Attachment B <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 4.8: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only <br />adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River road and to and from the <br />public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient sidewalks that are located, designed <br />and constructed according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 4.C: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is not only <br />adjacent to, but also is and will be used by bicyclists to and from River Road and to and from the <br />public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient bike accessways that are located, <br />designed and constructed according to the specifications in Eugene Code and referenced standard <br />5. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(12) "The proposed development shall have <br />minimal off-site impacts, including impacts such as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental <br />quality." <br />6. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(13) "The proposed development shall be <br />reasonably compatible and harmonious with adiacent and nearby land uses." <br />7. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(3) "The PUD will provide adequate screening <br />from surrounding properties including, but not limited to anticipated locations, bulk, and height. <br />8. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(11)(a) "The PUD complies with EC 9.2000 <br />through EC 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 8.A: the Hearings Official erred in his calculation of the net density area <br />pursuant to EC 9.2751... <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 8.8: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the concept of <br />"clustering" under EC 9.8300(1)(e). <br />9. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(11)(k) "All other applicable development <br />standards for features explicitly included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a <br />proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit <br />Development: EC 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards." <br />10. The Hearings Official made a decision that was not supported by substantial, probative and reliable <br />evidence in the whole record, and the Decision improperly construed the applicable law." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 10.A: The HO errerd by not adequately considering the preponderance of <br />evidence and analysis in the "Constitutional findings for Exaction" produced by the Eugene Public <br />Works Department (PWD). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 10.8: the Hearings Official erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane was not an <br />"access lane." <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 10.C: The Hearings Official used erroneous data for traffic counts in on or <br />more places..." <br />D. Sub-assignment of Error 10.D: The Hearings Official erroneously allowed the impermissible new and <br />non-responsive evidence submitted by the applicant's representatives on October 16, 2013, without <br />providing an opportunity for opponents to respond, despite the timely, written request by Paul Conte. <br />11. "The Hearings Official Erred by failing to correctly assess the lack of adequate fire and emergency <br />services available to the proposed PUD site, as required under EC 9.8320(7)." <br />Page 11 <br />