TosupportourconclusionthattheApplicationshouldbedenied,wewilldiscussthemany <br />instanceswhereitfailstocomplywith,isindirectconflictwith,andinadequatelyaddresses <br />conformingtotherelevantEugenePlanningandDevelopmentCodes.Weofferfactualand <br />analyticalreasoningtocorrectandrefutenotonlytheApplication’srepetitivediscussionsfullof <br />erroneousandunsupportedarguments,butalsoitsexaggeratedanddeceptiveclaims. <br />WehavedeterminedthatwecannotrespondeffectivelytotheApplication’s“Written <br />Statement”onapage-by-pagebasis,becauseitissuchapoorlywrittenandbadlyorganizedtext. <br />Forexample,itbeginswith EC9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnitDevelopment,butdevolves <br />intoquestionabletheoreticalargumentsandthenpresentslengthydiscussionsunderthe <br />provisionsof EC9.8300(pp.12-19of67).Onthesepages,however,therearenoclear <br />referencestotheCriteriaof EC9.8320 underwhich“findingsandconclusions”mustbemade. <br />Consequently,webeginbyaddressingtheCriteriasequentiallyandeventuallyrespondto <br />Application’sstatementson EC9.8300 under EC9.8320(10)(k)whereitisalsolocatedinthe <br />Application.Thus,ourcommentson EC9.8300 canbeconsideredinourreportforthedecision- <br />makingprocessoftheHearingsOfficial. <br />\[Note:Statementsfromthe“TentativePUDApplication”throughoutourtextarein italics <br />andquotes,plusinblockindentswherelengthy.Allpagenumbersrefertothetextdated <br />March3,2017;Revised:June19,2017;August22,2017,andmayincludevariousfiled <br />supplementalstatementsaddedsubsequently. <br />EugenePlanningCodesarein bold inourheadingsandtext.\] <br />IftheproposedCHPUDwereapprovedaspresented,evenwithmitigatingconditions,itwould <br />resultina faitaccompli oftreescut,grading,roadwayconstruction,lotsstaked,someutilities <br />installed–allwithirreparableenvironmentalimpactsthatwouldremainregardlessofwhether <br />lotsweresoldanddwellingunitsbuilt.Andiftheywerebuilt,howwouldthecertainconditions <br />andguidelinesthatthisApplicationproposesforcontrollingimplementationoffurther <br />developmentbeenforced? <br />TheApplicationstatesrepeatedlythatnoplansareincludedforbuildingunitsandthatnodrafts <br />areincludedforCCRs\[Conditions,Covenants,Restrictions\],orHOA\[HomeOwners <br />Association\]requirementsandresponsibilities,ordeedprotectionsfortreesinproposed <br />conservationareas.\[SeelistofApplication'sreferencestoCCRs,AttachmentD\]Thusthereare <br />noguaranteesthatanyclaimsandwarrantsanticipatedintheApplicationwouldbeimplemented. <br />TheApplicationadmits,ineffect,thatallofwhatitproposesforbuildings,grounds,savedand <br />newtrees,preservation,conservation,etc.,aremerely“aspirations”(p.30of67). <br />TheconceptandplanforclusteringdwellingunitsontheproposedCHPUDsitearereferredto <br />frequentlyintheApplication(morethan15timesinthe67pages).Similarly,thereare <br />repetitionsof“nobuildingsareproposed”(atleast11times)andnoCCRsandHOA <br />specificationsproposed(atleasteighttimes),butrathertheyarecalled“premature”(p.35of <br />67).Examiningthisfrequencyofworduseandideas,accordingtothewidelyacceptedresearch <br />strategyofcontentanalysis,canrevealwhatissuesareimportantandhowtheyarerelatedina <br />text.NotingsuchfrequenciescallsourattentiontoplacesintheApplicationwhereitrelieson <br />questionableandunpersuasiveargumentsandoftenrevealsinternalcontradictionsinthetext. <br />3 <br /> <br />