that the proposed development will comply with this criterion. <br />Fourth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC <br />9.8320(11)(b) "The', PUD complies with all of the following ...EC9.6505Improvement- <br />Specifications (3)(b) Streets and Alleys, (4) Sidewalks, and (5) Bicycle Paths and Accessways <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 4.A: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also serves as the only vehicular access to and from the <br />development site, would be paved to the specifications in EC 9.6870 (or exempt). <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error 4.B: the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by pedestrians to and from River road <br />and to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient <br />sidewalks that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />C. Sub-assignment of Error 4.C. the Decision erroneously found that Oakleigh Lane, which is <br />not only adjacent to, but also is and will be used by bicyclists to and from River Road and <br />to and from the public bike/ped path along the river, would provide sufficient bike <br />accessways that are located, designed and constructed according to the specifications in <br />Eugene Code and referenced standards. <br />11 <br />The PC finds that the HO did not err in finding compliance with EC 9.8320(11)(b). As confirmed under <br />the second assignment of 'error, the PC determines that the PW referral comments are not evidence of <br />a safety concern under existing or proposed conditions. The PC concludes that the conditions of <br />approval imposed by the HO for right-of-way dedication and irrevocable petitions sufficiently ensure <br />that the improvement standards at EC 9.6505 will be met, to the extent applicable for the portion of <br />Oakleigh Lane abutting the subject property. With regard to the local improvement process associated <br />with the irrevocable petitions, the PC finds that this is not an undue burden on the abutting property <br />owners. The PC further affirms that the development's traffic impacts are acceptable under the PUD 11 approval criteria. The HO findings on pages 33-50 are hereby incorporated by reference <br />as further <br />evidence of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />Fifth Assignment of Error. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(12) <br />"The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including impacts such as <br />traffic, noise, storm" water runoff and environmental quality." <br />The PC finds that the HO properly interpreted the meaning of "minimal off-site impacts" and did not <br />err with regard to traffic impacts. The PC has previously determined, under the second assignment of <br />error, that the constitutional findings in the PW referral comments are limited to justification for a <br />proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property that would <br />accommodate future public street improvements. As such, the PC. disagrees with appellant; these <br />findings cannot betaken out of context as asserted, to mean that traffic impacts would be so , <br />substantial as to violate the requirements of EC 9.8320(12). <br />The PC finds that the HO was correct in adopting the staff findings to address the traffic component of <br />2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 11 <br />