under this assignment of error. <br />Ninth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(11)(k) <br />"All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application <br />except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the <br />purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose o Planned Unit Development: EC 9.2795 Solar Setback <br />Standards." <br />The PC finds that the HO did not err in his interpretation of the solar setback standard and that he was <br />correct in granting an exception pursuant to EC 9.2795(3)(c)(1) Exemptions to Solar Setback <br />Requirements, based on the right-of-way being required along the entire north property line. The HO <br />findings on pages 43-50 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of compliance with <br />the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />Tenth Assignment of Error: The Hearings Official made a decision that was not supported by <br />substantial probative and reliable evidence in the whole record, and fhe Decision improperly <br />construed the applicable law." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 10.A: The HO errerd by not adequately.considering the <br />preponderance of evidence and analysis in the "Constitutional findings for Exaction" <br />produced by the Eugene Public Works Department (PWD). <br />8. Sub-assignment of Error 10.8: the Hearings Official erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane <br />was not an "access lane." <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 10.C. The Hearings Official used erroneous data for traffic counts <br />in on or more places..." <br />D. Sub-assignment of Error 10.D: The Hearings Official erroneously allowed the <br />impermissible new and non-responsive evidence submitted by the applicant's <br />representatives on October 16, 2013, without providing an opportunity for opponents to <br />respond, despite the timely, written request by Paul Conte. <br />As addressed previously, the PC finds that the constitutional findings included in the staff report and <br />PW referral comments (Pages 2-4 of Exhibit PH-30) had naapplicability other than the abutting street <br />segment because the findings were used only to justify exactions from the applicant. Further, the PC <br />finds that immediate improvements are not required of the development, either abutting the <br />development site, or on any part of Oakleigh Lane, based on the findings and conclusions provided <br />previously under the second assignment of error, which are incorporated here by reference. <br />The PC affirms the HO's decision that Oakleigh Lane is a low-volume residential street under existing <br />and proposed conditions, as the street has not yet been designed and built to urban City standards and <br />the projected ADT is within the 250 to 750 range. The conditions imposed by the HO for right-of-way <br />dedication and irrevocable petition from the developer will ensure that the PUD contributes its <br />DRAFT Final Order <br />Page 10 <br />112 <br />