Attachment C <br />Thus from the begr~niri. of the proposed CHPUD Application, it succumbs to contradictory and self- v' <br />arguments by seeking to involve this unspecified "spirit of the code " for 'flexibility" on one hand, a then, on nt B <br />the other hand, demanding "clear and objective measures " for other issues and positions that might be <br />opposing or limiting the proposed CHPUD. The Application, throughout, is replete with overgeneralized, <br />unsupported or false statements asserted as fact. <br />Application states (p. 12): "Without clear and objective measures against which to evaluate the level of tree <br />removal as it relates to the pillars [in the Envision Eugene document], the decision making path becomes <br />one of subjectivity. " <br />Here the Application alleges that there is an operational distinction between criteria, on the one hand, that can <br />be measured objectively and, on the other hand, all other criteria or standards, which must then be regarded as <br />merely subjective. This, I contend, is a profound failure of reasoning and describing the decision-making <br />process. Application asserts a false binary. It is not the opposition of objective vs. subjective that is at issue. <br />Rather, what is at issue is the accurate differentiation between quantitative and qualitative matters at hand. <br />Thus, there are some criteria that are, in whole or in part, addressed by objectively verifiable metrics and data. <br />Other criteria - indeed, often many that are of crucial importance in the actual world - reflect discretionary <br />qualitative standards and values that must be addressed by logical analysis and argumentation providing the <br />basis for rational, impartial deliberation and judgment. This properly describes the true decision-making <br />process. It is not "clear and objective," on one hand, and everything else as merely subjective, anecdotal, <br />discretionary, arbitrary, and inferior. Rather, qualitative issues can be evidence-based, factual, valid, <br />appropriate, and weighty in their own right. <br />A key example of the effect of Application's bogus reasoning is that on the one hand it insists on "clear and <br />objective measures" or standards, while on the other hand it requests 'flexibility" for exemptions and <br />exclusions from the very few precise, measurable specific requirements for lot size, coverage, and frontage that <br />would demand better site design and layout of lots [See 9.8320 (10) (k)]. Consequently, it is revealed that <br />Application not only is badly written, but it presents a poorly designed development. There is no architectural <br />integrity proposed in lot layout or building possibilities that would conform or fit harmoniously with the <br />surrounding historic neighborhood. This is a failing proposal any way to look at it. <br />Page 111 <br />