oneroutethroughtheentireadjacentneighborhoodforoverone-quartermile.Safetyand <br />emergencyaccessarejeopardizedaspedestrians,bicyclists,andvehiclesmixontheproposed <br />andexistingnarrowroadwayswithlimitedparking\[See EC9.8320(5)(b)\].Denseclusteringof <br />lotsaroundtheprivateroadalsoleadstoproblemsprovidingservicesforpotablewater, <br />wastewater,andstormwatersystems\[See EC9.4300(3),EC9.8300(1)(a),EC9.8320(1) <br />PolicyA.10 andEWEBreferralcomments,and EC9.8320(7)\]. <br />Giventhesteepandunbuildableslopesofaboutonethirdofthetotalproperty,thegeographyof <br />thesiteinescapablyconstrainsthenumberoflotsanddwellingunitsthatcouldbeproposed.The <br />numberofdwellingunitsproposedisnotagenerousconcessionbytheApplicant,butanattempt <br />tosqueezeinasmanyaspossiblebymanipulatinglotcoveragewithinthemaximumallowable <br />fiveunitsperacre.Thisproposalinevitablyproducescrowdedandirregularresultsaroundthe <br />narrowprivateroad,compromisingsafety,asnotedabove.WithoutincludingCCRsandHOA <br />regulations,theproposedCHPUDwouldresultinbuild-outofindividuallotsbyseparatebuyers <br />thatwouldbecomeahodgepodgeofhousingdesigns,whichnoarchitecturalrenderingcould <br />anticipate.Inaddition,therewouldbenoprotectionfortheintegrityoftheremainingtreesand <br />landscapeorforestablishingresponsibilityforfurtherdevelopmentandmanagementofnatural <br />resources\[see EC9.8320(1)PolicyE.2,and(2)\]. <br />AttheconclusionofApplication’sdiscussionof EC9.8300,thereisalistofsevenpointsthat <br />areclaimedtobe“amenitiesnottypicallyfoundinatraditionalneighborhood,”andthusthe <br />proposedCHPUD“exceedsthequalityofanytraditionallot-by-lotdevelopment”(p.18). <br />However,uponexamination,thesepointsturnouttobeovergeneralizedandinaccurate. <br />1.“Largecommonopenspaces.”–Notclearlydifferentiatedandnotatallaccessibledue <br />tosteepslopes;see EC9.8320(8). <br />2.“Clustersofpreservedtrees.”–Treesremainingwouldbevulnerableafterharvesting <br />alltreesproposedforconstructingroads,services,andbuildings;see EC9.8320(4)and <br />Forester’sReport,AttachmentH. <br />3.“Separationbetweenbuildings.”–Noevidenceforthisclaim,becausenoplans <br />includedforsitingbuildings,noranyCC&RsorHOArequirements. <br />4.“Privacy.”–Again,noevidence,asinaboveclaimof“separation.” <br />5.“Protectionofviewsintothesite.”–Application’sevidencepresentedbyviewingsite <br />fromatalldowntownstructureandwalkingRibbonTrailiscontrovertedbyourphotos,images <br />andviewsofthesitefromvariouslocations(includedinourreports). <br />6.“Accesstonature.”–Seeabove#1.Steepslopesandprivatelotsprecludegeneral <br />access,otherthantheexistingpublicaccesstoHendricksParkatdeadendofCapitalDr.Thus <br />nonewaccesscreated. <br />Thereisnoarchitecturalintegrityorefficiencytothesiteplan.TheResponseCommitteehas <br />shownthatApplication’sclaimthattheproposedCHPUD“meetsthepurpose…andexceeds <br />148 <br /> <br />