Attachment C <br />the curb. Thus there is no space for a walker to step off the roadway. The south side also has obstructions such <br />as berms and hedges adjacent to the curb. Attachment B <br />Conclusions. One conclusion from observing and experiencing the transportation system involving Spring <br />Boulevard and the proposed PUD is that safety and emergency response times would be further jeopardized if <br />an additional 28 -31 % of existing residents were added by the proposed PUD. There would be more <br />than "minimal off-site impacts" on this single, essential, exclusive access for emergency services for the <br />current 112 residences, and more than minimal for the 31-35 new residences in the proposed PUD. Plus, <br />additional road blockage and congestion would result from heavy truck traffic for logging and removing almost <br />half the mature trees on site, construction of infrastructure, and buildout of individual homes, which would not <br />just be in the short run, but extend over many years, since lots will be sold separately. <br />Specifically, in terms of EC 9.8320, the proposed PUD fails to meet these three criteria for the neighborhood: <br />Criterion 5. It does not provide "safe and adequate transportation systems" for "pedestrian, bicycle, and transit <br />circulation" that involve "adjacent and nearby residential areas." The proposal does not create a "transportation <br />system" in itself. It proposes merely to create a private road with both ends looping back to Capital Drive, <br />which itself is a dead end immediately to the north, resulting in no secondary outlet or inlet to the proposed <br />development. <br />Criterion 6. It will present "a significant risk to public health and safety," especially given the constraints and <br />dangers to all users of the Spring Boulevard/Capital Drive roadways, which is not limited only to its critical <br />"impediment to emergency response." <br />Criterion 11. Finally, the proposal fundamentally fails an essential determinate requirement: "The proposed <br />development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff <br />and environmental quality." [emphasis provided] <br />Implications of Logical and Analytical Failures of Application: Problems with Flexibility and Objectivity <br />In conclusion, I would like to address some general issues that are raised at the beginning of the Application <br />statement, particularly in the "Note" added under EC 9.8300 (1). Application sets forth claims and arguments <br />that should be challenged and refuted, because there are broader implications of these issues that, if taken <br />seriously, could set erroneous and dangerous precedents for this and future proceedings in the decision-making <br />process of Eugene Planning and Development and in other public policy areas. <br />Application states (p. 12): "Through the flexibility of the PUD process, any particular design element or <br />conflicts with code can be adjusted to reach mutually agreed upon solutions or an understanding that <br />adheres to the spirit of the code. The PUD purpose statement and our responses to it throughout this written <br />statement provides [sic] the flexibility that allows the project to be approved as designed. " <br />It is alleged that this flexibility" fully and incontrovertibly accrues to the benefit of the applicant in discussion <br />with Eugene Planning, so that it "allows the project to be approved as designed. " It implies that this could be <br />done without the parties providing any opponents the opportunity to have their challenges and contravening <br />evidence submitted and adopted. I do not believe that applicants should be given the exclusive privilege <br />of ` flexibility" to have their proposals simply "adjusted" to agree with an unspecified "spirit of the code " in <br />order to gain approvals. I hope that the City will adhere to the well-accepted standards of proceeding in the <br />decision-making process in order to consider the presentation of oppositional evidence for impartial evaluation <br />and adjudication of proposals. <br />Page 110 <br />