(d) Preservation of scenic qualities and viewpoints as identified in the Metropolitan <br />Plan Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper. <br />The subject property is not identified has having scenic qualities.or viewpoints on the <br />Metropolitan Plan Natural Assets and Constraints Working Paper. <br />(e) Maintenance of public safety and, protection of public and private property, <br />especially from vandalism and trespass in both rural and urban a reas to the <br />maximum extent practicable. <br />The applicant indicates that there is an existing dirt path along the north property line, between <br />Oakleigh Lane and the City parkland. This indicates potential public trespass on private property. <br />The applicant proposes to keep this path open, but does not explicitly show any dedications to the <br />public to enable continued access. Right-of-way dedication is being required over this area, to <br />enable continued public access, pursuant to the concurrent PUD approval criterion EC 9. 8320(5), <br />the findings and conditions of which are incorporated here by reference. Overall, development of <br />the subject-property with dwelling units would increase public safety by providing more eyes on <br />the City parkland. <br />(f) Compatibility of aggregate extraction with the purposes of the Willamette River <br />Greenway and when economically feasible, applicable sections of state law <br />pertaining to Reclamation of Mining Lands (ORS Chapter 517) and Removal of <br />Material; Filling (ORS Chapter 541) designed to minimize adverse effects to water <br />quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, bank stabilization, stream flow, visual <br />quality, noise, safety, and to guarantee necessary reclamation. <br />This standard does not apply because the proposal does not include aggregate extraction. <br />(g) Compatibility with recreational lands currently devoted to metropolitan <br />recreational needs, used for parks or open space and owned and controlled by a <br />general purpose government and regulation of such lands so that their use will <br />not interfere with adjacent uses. <br />Referral comments from Public Works staff indicate no concern with the proposed development's <br />compatibility with the City's adjacent public open space. <br />EC 9.8815(6): When site review approval is required, the proposed development will be <br />consistent with the applicable site review criteria. <br />This criterion does not apply because the subject property is not zoned with the /SR Site Review <br />Overlay, nor does the subject development require Site Review approval. <br />EC 9.8815(7): The proposal complies with all applicable standards explicitly addressed in the <br />application. An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to provisions beginning at EC <br />9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard. <br />Staff Report: Oakleigh Meadows Cohousing September 2013 Page 37 <br />1024 MO Agenda - Pag044 <br />