Moreover,theclaimthat“thesiteprovidessafeandadequatetransportationfacilities”(p.57of <br />67)isrefutedbyitsdesignresultinginpoor“circulationofautomobiles”duetonarrow, <br />congestedtravelways,limitedparking,andaproposedloopedprivateroadthathasnosecondary <br />outlet,butmustfunnelallpersonalandheavycommercialandconstructiontrafficdowntwo <br />narrowneighborhoodfeederroads\[Seeabove EC9.8320(5),(11)\].ByproposingCupolaDr.as <br />aprivatestreet,Applicationcircumventspublicstreetlightingstandards.Therealsowillnotbe <br />bikepathsorlanes.Thesecostcuttingproposalsareattheexpenseofsafety.Parkingalongone <br />sideofthenarrowproposedCupolaDr.shouldbeprohibitedforaddedsafetyandemergency <br />response,justasitisnotpermittedonSpringBlvd.andnowannouncedforCapitalDr.upto <br />CrestaDeRuta.(SeeLetterfromCityTrafficEngineer,PublicWorksMaintenanceandAICFire <br />Marshal,AdministrativeOrderAO58-18-01,February23,2018,(AttachmentV). <br />Thereisnoarchitecturalintegrityorefficiencytothesiteplan.TheResponseCommitteehas <br />shownthatApplication’sclaimthattheproposedCHPUD“meetsthepurpose…andexceeds <br />thestandards”of EC9.4300 isdemonstrablyfalse\[Seeabove EC9.8320(1),(5),(8),and(12)\]. <br />(2)Promoteanattractive,safe,efficient,andstableenvironmentthatincorporates <br />acompatiblevarietyandmixofusesanddwellingtypes. <br />Applicationcannotsatisfythisprovision,because,aswehavedemonstratedthroughoutour <br />response,theproposedCHPUDhasnomixedusesorvarietyofdwellingtypes.“Theproject <br />includestheexistingstructures,aswellasproposedlotsforsinglefamilydetachedandsingle <br />familyattachedunits”(p.5of67).Theyareallthesame“usesand…types”\[Seeabove EC <br />9.8320(1)PolicyA.17 p.13\].ExistingstructuresmustconformtosinglefamilyR-1 <br />requirements(SeeCodeComplianceServicesletter,January23,2018,AttachmentG). <br />(3)Provideforeconomyofsharedservicesandfacilities. <br />Applicationstates:“lotsareclusteredtoprovideaccesstosharedfacilities,whichreducesthe <br />costofnewdevelopment”and“toensureefficacyintheprovisionofsharedfacilitiesand <br />services”\[whatevertheverbiageofthissecondquotemeans(p.57of67)\].However,these <br />claimsarenowrenderedfalse.TherecentEWEBletter(January15,2018)shouldbesufficient <br />todenyoutrightthisproposedCHPUDTentativeApplication,giventhe“RestrictiveCovenant” <br />tobeissued“makingdevelopmentcontingentonthenewinfrastructurebeingfundedand <br />operational.”Thereisinsufficientcapacityforneeded“domesticandfireflows.”Obviously,the <br />timeframeforcompletionofaone-tothree-milliondollarcapitalinfrastructureprojectcannotbe <br />anticipatedatthispoint.Eventually,someorallcostsmaybebornebyalltheEWEBratepayers <br />inthecityandthosewhopurchasetheproposedlots.Thisishardlyefficiencyofsite <br />development,andcertainlynoeconomicbenefittotheratepayerstosubsidizeanup-scale <br />developmentof34–38dwellingunits,ortothosewhopurchaselotsintheproposedCHPUD <br />andmaybeassessedadditionaldevelopmentcosts\[Seeabove EC9.8320(1)PolicyA.10\]. <br />(4)Encouragetheconstructionofavarietyofhousingtypesatpriceranges <br />necessarytomeettheneedsofallincomegroupsinthecity. <br />140 <br /> <br />