley improvements and <br />sidewalks at a later date, and to dedicate additional property associated with an <br />informal path for a possible future bike path connection. HO Decision, p. 37-38; <br />22-23. The appellant fails to identify any error in the City's decision with regard <br />to these provisions, and its assignment of error should be denied. <br />5. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under E C 9.8320(12) Concerning Off-Site Impacts. <br />The appellant assigns error to the Hearings Official's findings with regard <br />to EC 9.8320(12) based on its contention that Hearings Official improperly <br />construed the term "minimal" and "impacts," and argues that the Hearings <br />Official did not properly address impacts from traffic. The appellant has not <br />identified any basis for reversal or remand of the Hearings Official's decision. <br />The Hearings Official's findings addressing EC 9.8320(12), and specifically <br />the issue of traffic are reasoned and correct. The Hearings Official specifically <br />rejected opponent's contention that "minimal" meant the same things as <br />insignificant. With regard to the appellant's new contention on appeal that the <br />Hearings Official did not correctly evaluate the "impact" standard under <br />240 6 <br />