However, the only statement related to traffic under this same section in the Eugene <br />Public Works Referral Comments is, in its entirety: <br />"The development will have minimal off-site traffic impacts per the findings <br />provided previously at criterion (5)(c) regarding traffic generation and pursuant to <br />the street standards beginning at EC 9.6805 regarding the street system." <br />While the findings at EC 9.8320(5)(b) and (c) and EC 9.6805 are related to traffic, nothing <br />in the entire Public Works Referral Comments or Staff Report evaluates the actual <br />EC 9.8320(12) criterion of "minimal off-site impacts." In both documents, the word <br />"minimal" never even occurs in relation to traffic, except in conclusory statements, as <br />above, under EC 9.8320(12). <br />The statements found under the three referenced code sections are reviewed in <br />testimony above, and can be summarized as follows: <br />EC 9.8320(5)(b) - This criterion requires "safe and adequate pedestrian and bicycle <br />circulation, including related facilities, as needed among buildings and related <br />uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby residential areas, <br />transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks..." <br />The Staff Report and Public Works Referral Comments provided no quantitative <br />information at all on current and future use of Oakleigh Lane by pedestrians and <br />bicyclists, and relies entirely on a conclusory statement that: <br />"Public Works staff indicates that there is nothing to suggest that the impacts of <br />the proposed development will result in unsafe conditions in Oakleigh Lane." <br />There was no evidence or analysis to support this conclusion, and it is inconsistent <br />with Public Works staff analysis and conclusions under the "Constitutional Findings <br />for Exaction" section of the Staff Report (as discussed above). <br />Furthermore, there was no attempt to actually identify and "assess the impacts of the <br />proposed development with regard to the issue" as required by Benjamin v. City of <br />Ashland, 19 Or LUBA 600 (1990)." In this case, the Hearings Official cannot just <br />" This case involve an Ashland approval criterion that required: <br />"The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the <br />development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and <br />appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood." <br />In remanding approval of a site review, LUBA stated: <br />"In this case, if there was testimony in the proceedings below which focussed [sic] on an issue arguably <br />relevant to the qualities of livability and appropriate development in the neighborhood surrounding the <br />proposed medical office complex, the city is required to address that issue in its findings. In addressing <br />such an issue, the city must either (1) explain why the issue is not relevant to the qualities of livability <br />and appropriate development in the surrounding neighborhood, or (2) identify the issue as relevant to <br />determining the livability and appropriate development in the surrounding neighborhood and assess the <br />impacts of the proposed development with regard to the issue." <br />October 9, 2013 Conte testimony re PUD 13-1 18 1 P a g e <br />