But as the site development map. for,the OvIC PUD clearly indicates;'some'oftbe' ite of the <br />proposed development falls within the floodplain,'removing land_"necessary "for "absorption of ' <br />floodwdtm. <br />It's worth pointing out iliat the dense development that is:normally encour'abed .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 visual virtues of <br />density. It seems clear that on. the;floodplain, less dense development is:fannore"compatible <br />'with+the goal's of the Metro Plan: `.Undeveloped residential laiid is:eonsidered uOtd1c able and <br />removed from the supply if it is" ithin...the. flood 'ay" {III A=2, #5).; <br />In, a more bind ngeontext, the Eugene. City Code notes. at its very start"that "land use :code is <br />designed to help:,.protect,from..:. lood" (9.0.020=2(d)). T.he.more- the city:authorizes deve.lopinent; <br />."iri the floodplain'. the.-less "the land 'of 'the, floodplain can absorb flood,wateis. <br />*Guideline 10:-322.1:5 (h) affirms the code requirement of "Maintenance and sustenance. of <br />natural riparian vegetation found upon the lower alluvial botiorrilands and dipper; terraces <br />bordering the river, for the following reasons: ;provide' habitat,, food and shade for'wildlife, protect. <br />natural areas...ensure scenic quality and screening of. uses from. the fiver:"' <br />But the OMC site development"will take"away.meadow habitat currently sristainiiig wildlife <br />including -beavers (multiply sighted. in the: "meadow) ; ospreys. eagles', and other raptors; which <br />feed on;rodent life in, the meadow. ' <br />City CodeIricompatibility. <br />*S~creei ing and "scenic views" the PUD'sinany4argebuildings will, clearly be vis l?le:ffom the <br />river and riverpath. ,I am attaching 3 photographs, taken from the public path in. the:Baseom <br />Trail System; that clearly -show hoiv pei7neablethe existing :vegetative fringe`is; 1nth'first; <br />picture; evergreentrees-on the far side or the meadow arec)early ."isible, thus buildings in ,the <br />PUD will be much closer and: visible, l1'1:1 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 screeningthe 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 of the property. <br />City .Code (EC =9:8320(3)) requires that: they create their own screening (`'the !PUD will <br />provide adequate screening from surrounding proPeftie I ask that at_a minirnuin they be <br />required to do so, to: better"protect the views from the path as per the puzpose off, the .Green way. <br />*Along with Greenway code, cited4bove, the city cod&EC 9:8320(12) requires that "The, <br />proposed developmentshall have minimal;off=site impacts, including s feli.impacts as'traffic;" <br />and city code EC 9.8320('13)"xequires.that "Tile proposed development. sh'.1l be *reasonably ' <br />compatible, and, harmonious-with adjacent and nearby .land uses: <br />OMC has argued` that traffic increases to Oakleigh 1n.. will be minimal `Yet they have been, able <br />to' do so `primarily by counting as :part of the street's. total :number of trips those related to the <br />commercial cap onthe-street - if included,; the vast"majoi~ty.of alltrips,Cars entenng'the <br />