' But as the site development map for the OMC PUD clearly indicates, some of the site of the <br />proposed development falls within the floodplain, removing land necessary for Ibsorption.of <br />floodwaters. <br />It's worth pointing out thatthe dense development that is mormally encouraged by the Eugene <br />Metro Plan as environmental (e.g. II-C-3, #1) is in this site itself a problem: dense development <br />in a floodplain presents environmental losses that should be weighed against the usual virtues of <br />density. It seems clear that on the floodplain, less dense development is far more compatible <br />with the goals of the Metro Plan: "Undeveloped residential land is considered unbuildable and <br />removed from the supply if it is `within...the floodway" (III=A-2, #5). <br />In a more binding- context, the Eugene City Code notes at its very start that "land use code is <br />designed to help.;. protect from ...flood" (9.0020-2(d)). The more the city authorizes development <br />in the floodplain, the less the land of the floodplain can absorb flood waters. <br />*Gu.ideline._ 10-322.15 (h) affirms the code requirement of "Maintenance and sustenance,of <br />natural riparian vegetation found upon the lower alluvial bottmnlands and upper terraces <br />bordering the river for the following reasons: provide habitat, food and shade for wildlife, protect <br />natural areas ...erisure.scenic quality and screening of uses from the river." <br />But the OMC site development will take away meadow habitat currently sustaining wildlife <br />including'beavers (multiply sighted inthe. meadow), ospreys, eagles, and other raptors, which <br />feed on rodent life in the meadow. <br />City Code Incompatibility <br />"Screening and scenic views: the PUD's many large buildings will clearly be visible from the <br />river and riverpath. I am attaching 3 photographs, taken from the public path in the Bascom <br />Trail System, that clearly show how permeable the existing vegetative. fringe is. In the first <br />picture; evergreen trees on the far side of the meadow are. clearly visible, thus buildings in the <br />PUD will be much closer, and visible. In: the other two photos, a resident is standing in the <br />meadow, clearly visible from the path. (See attached photographs: Screening deficit 1 3.) <br />All of the current vegetation screening the PUD is on public land: The PUD is inadequate here <br />in relying on existing trees on the public lands for.screening.on the east. side ofthe property. <br />City Code (EC 9:8320(3)) requires that they create their own screening ("the PUD will <br />provide adequate screening from surrounding properties"). I ask that at a minimum they be <br />required to do so, to. better protect the views from the path as per the purpose of the :Greenway. <br />*Along with .Greenway code, .cited above, the city code EC 9..8320(12) requires that "The <br />proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such inipaets as traffic <br />and city code EC 9;8320(13) requires that "The proposed development shall be reasonably . <br />compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses." <br />OMChas argued that traffic-increases to Oakleigh Ln. will be minimal. Yet they have been able <br />to do so primarily by coutifinb as pail of the street's total number of trips those relatedto the <br />commercial cap on the street - if included, the vast majority of all trips. Cars entering the <br />937 <br />