8. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under 9.8320(11) Concerning Net Density or Clustering of <br />Development. <br />The appellant argues under its Eighth Assignment of Error that the <br />Hearings Official's density calculations are inaccurate because they include <br />easements in the net developable area. However, EC 9.2751(1)(c) establishes <br />those areas "that must be excluded from the net density calculation." HO <br />Decision, p. 35. <br />EC 9.2751(1)(c) states: <br />"For purposes of calculating net density: <br />1. The acreage of land considered part of the residential use shall exclude <br />public and private streets and alleys, public parks, and other public <br />facilities." <br />As the Hearings Official found, this does not exclude easements from this <br />calculation. The appellant argues that EC 9.2751(1)(c) should exclude easements, <br />but this does not alter the text of the provision, or provide a basis for reversal or <br />remand of the Hearings Official's decision. <br />The appellant also urges that the Hearings Official misinterpreted EC <br />9.8300(1)(e) regarding clustering of residential development, and that it erred in <br />allowing adjustments to the setbacks to cluster residential development away <br />from Oakleigh Meadow and from the adjoining City parkland. However, as the <br />Hearings Official noted 9.8300(1)(e) is intended to provide "a high degree of <br />flexibility in the design of the site" based on "Clustering of residential dwelling <br />to achieve energy and resource conservation while also achieving the planned <br />density for the site." The appellant makes no cognizable argument concerning <br />why the Hearings Official could not allow clustering away from Oakleigh <br />Meadow under this provision, and its assignment should be denied. <br />9. The Appellant Fails to Identify Any Error in the Hearings Official's <br />Findings Under EC 9.8320(11) Concerning Solar Setbacks. <br />The appellant alleges under its Ninth Assignment of Error that the <br />Hearings Official erred by measuring the solar setbacks under EC 9.8320(11) <br />from "the existing property line rather than the property line established by the <br />required dedications." The Hearings Official properly determined that the <br />subject property was ex_..empt .from the solar setback standards under EC <br />9.2795(3)(c)(1). HO Decision, p. 47. Eugene Code section 9.2795(3)(c)(1) provides <br />an exemption from the solar setback standards whenever the setback will have <br />an insignificant benefit because a proposed building will only shade "A non- <br />developable area, such as a designated open space, a public utility easement, <br />street or alley." As the Hearings Official found, the "buildings abutting the north <br />property line (Buildings 1 and 2) would shade a non-developable area, namely <br />right-of-way for Oakleigh Lane and the bicycle/ pedestrian access way required <br />along the north property line." HO Decision, p. 46. The appellant does not <br />challenge this finding. Accordingly, its alleged incompliance with the solar <br />11 <br />245 <br />