Infact,the8/27/17Applicationtoutstheproposedproject’screationof“wildlifecorridors,” <br />“contiguousopenspace”or“connectivepassageways”innumerousplacesthroughoutits67 <br />pages.Forexample: <br />Page25-“connectivepassagewaysforwildlife”;Page32-“preservinglargecontiguousareas <br />ofopenspace”;Page32-“providingwildlifecorridors”;Page37-“alargeareaofcontiguous <br />forest”;andPage66–“createonelargerpreservedarea.”- <br />Theabovemisleadingphrasesaside,theCommitteeisextremelyconcernedaboutthisproposed <br />fenceandthevisualimpactitwillhavefromtheRibbonTraillookingwestacrosstheCity’s <br />landanduptowardtheeasternboundaryoftheproposedproject.Obviously,theCommittee’s <br />concernratchetedupevenfurtherwhennomentionoftheproposedfence,itsdesign,color, <br />material,etc.isfoundinthe8/22/17writtenApplication. <br />Further,howdoesawildlifecorridorreallyallowpassageofwildlifeiftheentireeastern <br />boundaryoftheproposedprojectisfencedin?A6foothighfenceapproximately1,870feet <br />longdoesnotpromotethenaturalmovementofanimals. <br />Infact,theso-calledwildlifecorridorthattheApplicant’sConsultantinsistsistheonlyreason <br />forthecreationofthestripoflandbetweenLots13and14(seediscussionofaboveinsectionre: <br />EC9.8320Criterion10(b)PublicImprovementStandards)is,infact,boundedonthe <br />easternedgebythisenormousfenceandonthewesternedgebyapavedroad(CupolaDr.).Not <br />thetypicalcharacteristicsofawildlifecorridor. <br />Onceagain,theApplicationoverlooksasubjectthatcouldhaveasubstantialimpactontheview <br />lookinginto/outoftheproposeddevelopmentanditsabilitytoblendwiththeneighboring <br />community. <br />Moreover,the8/27/17ApplicationstatesintheabovesectiondiscussingtheEugeneCodeand <br />(Residential)InteriorYardandFrontYardFenceHeight(onPage56of67): <br />“None\[i.e.,nofencing\]\[is\]proposedatthistime.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheimplicationhereisthatInteriorYardandFrontYardFencingwillbeproposedatalater <br />date.Thisisconfusingvagueandmisleading.Onpage26of67,attheendofSection1(a) <br />regardingthe SouthHillsStudyPolicies,theApplicationstates“Inaddition,theCC&Rsforthe <br />projectwillprohibittheconstructionoffencesbetweenindividuallots.” <br />TheCommitteecannotlocateanyotherdiscussionwithintheApplicationregardingaCC&R <br />prohibitionofindividuallotlinefencing.Itseemsthatanotherappropriateplacewithinthe <br />ApplicationtofurthermentiontheprojectcharacteristicwouldbeintheFencessectiononPage <br />56of67oftheApplication.Further,becausethepublichasnotbeenprovidedevenadraftcopy <br />ofCC&Rsfortheproposedproject,thereisnowaytoverifytheactualexistenceoffence <br />“prohibitions”withinthecommunity. <br />137 <br /> <br />