AttpOment C <br />regarded as merely subjective. This, I contend, is a profound failure of reasoning and describing the ecision- <br />making process. Application asserts a false binary. It is not the opposition of objective vs. subjectiidthahi gent B <br />at issue. Rather, what is at issue is the accurate differentiation between quantitative and qualitative matters at <br />hand. Thus, there are some criteria that are, in whole or in part, addressed by objectively verifiable metrics <br />and data. Other criteria - indeed, often many that are of crucial importance in the actual world - reflect <br />discretionary qualitative standards and values that must be addressed by logical analysis and argumentation <br />providing the basis for rational, impartial deliberation and judgment. This properly describes the true <br />decision-making process. It is not "clear and objective," on one hand, and everything else as merely <br />subjective, anecdotal, discretionary, arbitrary, and inferior. Rather, qualitative issues can be evidence-based, <br />factual, valid, 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 <br />that would demand better site design and layout of lots [See 9.8320 (10) (k)]. Consequently, it is revealed <br />that Application not only is badly written, but it presents a poorly designed development. There is no <br />architectural integrity proposed in lot layout or building possibilities that would conform or fit harmoniously <br />with the surrounding historic neighborhood. This is a failing proposal any way to look at it. <br />Page 115 <br />