p T -7--~I <br />Dear Becky Taylor, <br />TREE PRESERVATION L3 <br />OMC is claiming 135 trees are on their property of which 56 will be removed. That is a 41% tree <br />removal. They are including the mature cedar trees on North property line. I counted 2S cedar trees and <br />submitted photos of them Oct. 2"d. The cedar trees are on the Thorns property.'Now OMC will have a <br />50% tree removal due to the cedar tress not being included. A professional arborist is not <br />recommending a path on the North side; however, the South side would be a great Segway from the <br />West side entrance. <br />The 26 inch tree OMC is planning on removing is so building #2 will fit into their plan. 50% of the trees <br />on the two tax lot will be removed to execute this plan to develop a co-housing unit. OMC is required to <br />replant trees, 1:1. Is that only for the significant trees? How can this happen if there is not much open <br />space for root growth? <br />I encourage you all to deny OMC for their applications for the PUD and Greenway due to many factors <br />that have been submitted to the record. OMC needs to accept that their plan once was an idea, now <br />too many things going against them. OMC wants to have neighborhood respect, they are not getting it. <br />90% of OMC is from South Eugene who does not know this neighborhood. OMC is not willing to down <br />size the common house, which is one of the main expenses. OMC is not flexible to reduce cost, yet want <br />maximum benefits. OMC stopped communicating with the neighbors when they heard suggestions to <br />minimize the project and to encourage healthy living for our neighborhood. Neighbors suggested single <br />homes on the property with driveways feeding onto Oakleigh Lane and that wasn't enough. Bottom line <br />is, the neighborhood does not support this project. There will be no meadow. <br />Thank you, <br />Anne Love <br />133 Oakleigh Lane <br />934 <br />