i on appeal. Twin Rocks Mater District v. Rockawcz , 2 OR LUBA <br />2 36, 41-•42 (19130) . <br />1 Apart from the above argument, respondents contend the plan <br />4 and development code do not prohibit the kinds of uses and <br />i improvements Permawood will make in the floodway. <br />6 `.t'he city's plan describes flooding as the most serious <br />7 natural hazard in the Albany area, with effects ranging from <br />8 "simple annoyance to loss of life and property." Albany <br />9 Comprehensive Plan at 23. The following policy, among others, <br />10 was adopted to address the flooding problem; "No new <br />11 development (including fill) shall be allowed in the <br />12 .floodways." Albany Comprehensive Plan at 26. This prohibition <br />13 is expressed in less absolute terms in 51.1.020 of the <br />14 development code. That section states "No development, except <br />1.5 park and open space uses and flood control projects shall be <br />16 allowed in any floodway...." X11.020 Albany Development Code. <br />17 As petitioner observes, the city's final order makes no <br />18 mention of the floodway policy or code provision, although we <br />BAD note there is discussion of policies concerning the t:lood <br />26) fringe area in relation to Permawood's proposal. The parties <br />21 agree, however, that. certain uses and improvements will in fact <br />22 occur on land within the floodway: a bike path, vegetative <br />23 plantings and fencing will be installed (as required by the <br />24 city) $ land alterations and improvements will be made: for. <br />2h, on-sit(,.^ truck maneuvering and two parking spaces will be <br />established. it is undisputed that some fill and grading will <br />Peas. 1.2 <br />