Attachment C <br />Criterion 5. It does not provide "safe and adequate transportation systems" for "pedestrian, bicycle, and <br />transit circulation" that involve "adjacent and nearby residential areas." The proposal does not creaNtochment B <br />"transportation system" in itself. It proposes merely to create a private road with both ends looping back to <br />Capital Drive, which itself is a dead end immediately to the north, resulting in no secondary outlet or inlet to <br />the proposed development. <br />Criterion 6. It will present "a significant risk to public health and safety," especially given the constraints <br />and dangers to all users of the Spring Boulevard/Capital Drive roadways, which is not limited only to its <br />critical "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 <br />runoff and environmental quality." [emphasis provided] <br />Implications of Logical and Analytical Failures of Application: <br />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 <br />arguments that should be challenged and refuted, because there are broader implications of these issues that, <br />if taken seriously, could set erroneous and dangerous precedents for this and future proceedings in the <br />decision-making 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 <br />written 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 <br />discussion with Eugene Planning, so that it "allows the project to be approved as designed. " It implies that <br />this could be done without the parties providing any opponents the opportunity to have their challenges and <br />contravening evidence submitted and adopted. I do not believe that applicants should be given the exclusive <br />privilege of `flexibility" to have their proposals simply "adjusted" to agree with an unspecified "spirit of the <br />code " in order to gain approvals. I hope that the City will adhere to the well-accepted standards of <br />proceeding in the decision-making process in order to consider the presentation of oppositional evidence for <br />impartial evaluation and adjudication of proposals. <br />Thus from the beginning of the proposed CHPUD Application, it succumbs to contradictory and self-serving <br />arguments by seeking to invoke this unspecified "spirit of the code " for 'flexibility " on one hand, and then, <br />on 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 <br />tree removal as it relates to the pillars [in the Envision Eugene document], the decision making path <br />becomes one of subjectivity. " <br />Here the Application alleges that there is an operational distinction between criteria, on the one hand, that <br />can be measured objectively and, on the other hand, all other criteria or standards, which must then be <br />Page 114 <br />