calculation, staff's analysis shows and PC affirms that the PUD complies with the net density allowance <br />in R-1 zoning for 14 units per acre. <br />The PC finds-that the HO did not err in his understanding of the concept of clustering under EC <br />9.8300(1); however, as discussed previously under the sixth assignment of error, the PC finds that <br />there appears to be sufficient open space within the development site to accommodate the changes <br />required by the PC, which will result in more clustering of the dwellings within the development site. <br />As discussed under the sixth assignment of error, the PC is modifying the HO's decision to require <br />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 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 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 (PWD). <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 />{00109077;1 } DRAFT Final Order Page 10 <br />