additional setbacks and landscaping to ensure compliance. Here, as modified, those requirements <br />further the PUD purposes with regard to clustering of dwellings, and are therefore incorporated by <br />reference. Except as modified above, the HO findings on pages 33-35 are hereby incorporated by <br />reference as further evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this <br />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 of 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.oferror. <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 the 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 (PWO). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 10.B: 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) were adopted to justify exaction from the applicant <br />for that a portion of the subject property abutting the street. Those findings do not demonstrate that <br />Oakleigh Lane will be unsafe unless developed now. In fact, other evidence in the record specifically <br />supports a conclusion that the street will be safe as currently improved, even with the anticipated <br />increase in traffic generated from the proposed PUD. Accordingly, the PC finds that immediate <br />improvements are not required of the development, either abutting the development site, or on any <br />part of Oakleigh Lane, based on the findings and conclusions provided previously under the second <br />assignment of error, which are incorporated here by reference. <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD Page 10 <br />15 <br />