th <br />hillalongAgateSt.andEast19Ave.Thuschildrenandothersneedingassistancewouldhave <br />tobedriventotheirdestinationsorthebusstops\[see EC9.8320(5),p.68\]. <br />TheproposedCHPUDdoesnotprovideeitheratransportationsystemornetwork,although <br />Applicationmakestheabsurdassertion“thattheunitsareclusteredaroundthetransportation <br />system”\[(p.21of67)under EC9.8320(1)PolicyA.13\].RatherApplicationproposesasingle, <br />narrowprivatestreetthatwouldlooparoundandconnectintwodifferentplacestoCapitalDr.– <br />aroadwaythatdead-endstothenorthatapedestrianentrancetoHendricksPark.Tothesouth, <br />theonlymajor,directtravelwayforaccessandegresstoandfromtheneighborhoodwouldbe <br />overonequarterofamileofsteepelevationtothefive-wayintersectionofSpringBlvd.and <br />CapitalDr.Theclosestactualtransportationnodesareonetotwomilesfurtherdownthehillat <br />anelevationdifferentialofover400feet.Theyareneitherconvenientorclose. <br />Accordingtothedefinitionof“proximity,”theproposedCHPUDisnot“near”tothelocations <br />stipulatedintheCriterion:to“locatehigherdensityresidentialdevelopmentnear <br />employmentorcommercialservices,inproximitytomajortransportationsystemsorwith <br />transportationefficientnodes.” <br />Consequently,theApplicationfailstomeettherequirementsofCriterionEC9.8320(1) <br />PolicyA.11andshouldbedenied. <br />PolicyA.13Increaseoverallresidentialdensityinthemetropolitanareaby <br />creatingmoreopportunitiesforeffectivelydesignedin-fill,redevelopment,and <br />mixedusewhileconsideringimpactsofincreasedresidentialdensityonhistoric, <br />existing,andfutureneighborhoods. <br />Throughoutourresponse,wehavediscussedissuesofurbaninfillforincreasingresidential <br />densityinrelationtotheUGBandconservingruralresourcelands.Wereasonedandoffered <br />evidencethattheproposedCHPUDisnot,astheApplicationclaims,“appropriate”or <br />“effectivelydesigned”infill\[Seeabove EC9.8320(1)PolicyA.10\].Thelotplanlayout,from <br />whichallotherimpactsfollow,seekstomaximizedensityfor“thegoalsofthedeveloper(e.g., <br />marketability,feasibility,finance-ability,andlivability)”(p.16of67).TheApplicationadmits <br />thatdonatingtwolotstotheCityaspartofpossibleconstructionofanaccesstrailfromthe <br />proposedCHPUDtotheRibbonTrail“isnotanoption”(p.26of67).Thisfurtherrevealsthe <br />economicgoalofmaximizingclusterdensityratherthanthelivabilityvaluesoflowerdensity, <br />andprovidingadequateaccesstoadjacentrecreation\[See EC9.8320(8),p.86\]andreducing <br />vehicletraffictominimizeimpactsonsafetyandemergencyresponsebothonandoffsite\[See <br />EC9.8320(5)(b),p.65,(6),p.71,and(11),p.163\]. <br />Moreover,whatiscrucialin PolicyA.13 isthequalification:“whileconsideringimpacts…on <br />…neighborhoods.”ThisisacoderequirementthattheApplicationignoresand,infact,seems <br />todisparage.ConsidertheApplication’sdismissivestatements(p.21of67): <br />“Anyproposedchangetoaneighborhoodthathasn’tseenchangeinaverylongtimewill <br />haveimpacts.” <br />11 <br /> <br />