respectively, with the exception of the southeast corner of Building 6, which appears to be within a foot of <br />the property line. Clearly violates the standards and insufficient evidence has been provided to <br />demonstrate compliance with the law. Staff incorrectly applies standard criteria by indicating that Mr. <br />Adee, who is one of the property owners and founding members of OMC (and is financially benefited by <br />the development) supports the project and thus an exception to the setback requirements can be waived <br />away by him. Mr. Adee's consent to the PUD's failure to comply with setback standards should be <br />irrelevant to the question of whether the PUD complies with law, because he could sell his adjacent <br />private property and then someone else will be forced to live illegally close to a giant condo development. <br />5. The PUD application fails to provide substantial evidence that it will adequately protect the <br />environment. EC 9.8320(12). <br />The Applicant fails to provide substantial evidence that the proposal will have minimal off-site impacts, <br />including environmental quality. EC 9.8320(12). The application fails to limit off-site stormwater impacts <br />from the large number of impervious surface areas to be constructed within the Greenway and <br />floodplain, and fails to provide any. information regarding fill below the 100-year floodplain. The PUD <br />record does not contain substantial evidence ensuring that these standards are met with regard to <br />surface water and drainage. Building 2, 4, and 7 will require the grade to be brought up to above 401 ft, <br />above mean sea level. The idea of 150-200 dump trucks of gravel fill dumped into the Greenway, and a <br />three -foot high wall where the fill ends and City park begins will clearly damage the natural flow of <br />water and may increase flooding (including of adjacent property and park land). The applicant has not <br />provided any evidence or detail how it will grade the massive amount of fill required for this <br />development so that it will not create a wall, increase erosion, or dump fill onto the public open space <br />which will now fi inction as theyemaining habitat for raptors who utilize the meadow area for hunting, or <br />for recreation. The City Staff Report inadequately conditions the recommendation to-approve the final <br />PUD upon some form of agreement that the grade will. be brought to BFE or higher, but the PUD itself fails <br />to provide substantial evidence that the grade complies with current standards at all. <br />The PUD fails to provide substantial evidence that it complies with LC 10-322.15 (d) mandating <br />"Preserv[ation] of areas of annual fJ.ooding, floodplains, and wetlands." The site development map for the <br />PUD clearly indicates that a portion of the site falls within the floodplain will be destroyed by tons of <br />gravel without any evidence of how-that fill will coexist with the adjacent_public open space, and will <br />remove a large swath of land necessary for absorption of floodwaters. <br />The PUD also fails to provide substantial evidence that it complies with LC10-322.15 (h) which requires <br />"Maintenance and sustenance of natural riparian vegetation found upon the lower alluvial bottomlands <br />and upper terraces bordering the river forthe following reasons: provide habitat, food and shade for <br />wildlife, protect natural areas...ensure scenic quality and screening of uses from the river." <br />The OMC site development will remove and destroy river terrace land bordering the river, and the <br />meadow habitat currently sustaining wildlife including beavers, ospreys; eagles, and other raptors, which <br />feed on rodent life in the meadow. The current plan will excavate and dump gravel fill in order to get it <br />above major flooding potential and will permanently destroy that area for future protection, particularly <br />as river levels rise due to climate change. Moreover, the development's many large buildings (which are <br />proposed to be painted with bright colors such as red that will starkly contrast the natural landscape and <br />will further stand out in contrast to the environment,) will clearly be. visible from the river and riverpath <br />and will destroy rather than ensure scenic quality and screening of uses from the river. <br />Because development has been so intense in this area of the river corridor (massive complex-under <br />construction forthe last 2 years directly across the river from the proposed PUD, townhomes adjacent to <br />7 <br />803 <br />