TheCommitteesubmitsadditionalevidencesupportingthispositionbyreferringtothe <br />Applicant’scommentsonPage26of67ofthe8/22/17Application.Allthreewrittenversionsof <br />theApplication(3/3/17,6/19/17and8/22/17)mentionthattheApplicantproposedadedication <br />totheCityofEugeneoftheapproximate7,560SF(.17acres)southern-mostportionofTractA. <br />Theproposeddedicationofthisstripofland(approximately21feetwideandapproximately360 <br />feetlongwithanestimated42%slope)was,ostensibly,toprovidepublicaccessfromthehairpin <br />turnonCapitalDrivetotheRibbonTrail.TheCitydeclinedthisopportunityunlessthe <br />Applicantwouldalsoincludeinthededication.91additionaladjacentacres(basicallyallofLots <br />18and19).TheCitysoughttheadditionallandtoprovidesufficientlateralareafortrail“switch <br />backs”tomitigatetheimpassablecharacterofthisextremelysteep,dangerous,narrowpieceof <br />proposeddedicationarea.OnPage26of67ofthe8/22/17Application,regardingtheCity’s <br />requestforadonationofadditionalland,theApplicationstates“Needlesstosay,thiswasnotan <br />optionforthedevelopmentoftheproperty.” <br />IftheCityofEugenedeemsthisportionoftheproject’slandtoosteepandhazardousforpublic <br />use,whyshouldtheApplicant(andthesafetyoftheApplicant’slotpurchasers)beheldtoa <br />lesserstandard??ThisportionofTractAhassuchacontrivedshapethatitssoleuseisto <br />provideaccesstothe“proposed6footseethroughagriculturaltypefence”alongtheproject’s <br />southpropertyline.TheCommitteewillfurtherdiscussthispropertylinefencebelowinthe <br />sectionbelowthatdiscussesCriteria10(k). <br />(Note:AlthoughtheResponseCommitteerequestedthattheCityprovidedocumentation <br />regardingitsreviewanddeclineoftheApplicant’sproposaltodedicatethisnarrowsouthern <br />stripoflandtotheCityforRibbonTrailaccess,suchwrittendocumentationhasneverbeen <br />directlyprovidedtotheResponseCommittee.) <br />Again,thislandisunquestionablynotusable,assubstantiatedbytheCityofEugene’sresponse <br />totheApplicant’sofferofdedicationoflandforRibbonTrailaccess. <br />The2.46acresofso-calledPreservationAreaswerenotedbytheApplicationinitsdiscussionof <br />Criterion8(onPage47of67oftheApplication)as“visuallyaccessible.”Theuseofthe <br />description“visuallyaccessible”istelling.Theuseofthewords“visuallyaccessible”to <br />describethesepreservationareasimpliesthat,infact,theyarenot“physically”accessible. <br />Otherwisewhydrawthedistinction?TheApplication,throughout,encouragesthe“use”ofthese <br />areasbyallresidents,includingfamilies.Aspreviouslymentioned,the“use”ofthislandby <br />residentsconstitutesasubstantialsafetyissue.However,ifnotphysicallyaccessible,isthe <br />majorityofthe2.46acresofCommonPreservationAreaeventruly“visuallyaccessible”as <br />claimedinportionsoftheApplication? <br />Forthemajorityoftheacreage,theanswerisno. <br />ThemajorityoftheCommonPreservationAreaislocatedinTractA(2.33acresofthetotal2.46 <br />acres).ThisacreagewillnotgenerallybevisuallyaccessiblefromCupolaDriveorfrom21of <br />the34lotsintheproposedproject,asthe8/22/17ApplicationclaimsonPage47of67. <br />100 <br /> <br />