Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-11-09 SpecialLAKE OSWEGO AGENDA Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at: Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-675-3984 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Pape # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 3.2 3.3 4. Emergency Operations Plan Update Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" Invasive Tree Species to Exempt from Tree Removal Requirements ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m. Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m. Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Donna Jordan, Councilor Dan Vizzini, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 11/4/10 DATE MEETING Monday, Joint meeting with the City of Tigard, WEB, Willamette Room 7 p.m. November 8 Tuesday, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers November 9 • Emergency Operations Plan Update (30 minutes) • Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development (LU 10-0043) (1 hour) • Revisions to list of invasive tree species (20 minutes) Monday, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB, Santiam Room November 15 • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Status Update and Council Questions (60 minutes) Tuesday, Special Meeting, 5:30 p.m. Municipal Court November 16 • Comprehensive Plan Update — Draft Vision/ Futures Scenario Development (with Planning Commission) Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers • Photo Contest Winners • Neighbors Helping Neighbors • Electric Lightwave Franchise Renewal (Ord. 2564) • Closed Session: real property • Authorizing City Council to enter into a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT for the Pilkington Pathway Safe Routes to School Project (Res. 10-67) Study Session • Natural Area Restoration and Maintenance (30 minutes) • Natural Resource Education and Outreach Proposals (30 minutes) Tuesday, Break for Thanksgiving November 23 Monday, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Workroom November 29 • Charter Officer Evaluations Tuesday, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers November 30 • Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis (30 minutes) • Update to Master Fees and Charges (30 minutes) • Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay (30 minutes) • Review of small isolated tree groves on the Natural Resources Map (30 minutes) • Natural Resources Map Correction Process (30 minutes) • CDC Amendment to extend development permit completion deadline (30 minutes) Monday, Redevelopment Agency, 6:30 p.m. Main Fire Station December 6 • North Anchor Project • Discussion of future LORA Projects • Debt Financing • Summary of Rail—Volution Foothills Charette (Council) BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 11/4/10 DATE MEETING Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 7 • LOIS Update • Water Partnership Update • Unsung Hero Awards • Award Professional Services Contract for Stormwater Code Rewrite • Multiple site landscape contract • Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership: Approval of Supply Facilities Capital Improvement Plan • Support of statewide plastic bag ban (Res. 10-65) • Lake Corporation request regarding boathouse setbacks • Financial Forecast • Utility billing liability limitations ordinance Public Hearings • Comprehensive Plan text amendment to definition of congregate housing (LU 10-0041) Monday, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 13 Public Hearings • Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development (LU 10-0043) • Adoption of revised list of invasive tree species Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 14 • Award Construction Contract for Chow Corner Pedestrian Improvements • Northwest Natural Franchise Renewal (Ord. 2565) • PRAB Recommendation for naming lakefront park • Adoption of Emergency Operations Plan • Review of 2010 Goals • Audit Committee Report Public Hearings • Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation —Amendments to create new overlay zone (LU 10-0040) • Adoption of Update to Master Fees and Charges • CDC Amendment to extend development permit completion deadline Tuesday, No Meeting December 21 Tuesday, No meeting December 28 To Be Scheduled • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Locally Preferred Alternative Process (December/January) • Review draft Wastewater Master Plan (January 2011) • Context statement relating to Lake Oswego's Iron Industry and Mid -Century periods • ACC National Accreditation • Vancouver, WA fieldtrip • Foothills Update • Industrial Park Zone Amendment (LU 10-0042) • Media in Executive Session Policy • Municipal Finance Presentation BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor Hoffman and Members of the City Council CC: Alex McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David Donaldson, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Emergency Operations Plan Update DATE: November 2, 2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-635-0270 www.ci.oswego.or.us No action is required at this time. Tonight's presentation is to provide background and a framework for the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that will be presented to the Council for adoption at your December 14, 2010 Council Meeting. The plan is currently in draft form and going through final staff review. Copies of the plan will be distributed to the Council in mid November. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The City of Lake Oswego is currently operating with an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that was originally adopted in 1994 with parts of the plan updated in 1998. A Council goal for 2010 is to update and adopt this Plan and make sure it is responsive to emergency conditions in Lake Oswego and is completed in the most organized, efficient and effective manner possible. As is the case for all local governments, the Lake Oswego EOP needs to be NIMS (National Incident Management System) compliant and based on the National Response Framework. To accomplish this, the State of Oregon Office of Emergency Management has contracted with a private company (Ecology and Environment) to assist all counties and cities in Oregon in the updating of their EOP's. The goal is to create plans throughout the state that are consistent, sharing the same format and terminology. Ecology and Environment (E&E) is in the process of completing the EOP for Clackamas County. Lake Oswego was aggressive in making sure we were the first City in the County to start the EOP update process after E&E finished with Marion County this past summer. The timing of our desire to update the plan has worked out well and we have benefited from the State coordinating and paying for a vender to assist local governments. We met with Ecology and Environment for the first time on October 13, 2010 to kick off the project and we recently completed our first review of a draft of the plan. We fully expect the plan will be completed by early December and will be ready for your consideration in December. Page 2 Lake Oswego's Emergency Management Program Historically, the City's emergency management function has been provided by the Lake Oswego Fire Department under the leadership of our Assistant Chief Larry Goff. Starting with fiscal year 2009-2010, the decision was made to place Emergency Management in the City Manager's Office to give it greater visibility and broaden the nature of its role in the organization rather than having it so closely connected to the Fire Department. A position (management analyst) was budgeted in the City Manager's office and an individual was hired with the goal of spending about half their time on emergency management responsibilities, with the remainder focused on risk management and other analytical work. The individual hired is no longer with the City and the decision was made to not fill the position and redistribute emergency management and risk management responsibilities to existing staff. As Assistant City Manager, I assumed responsibility for emergency management and assembled a team with Assistant Chief Larry Goff and Citizens Information Specialist Bonnie Hirshberger. Both have extensive emergency management experience and have been extremely valuable in reviewing and giving input to the EOP. Human Resource Director Megan Phelan has taken on the Risk Management function and has done an outstanding job of identifying deficiencies, and rebid our broker relationship resulting in better advice and assistance while at the same time lowering our costs. The Emergency Operations Plan that is currently being finalized is an all hazard plan describing how the City will organize and respond to incidents. It establishes guidance for the City of Lake Oswego's actions during response to, and short term recovery from, major emergencies and disasters. The EOP describes the roles and responsibilities of City departments and personnel when an incident occurs, and it establishes a strategy and operating guidelines that support NIMS and the principles of the Incident Command System (ICS). As part of the EOP, NIMS must be adopted by the City Council and it was by resolution in July 2005. The EOP consists of what is called the Basic Plan that goes through each of these roles and is supported by 15 separate Emergency Support Functions or ESF's which are very specific in their focus. Examples of ESF's include Communication, Transportation, Search and Rescue. Finally the plan will contain an updated version of the Emergency Code to be adopted by the City Council as part of the plan. Also relating to Emergency Management is the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Addendum adopted by City Council in March 2010. That plan was developed in cooperation with Clackamas County Emergency Management to comply with FEMA requirements. The plan was an update to a 2004 plan and enabled us to apply for a FEMA grant for flood mitigation resulting in a grant for over $900,000 which is currently being used on a project to increase the spillway and release of water at Oswego Lake dam. The Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan is a very comprehensive resource and can be found on the City Manager's Office page of our website http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/citymgr/Emergency/Documents/LONHMPAPri12010.pdf. One other key piece of additional information to remember is that Goal Seven of the Comprehensive Plan (Areas Subject to National Disasters & Hazards) is also being updated and the City Manager's Office is coordinating with the Planning Department on their efforts. Page 3 DISCUSSION On Tuesday, November 9th you will hear a 20-30 minute presentation that will not only cover an update on the EOP update, but also give you an overview of several other key elements of emergency management. This includes a discussion of the CERT (Citizens Emergency Response Team) program, an outstanding community based approach to emergency response taught by our Fire Department. Bonnie Hirshberger completed this program last year and I just completed the eight-week program last week. You will also hear about the City's approach to emergency management training. Although, the EOP completion is important, our team ultimately believes the most valuable thing we can do is to utilize the plan in a training exercise and get people familiar with their roles. This is especially important for Lake Oswego as we have several new managers in key positions. Other subjects we will briefly discuss in our November 9 presentation include reviewing our website and what it offers, and reminding people of the opportunity to attend the November 10 Emergency Preparedness Forum (6pm to Bpm at City Hall) which can be found at http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/citvmgr/Emergency/Documents/PreparednessAgendaandbios111010.pdf In addition, we will talk about our plan to incorporate the role of the Mayor and Council in emergencies at the orientation for new and remaining councilors in January 2011. As always, please contact me if you have any specific questions or concerns related to the EOP or emergency management in general. RECOMMENDATION This report is for informational purposes and requires no action at this time. The Council will be asked to review and adopt a recommended Emergency Plan at your December 14, 2010 meeting. Reviewed by: Department Director City Attorney Alex D. McIntyre City Manager LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 vl� AL COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Jonna Papaefthimiou, AICP Planning and Building Services Department SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" DATE: October 27, 2010 ACTION CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us This report is for information only; no action is requested at this time. A public hearing on this topic is tentatively scheduled for December 13, 2010. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In fall 2009, the Planning and Building Services Director assembled a task force of citizen -experts to review the City's Sensitive Lands program and suggest changes that would: • Maintain the City's environmental quality; • Maintain compliance with Metro and State requirements; • Increase flexibility for property owners; • Simplify or clarify application and review processes; • Result in a code that could engender stronger community support. The Second Look Task Force presented its recommendations to Council in June 2010. Council met with the Task Force over two evenings to review the report, then held three additional public input sessions to solicit feedback on the issues. On July 20, Council adopted Resolution 10-51A "A Resolution of the City of Lake Oswego City Council Directing Staff to Implement Revisions to the City's Natural Resource Protection Program" (Exhibit F-1). Acting on the Council's direction, the Planning Commission held a work session on September 13 and a public hearing on September 27, 2010, to discuss changes to the development code that would implement portions of Resolution 10-51A, Section A. These changes are intended to: • Allow developments with de minimis impacts in resources areas, such as additions to existing homes and accessory structures. Page 2 • Clarify the terms "ditch," "resource buffer," and "construction setback" (The two other items in Section A, "exempt invasive trees" and "amend the City's fee schedule," do not require Planning Commission review. Fee schedule amendments will come before Council on November 30, and changes to the tree code will be discussed in a separate report tonight.) All sensitive lands owners and owners of possible future sensitive lands were notified of Planning Commission meetings, and thirteen people testified at the hearing. The result of the Planning Commission deliberations is the code text provided as Exhibit A-1.1. Planning Commission recommendations are narrated in the discussion section below. The Public Works Department supports an additional exception for new utilities, also noted below (5 "utility line exemption"). DISCUSSION Allow De Minimis Impacts LOC 50.16.015 "Applicability" lists the types of development that require review under the Sensitive Lands chapter. Currently, the section requires review of all development except for: development in the footprint of an existing development (vertical expansion/replacement); restoration required as a result of a code violation; and development on a lot created before August 21, 1997, where measures to protect the resource was adopted as a part of the original approval. Five new exceptions are proposed to allow more flexibility: 1. Routine maintenance and repair of existing development, including non -conforming structures and landscaping. This is already allowed, but the permission is often overlooked, so it is proposed to be restated. 2. Alteration, expansion, or replacement of an existing primary dwelling unit where the footprint of the new intrusion is not more than 700 square feet in the RP or RC district and no closer to a protected water feature than the pre-existing structure. This is intended to allow a homeowner whose house is already in a resource area to make significant additions to an existing structure, hopefully allowing them to retain their home rather than moving or demolishing the structure. The idea stems from Metro's Title 13 model code, which allows up to 500 SF of addition on existing structures. The Planning Commission proposed increasing the limit to 700 SF to create even greater flexibility. Additions on existing structures are considered de minimis because when an existing home is already located in a resource area, an addition to that building has a relatively small additional impact. The Planning Commission did not choose to allow additions on structures other than the primary dwelling unit because that would, in effect, allow existing de minimis structures to become significant (e.g. turning a garden shed into a dwelling unit). 3. Development that meets all of the following criteria: L Is not located within a wetland or below the top of bank of a stream, ii. Does not require a grading permit, iii. For lighting, is low -voltage landscape lighting. iv. The cumulative total of all development under this subsection shall not exceed 200 square feet. Page 3 This exemption is intended to allow homeowners the opportunity to develop some common backyard amenities—gardens, sheds, paved activity areas—even if they intrude somewhat into a natural resource area. The idea of allowing a small area of development in a protected area is borrowed from the Metro Title 13 model code. Metro allows up to 120 square feet of new development, but does not set a cumulative limit; Metro staff indicated that with a cumulative limit, 200 square feet of development would be acceptable. Two hundred square feet was selected because it is also the cut-off for a building permit. (Structures less than 200 square feet do not require building permits unless they have electricity or plumbing.) The proposed limitations "not within a wetland or below the top of bank of a stream," and "does not require a grading permit," are proposed to prevent filling or piping of the water resource itself, or filling in the floodway. The requirement for low -voltage lighting is proposed because of the negative impact bright lights have on wildlife. Low -voltage landscape lighting is defined in the lighting code; it is enough to light pathways, house numbers, driveway edges, etc., but dissipates at about 8 feet. (Brighter lights, such as streetlights, would still be allowed when connected to another permitted development.) 4. Fences located within a Wetland or below the top of bank of a stream, when the fence is constructed so that for each 100 feet or portion thereof of fencing, at least one 2 -foot section is: i. Not less than 12 inches above the surface, and ii. Not more than 4 feet tall from the surface. "Surface" shall mean the ground or water surface. This exemption is intended to allow fences within water resource areas, as long as the fence has an escape path so that wildlife cannot become trapped. (Fences would already be allowed in riparian buffers and tree groves under exception (3) above.) 5. Utility Line Exemption - Repair and replacement of existing utility lines and utility line appurtenances if they are located in an existing utility easement or in improved public right-of- way, or new service lines where: L The disturbed portion of the resource district is restored; and ii. Non-native vegetation is removed from the disturbed portion of the resource area and is replaced with native vegetation from the Lake Oswego Plants List in accordance with LOC 50.16.110. Utility lines must connect to existing infrastructure, be located in public easements, and respect topographic and geologic constraints. Paved rights-of-way are always the preferred location for utilities, but given other considerations, it is sometimes impossible to avoid placing utilities in resource areas. Therefore, when utilities are repaired or replaced in resource areas, they always meet the test of 50.16.060 (3)(g) / 50.16.07(2)(a)(iii) "no other practicable alternative" This proposed exemption recognizes this situation, and is intended to reduce the regulatory burden of utility work. It would still require that construction standards be met and impacted areas be restored when work is completed. The Planning Commission recommended exempting only utility repair and replacement and construction of new service lines (connection from a main to an individual structure). They did not Page 4 recommend exempting construction of new utility lines. Planning Commission findings that support this decision are included here as Exhibit B-1. The Public Works Department proposed and would prefer that new utilities also be exempted from review. Their concerns and proposed alternative language is presented in Exhibit F-2. Clarify Terms Three terms were identified for clarification in the Council resolution: "ditch," "resource buffer," and "construction setback." 1. Ditch. This Department of State Lands (DSL) definition of "ditch" is widely used: "a manmade water conveyance channel. Channels that are manipulated streams are not ditches." The Task Force and the Planning Commission recommended that the City incorporate this definition in its code. The DSL also publishes two definitions of ditches not subject to regulation: Non -Jurisdictional Irrigation Ditches. Existing irrigation ditches that meet the following tests are not jurisdictional: (a) Are operated and maintained for the primary purpose of conveying water for irrigation; and (b) Are dewatered during the non -irrigation season except for water incidentally retained in isolated low areas of the ditch or are used for stock water runs, provision of water for fire suppression, or to collect storm water runoff. Non -Jurisdictional Roadside and Railroad Ditches. Roadside and railroad ditches that meet the following tests are not jurisdictional: (a) Ten feet wide or less at the ordinary high water line; (b) Artificially created from upland or from wetlands; (c) Not adjacent and connected or contiguous with other wetlands; and (d) Do not contain food or game fish. For simplicity, it is recommended that these definitions be incorporated into the City code by reference. If the DSL further refines or adds to these definitions, then the changes will automatically be captured. If the City uses definitions identical to DSL, the City can also ask that agency to advise if it is uncertain whether a ditch is jurisdictional or not. It is also recommended to add one sentence to the code section referring to resource designations (LOC 50.16.020), stating, "Ditches and Non -Jurisdictional Roadside and Railway Ditches, as defined by the Oregon Department of State Lands, shall not be placed within the RP District." 2. Resource Buffer. The Sensitive Lands overlay protects a stream or wetland plus 25-30 feet around the water feature to provide for functions such as flood storage and wildlife travel. The code refers to the water feature as the "RP District", and the area around it as the "RP district buffer" or "associated buffer." These terms create a distinction without a difference; the district and the buffer have similar functions and are treated in the same way. The code also frequently employs the phrase "the District and its buffer," but some references to the "RP district" also seem intended to apply to the buffer. The Task Force proposed that this language be clarified. Page 5 The recommendation is to eliminate the "RP resource and associated buffer" terminology altogether and replace it with the terms "stream" or "wetland" and "protected riparian area." The water feature and its protected riparian area together form the "RP District." This change is intended to create consistency in the code language and accord with the intent of the code, which is to protect both the natural feature and its riparian area for their functions and values. 3. Construction Setback. The code provides a "construction setback" to prevent resource damage during construction. This phrase is proposed to be retained; it makes more sense with the term "protected riparian area" (rather than the redundant -sounding "setback from the buffer"). A diagram illustrates the new and old terms applied: Construction Old Setback RP District and Associated Buffer RP District Buffer RP District I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Construction RP District New Setback - Protected Riparian Area �Stream i To reinforce these changes, staff proposes adding the following language to the definitions section of LOC Chapter 50: Protected Riparian Area: the area adjacent a water resource described in LOC 50.16.070 (2). The Protected Riparian Area may provide resource functions and values and / or protect the functions and values of the adjacent stream or wetland. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only. Staff invites Council feedback, particularly to identify additional information that would support future deliberations. Staff also seeks Council direction regarding exemption of new utilities from sensitive lands review. Page 6 EXHIBITS A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dated September 27, 2010 [annotated] B-1 Planning Commission Findings for LU 10-0043-1745 F-1 Council Resolution 10-51A F-2 Memo from Guy Graham dated November 1, 2010, RE: exemptions for utility work Reviewed by: Departm Alex D. N City Man PROPOSED CHANGES TO LOC 50.16 "SENSITIVE LANDS" Boxed text is provided to explain proposed changes and present options for discussion. It is not intended to be included in the adopted ordinance. Text that is proposed to be deleted is marked withGMsSeUi. Proposed new text is underlined. Section 50.16.005 Overview. 1. Purpose. LOC Article 50.16 creates the Resource Protection (RP) and Resource Conservation (RC) District overlay districts to: (a) protect wildlife habitat; (b) protect and improve water quality; (c) control and prevent water pollution for the protection of public health and safety; (d) comply with federal laws including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act; (e) comply with State Land Use Goal 5; and (f) comply with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map: The overlay districts and thei • asseeiated bu shall be designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map. The purpose of these maps is to give a general overview as to the location of the districts and the "..s,,eiated buffers and is not intended to show the precise location of the district boundaries. 3. Sensitive Land Atlas: The boundaries of the districts and their- arse iatea b shall be shown on individual property maps at a scale of 1:300 in the Sensitive Lands (SL) Atlas. The SL Atlas is intended to govern the applicability of LOC Article 50.16 pursuant to LOC 50.16.015. The SL Atlas shall be adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning This proposal would define the "resource overlay district" to include both the resource and its associated buffer. This change is intended to simplify the code and eliminate confusion between the resource and the buffer (which have almost identical regulations) and the construction setback (which is treated differently). If this change is adopted, all references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" can be changed to simply "overlay districts." aecnon 3U.10.u13 Appucapinty. 1. This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas. 2. Sensitive Lands Development Review Required. a. Development within: i. The RP District as defined in LOC 50.16.070. of t d' t the Di * ' area K ,...,...« �rJLTlyi All references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" can be changed to "overlay districts." City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes EXHIBIT A-1.1 1/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" LU 10-0043 09/27/10 ii. The RC District or within 5 feet of the RC District boundary; or iii. The construction setbacks established by LOC 50.16.075 (4) (as shown on maps in the Sensitive Lands Atlas), shall be subject to the standards and criteria identified in LOC 50.16.030. b. Land divisions, lot line adjustments, mitigation proposals, and adjustments of a District Boundary shall be subject to the standards and criteria identified in LOC 50.16.030. c. To the degree that any requirement of LOC Article 50.16 conflicts with a requirement of the underlying zone, Article 50.16 shall prevail. 3. ENggpq�jn=The provisions in LOC Article 50.16 shall not apply to: a. A resource located within the boundaries of a partition, subdivision, Planned Development, or lot line adjustment, approved prior to August 21, 1997 if: i. The resource was identified and protected pursuant to regulations in effect at the time of approval; and ii. The proposed development is in compliance with the conditions protecting the resource imposed at the time of approval. Any modification of the prior approved partition, subdivision, or planned development that would impact or modify any protection measures imposed at the time of original approval shall be subject to the standards and criteria of this Article. b. Resource restoration required as a result of violation of this Article or pursuant to settlement of a potential enforcement action by the City Manager, subject to City Manager approval of the restoration plan and procedures_, and pl;.,nee with the r t Standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095. c. Routine maintenance and repair of existing legal development including non - Maintenance and repair were always allowed, but that was often overlooked. It also clarifies that the construction standards do not apply to maintenance and repair. 4. Exception. The provisions in LOC Article 50 16 except for the Construction Standards in 50.16.095, shall not apply to: a. Replacement or vertical expansion of an existin€' structure within the footprint of This language was already included, it has just been moved. b. Alteration, expansion, or replacement of an existing primary dwelling unit where the footprint of the new intrusion is not more than -5700 square feet in the RP or RC District and Js no closer to a protected water feature than the pre-existing structure City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 2/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 This exception allows additions to existing homes. It is similar to what Metro allows under the Title 13 mode code; although Metro allows the exemption for all structures, Metro staff indicated that their intent was to allow additions to a primary structure. The logic was that if an existing primary use is already located in a resource area, an addition to that already -significant structure has a relatively small additional impact. However, an addition to a very small structure that previously had minimal impact would move that structure from being "de minimis" to a something significant—not what was intended, since this section was meant to allow "de minimis" impacts only. Staff proposed the language above to enact Metro's intent, that is, to allow additions that create flexibility for homeowners, but avoid situations where a small structure is replaced with a more intense use, such as turning a garden shed into a large garage or SDU. c. Development that meets all of the following criteria: i. The developffient does not result stpuetare of developmen! Within the PW or- RG Pistfiet its + a 14 ff + +i,ti,-,.�pl „t . ,,.tieal .,..... ,.�..,�.,..�� �,. rrccr.�vciiccca-vinzcz-c�c�rcrn. stfuet ri-e; mid ii The development does not femove vegeta4en designated as native vegetation in Plants List.; a r the Lake Oswego an iti. All feplac-ement vegetation used is listed as "native vege!a4ion" in the 1,ake Oswego Plants r ;s+ i,Is not located within a wetland or below the ton of bank of a stream in it Does „t +,Feffi-eva1 iviii. For lighting is low -voltage landscape lighting as defined in LOC 50.63. viv. The cumulative total of all development under this subsection shall not exceed 200 uare feet. This new exception would allow up to 200 square feet of new development (landscaping or structures) in Sensitive Lands Areas. This is similar to what Metro allows under the Title 13 mode code; although Metro allows 120 SF, it does not set a cumulative limit. Staff proposes a larger area, but with a cumulative limit to development to prevent an entire resource from being degraded over time. d. Fences located within a Wetland or below the top of bank o.f a stream, when the fence is constructed so that for each 100 feet or portion thereof of fencing at least one 2 -foot section is: i. Not less than 12 inches above the surface, and ii. Not more than 4 feet tall from the surface. "Surface" shall mean the ground or water surface. The proposed new standard is less restrictive than the old standard because it allows fences within wetlands and streams, does not require a permit to construct the fence, and only requires a 2' length of fence for the portions of the fence within the Wetland or below top of bank to be wildlife friendly (have an escape). City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 3/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 e. Utilitv Line Exemption - Repair and replacement of existing utilityles and utility line appurtenances if they are located in an existing, utility easement or in improved public right-of-ways or new service lines where: i. The disturbed portion of the resource district is restored; and ii_ Non-native vegetation is removed from the disturbed portion of the resource area and is replaced with native vegetation from the Lake Oswego Plants List in accordance with LOC 50.16.110. This new exception would simplify permitting for utility work in developed utility corridors. Itis proposed because existing utility lines are rarely relocated; they always meet the test of 50.16.060 (3)(g) / 50.16.07(2)(a)(iii) "no other practicable alternative." This change would reduce the regulatory burden for utility work, while still requiring that construction standards be met and impacted areas be restored. _t'. Other development that does not remove any native vegetation or create new [tT�CNU This exception was already included, it has just been moved. References to restoration with approved plants were removed because they duplicate standards elsewhere in the code. This would apply mostly to demolitions and to changes from one non -conforming landscape type to another (e.g. lawn to flower beds). 4. wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves that are not contained within a RP or RC District shall not be subject to the regulations of this Article. However, an application for development that impacts a stream corridor or wetland may still be subject to state or federal wetland or stream regulations. Notice of such applications will be sent to the Division of State Lands (DSL) or the Army Corp. of Engineers. 5. In addition to the notification required for the particular development by LOC Articles 50.80 - 50.82, the City shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corp. of Engineers upon receipt of a complete application for development, change or intensification of use within an RP District that impacts a wetland or stream corridor. 6. Mitigation Required for Violation. If development occurs in violation of this Article, the violator shall not only be subject to any and all enforcement and penalties that can be brought or imposed for violation of this Code he or she shall be responsible for mitigating any damage caused by the violation to a protected resource pursuant to LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110. Section 50.16.016 Rebuilding Nonconforming Single -Family or Duplex Dwelling Located in Reso ree Area, Resour-ee Buffer- RP or RC District or Construction Setback. All references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to simply overlay districts. nxcivamg smgie-tamiiy or duplex dwellings subject to the Flood Management Area, if a portion of a nonconforming single-family or duplex dwelling is damaged or destroyed by causes not under the control of the owner (including but not limited to fire, earthquake, flood, landslide, and wind or tree damage, but not including destruction due to lack of structural maintenance by the City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 4/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 owner, remodeling, or new construction), and the dwelling was non -conforming due to its location within a resource district, eaf:ee b ulT- r, or construction setback, the rebuilding or reconstruction of the nonconforming dwelling shall be exempt from LOC 50.16.055 (2), 50.16.060 (3)(a ­d), and 50.16.075 (2)(a)(iv and v), LOC Article 50.70, and to the other requirements of the Code not within LOC Article 50.16, to the extent that the damaged or destroyed portions of the dwelling failed to conform to 50.16.055(2), 50.16.060(3)(a—d), or 50.16.075 (2)(a)(iv and v) and to other requirements of this Code not within LOC Article 50.16. In order to utilize the rights granted by this subsection the reconstruction must be commenced within one year of the date of the damage and completed within two years of such date. Section 50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property within an Overlay District. Applicability of RP Overlay District: The Resource Protection (RP) Overlay District shall protect environmentally significant stream corridors and wetlands. Non -Jurisdictional Irrigation Ditches and Non -Jurisdictional Roadside and Railway Ditches, as defined by the Oregon Department of State Lands. shall not be placed within the RP District. The Department of State Lands (DSL) defines non -jurisdictional ditches in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 141-085-0515 as: Non -Jurisdictional Irrigation Ditches. Existing irrigation ditches that meet the following tests are not jurisdictional: (a) Are operated and maintained for the primary purpose of conveying water for irrigation; and (b) Are dewatered during the non -irrigation season except for water incidentally retained in isolated low areas of the ditch or are used for stock water runs, provision of water for fire suppression, or to collect storm water runoff. Non -Jurisdictional Roadside and Railroad Ditches. Roadside and railroad ditches that meet the following tests are not jurisdictional: (a) Ten feet wide or less at the ordinary high water line; (b) Artificially created from upland or from wetlands; (c) Not adjacent and connected or contiguous with other wetlands; and (d) Do not contain food or game fish. Referencing the OAR means the City can ask DSL for assistance if it is unable to determine whether a channel is jurisdictional. Formatting the code in this fashion also emphasizes the City's conformity with State rules, and keeps our code shorter. In the future, the City's code should hyperlink to the DSL definition. The following resources may be placed within the RP District: a. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 50 or more (defined as "Class I" stream corridors and wetlands). b. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 35-49 or have a "high" ranking for scenic values (defined as "Class II" stream corridors and wetlands). c. Wetlands that are significant under OFWAM guidelines, including: City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 5/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 i. Wetlands fed by surface flows, sheet flows or precipitation, that have evidence of flooding during the growing season, and have 60 percent or greater vegetated cover, and are over one-half acre in size; or other wetlands that qualify as having "intact water quality function" under the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology; or ii. Wetlands in the Flood Management Area, that have evidence of flooding during the growing season, and are five acres or more in size, and have a restricted outlet or no outlet; or other wetlands that qualify as having "intact hydrologic control function" under the Oregon Freshwater Wetland Assessment Methodology; or iii. Wetlands where at least a portion of the resource is within a horizontal distance of less than one-fourth mile from a water body which meets the Department of Environmental Quality definition of "water quality limited water body" in OAR Chapter 340, Division 41. d. All perennial streams. Section 50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation. 1. In order to remove an overlay District designation the review body shall find that one of the following criteria areis met: Grammatical error corrected. a. As a result of natural occurrences or evolution the resource has been degraded to the extent that the subject property no longer meets the criteria for designation found in Section 50.16.020 (4) or (5) and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the designation is no longer justified; or b. There was a mistake in the analysis of quality or quantity in the original designation of the resource and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the designation no longer meets the criteria; or c. There was a mistake in the location of the original designation of the resource such that no portion of the resource ^ ;=was on the subject property. All references to overlay districts and their associated buffers changed to overlay districts. 2. An overlay district designation shall not be removed as a result of damage caused by the property owner, another party, or other than natural causes. 3. A removal application pursuant to subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) above shall be processed in the same manners as a designation application pursuant to LOC 50.16.020. 4. An Overlay District Designation may be removed pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above by a delineation on the subject site in accordance with LOC 50.16.035 and a finding that there is not now nor was there any resource located upon the site at the time of designation. Section 50.16.030 Environmental Review. An applicant for a development subject to this Article pursuant to LOC 50.16.015 shall comply with: 1. For exempt development under LOC 50.79.005 occurring within an RC or RP District. its assoeiated buff r or its associated construction setback afe , the applicant shall: City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 6/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 i. Comply with the applicable RP District or RC District Development Standards (LOC 50.16.060 or 50.16.075); ii. Comply with the Construction Standards (LOC 50.16.095) to the satisfaction of the City Manager; iii. Meet the steps of avoidance and minimization as stated in LOC 50.16.105(1) and (2); and iv. File a mitigation plan that complies with the standards of LOC 50.16.110, for the review and approval of the City Manager. 2. For development other than under subsection (1) above, the environmental review requirements in LOC 50.16.035 to 50.16.045 and LOC 50.16.055 to 50.16.060 (for RC Zones), LOC 50.16.070 to 50.16.085 (for RP Zones) or LOC 50.16.090 (Special Standards for the Oswego Canal), whichever sections are applicable. Section 50.16.035 Delineation of ResoaFee Streams, Wetlands, and Tree Groves. 1. Preparation/Criteria. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, an applicant for a development subject to environmental review shall first delineate therem stream, wetland or tree grove. A delineation is a more precise, site specific determination of the location of the reseufee tree grove or water resource prepared by a qualified professional. The delineation shall include a map showing the delineated boundary to plus or minus 2 feet. The delineation map shall also show the bu protected riparian area, if required for the particular resource. Resource boundaries shall be delineated as follows: For clarity and consistency, the now text refers to "wetland, stream, or tree grove" instead of "resource." The protected area around a stream or wetland is its "protected riparian area." The "RP District" refers to the wetland or stream and its protected riparian area together. A proposed change to the definition section would define "Protected riparian area." a. Tree Groves. The RC District shall be delineated as follows: i. The boundary of a tree grove shall be measured at the outer edge of a contiguous tree canopy based on aerial photos and/or visual field observations, but shall not include any tree canopy that is within an vn n:s+r-iet (St,.o.,.,., eeFfideF er- a wetland or below the top of bank of a stream: ` (Afea that is a b lT to an RP District is n -At — l deemed _d _,- 'v„ D Piss ie l and within D The code no longer needs to state that the RP District Buffer is not within the RP district; they will be the same thing. b. Wetlands. A wetland boundary shall be delineated in accordance with the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, except that: i. The methodology must include soils testing, and ii. When a delineated wetland boundary is abutting a steep slope, the buffer protected riparian area -shall be applied from the top of the slope rather than from the City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 7/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 delineated boundary. The top of slope shall be determined according to the same criteria as the top of bank, pursuant to LOC Appendix 50.16.035 (1)(c). Buffer is replaced with "protected riparian area." c. Stream Corridors. A stream corridor boundary shall be measured or delineated based on topographic maps, hydrology maps, and/or field observations, pursuant to LOC Appendix 50.16.035 (1)(c). 2. Review of Delineation. The reviewing authority shall compare the applicant's delineation maps with the 1994/1995 ESEE Study and the SL Atlas, and shall inspect staked, delineated resource boundaries. The reviewing authority shall approve the delineation if the delineated boundary more accurately reflects the locations of RP and/or RC resources than the boundary as shown in the SL Atlas. If the reviewing authority finds that the evidence is contradictory or does not support the proposed delineations, the application shall be denied. In the alternative, review of the application may be continued for additional information if: a. The applicant agrees to conduct a new delineation by an expert selected by the City Manager at the applicant's expense; and b. The applicant waives the applicable statutory deadline for completing a local decision on the application for the period of time necessary to conduct the new delineation. 3. Adiustment of Overlay District Boundaries to Reflect Approved Delineation. An approved delineated boundary shall replace the boundary in the Sensitive Lands Atlas for the purposes of review of the development proposal for compliance with this Article. If and when the proposed development receives final approval, including resolution of any appeals, the boundary of the RP or RC district as shown in the SL Atlas and SL Map (if necessary), shall be modified to be consistent with the delineated boundary, and the SL Atlas and SL Map shall �% kw - rise ry roll butT ,,.,twafd f'..em the delineate b I u.aa, l�.�uu vu vurrc. Since the "buffer" / "protected riparian area" is now included in the RP District, the map simply needs to show the District. 4. Delineation not Required; Exceptions. An applicant for a development subject to this Article shall not be required to delineate the resource pursuant to this section if: a. The resource has been previously delineated pursuant to an earlier development application subject to this Article. Exception: The City Manager may require a new delineation if: 1. The applicant desires to demonstrate that the previously delineated boundary is no longer accurate; 2. There is evidence of a substantial change in circumstances on the property that has affected the location of the resource as previously delineated; or 3. The City Council has adopted new delineation standards or requirements since the previous delineation, or b. The proposed development consists solely of landscaping and/or tree removal or qualifies as a resource enhancement project, and complies with LOC 50.16.075 (2)(a)(i) [Landscaping], 50.16.075 (2)(ii) [Tree Removal], or either LOC 50.16.060 (3)(f) or 50.16.075 (2)(a)(vi) [Resource Enhancement Projects]. 5. Delineation in the Absence of a Development Application. An applicant may apply to delineate a resource in absence of an application for a specific development. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 8/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 Section 50.16.040 Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone. 1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, an applicant for development subject to environmental review may vary from the lot dimensional standards (building setbacks, lot size, lot width, and lot depth) otherwise applicable without a formal variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.68, if the applicant demonstrates that: a. Compliance with the applicable dimensional standard or standards would cause the proposed development to disrupt lands within an RP or RC District within a ..o,,uirea burr, or would preclude or reduce the transfer of allowable density from RP or RC zoned areas Dt the property to non RP or RC zoned areas; All references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. b. The proposed development will result in greater protection of the resources identified on the site than would occur without the dimensional modification, and c. In the case of a Planned Development, the criteria of LOC 50.17.015 have been met. 2. An application to vary from standards other than the dimensional standards above or that does not comply with the criteria contained in subsection (1) of this section may qualify for a variance under LOC Article 50.68 or other applicable article or section for modification or exception. 3. Where the request is not part of an application subject to the notice requirements of a minor or major development (either LOC 50.8 1.010 or LOC 50.82.020), and the proposed development would be located within 20 feet of an existing primary structure on abutting property, written approval from the abutting property owner shall be required. Section 50.16.045 Density Transfer. 1. Lot density transfer shall be permitted on residentially zoned lands subject to an RC or RP District pursuant to this section. 2. Density Transfer Ratios. a. Lot density (the number of lots otherwise allowable pursuant to the underlying zoning designation but for the RP District and bufte ) may be transferred from RP T • 1 1 uistnct ianas to contiguous non -resource zoned lands in the same ownership at a 1:1 ratio. All references to 'overlay districts and their associated buffers" are changed to "overlay districts." b. Lot density (the number of lots otherwise allowable pursuant to the underlying zoning designation but for the RC Protection Area) may be transferred from RC District lands to contiguous non -RC lands on the same ownership at a 1:1 ratio for the portion of the RC District which is to remain undeveloped (the Protection Area). 3. When an applicant chooses to transfer lot density from one area or parcel to another contiguous area or parcel, the area or parcel that is protected shall no longer be eligible for future partition or subdivision. In order to put future property owners on notice, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land that effects this restriction. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 9/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 Section 50.16.050 Resource Conservation (RC) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. In addition to compliance with LOC 50.16.040 to 50.16.045, applicants for development which are subject to environmental review pursuant to LOC 50.16.015 on property containing an RC District shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 50.16.055 to 50.16.060, in order to: 1. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the functions and values of resources within the RC District; and 2. Limit the amount of disturbance allowed within RC Districts, while permitting reasonable development of property. Section 50.16.055 RC District Protection Area. 1. The applicant for a major or minor development pen -nit on a property containing an RC District shall designate a minimum of 50% of the RC District after delineation as the "RC Protection Area". The applicant for a development that does not otherwise require a major or minor development permit may designate a Protection Area as part of the application, but such application shall be processed as a minor development. 2. Except as otherwise provided in LOC 50.16;060, no development shall be permitted within the Protection Area. The area outside of the Protection Area may be fully developed pursuant to applicable regulations. 3. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the location of the Protection Area shall be based upon the following criteria: a. The Protection Area shall link to other RP or RC lands on the development site and on abutting properties, if such lands are present; b. The trees having DBH width greater than the median DBH within an RC District shall be included in the Protection Area; c. The location of the Protection Area shall be designed to protect development from blow -down hazards; d. The Protection Area shall protect steep slopes and resources close to water areas from potential erosion and water quality impacts; e. The Protection Area shall protect wildlife habitat and travel corridors; f. The Protection Area shall be designed to protect a contiguous canopy and a clustered configuration that does not fragment lands within an RC District; g. The Protection Area shall consist of viable plant and wildlife communities; h. The Protection Area shall maintain the scenic qualities of the site. 4. It is recognized that all of the criteria listed in subsection (3) of this section may not be applicable to every site. In some cases, the criteria may conflict on a given site. In such cases, the reviewing authority shall balance the applicable criteria in order to protect the most environmentally significant portion of the RC District. 5. Once a Protection Area has been identified and protected pursuant to LOC Article 50.16 and approval becomes final, no future reduction in the RC Protection Area shall be permitted, unless the property owner files for a modification to the original permit and establishes a new Protection Area in compliance with subsection (3) of this section that is at least as large as the previously designated protection area, or demonstrates that the Protection Area as originally designated has degraded through natural causes pursuant to LOC 50.16.020. City of lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 10/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 6. The City Manager shall note the establishment of a Protection Area in the SL Atlas, along with a reference to the application in which the Protection Area was created. 7. In order to put property owners and occupants on notice, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land that references the Protection Area and the City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning application file in which the Protection Area was established. Section 50.16.060 RC District Development Standards. Numbering errors and a spelling error were corrected in this section; no other changes. I 1. Except as provided in subsection g. of this section, a criterion applicable to the RC Protection Area shall apply to the entire RC District if no Protection Area has been established pursuant to LOC 50.16.055. 2. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, the following development uses and activities on properties containing an RC District are permitted within the RC District or its buffer, subject to the standards set forth in this subsection 3 below: a. Streets, driveways, lake trams, and public transportation facilities, b. New structures, accessory structures, decks, parking areas, active use recreational facilities, c. Additions to existing structures and to non -conforming structures, d. Temporary construction activities, e. Fences, f. Passive use recreational facilities, g. Utilities, h. Resource enhancement projects, i. Landscaping, new and existing, j. Tree removal, k. Limited hazardous materials storage. 3. Development Standards. If the proposed types of development are permitted within the RC District or its buffer, the development activity, use or activity shall comply with the following standards, and the construction standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095: a. Streets Driveways Lake Trams and Public Transportation Facilities. i. Driveways shall be set back at least 5 feet from, and shall not be placed through an RC Protection Area unless there is no other practicable method of access to the buildable areas of property served by the driveway. ii. Public or private streets, trams to access Oswego Lake, and public transportation facilities shall be set back at least 5 feet from, and shall not be placed in or through an RCPA unless: A. for public or private streets, there is no other practical method of providing for access to buildable parcels. B. for public transportation facilities, there is no other suitable location nearby for siting the public transportation facilities which would provide equal or greater public use of the public transportation facilities. C. for trams to access Oswego Lake, there is no other practical method of providing for access to Oswego Lake; City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 11/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 0 D. for regional trails, (designated as a regional trail on the City's Trails and Pathway Master Plan), they may be located within an RCPA provided the trail width shall be no greater than 12 feet wide (as determined by the standards in the City's Trails and Pathway Master Plan), iii. If allowed within the Protection Area and five-foot setback pursuant to this criterion, the applicant shall comply with the following requirements: A. Streets, private streets, driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary to while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians. B. The amount of disturbance for driveways shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; C. If applicable, the applicant shall plan for future extension of shared access, access easements, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to avoid subsequent encroachments into the Protection Area and five-foot setback area; D. The applicant shall mitigate for loss of Protection Area by increasing the size of the protection area, where feasible, to compensate for the area of the RC Protection Area used for the public or private street, driveway, or public transportation facility, or by complying with the mitigation requirements in LOC Sections 50.16.100 to 50.16.110. b. New Structures, Accessory Structures Decks Parking Areas Active Use Recreational Facilities. New structures, parking areas, and active use recreational facilities shall be set back at least 5 feet from the Protection Area boundary in order to protect tree roots. Accessory structures, decks, and similar structures meeting the criteria of LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a - c) and LOC 50.22.045 (2) are permitted within the 5 foot setback area so long as they are placed no closer than 3 feet from the Protection Area boundary. c. Additions to Existing Structures and to Non -conforming Structures. Additions to existing structures or to non -conforming structures are permitted provided the addition does not expand the lot coverage in the resource area. d. Temporary Construction Activities. A temporary, construction zone, not greater than 10 feet wide, is allowed around the footprint of any structure when necessary for tools, scaffolds, etc. related to the construction, maintenance, or repair of the structure. No storage of materials or supplies may occur within this zone. e. Fetiees. Fenees shall not be plaeed in a Pr-ateetion Ar -ea unless the bottom 0 the t:�nee (exeept for- posts) is not less than 12 inehes above gy-eand and the top of the fenee is not, taller- than 4 feet tall. or- of another d ed by the Cit ana- pas This standard has been modified and moved to 50.16.015 "Applicability." L rassive Use Recreational Facilities in Protection Area. Passive use recreational facilities, including soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RC Protection Area. If construction of such facilities disturbs any adjacent land within an RC Protection Area, the disturbed area shall be restored and revegetated with plants identified on the Plant List as appropriate for resource landscaping. g. Utilities. Public or private utilities shall not be placed in or through the RC Protection Area unless tunneling under a resource where tree roots can be avoided and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If allowed to be located within an RC Protection Area, the applicant shall restore and revegetate City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 12/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 the disturbed area with plants identified on the Plant List and mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC Sections 50.16. 100 to 50.16.110. When applying Step 1 (avoidance) of the mitigation process: 4-i. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, telecommunications, cable and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible; 2ii. Drainage patterns shall not be altered in the resource area, or if altered, shall be designed and maintained so as not to adversely impact the functions and values of the resource. h. Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects shall remove only invasive vegetation, and shall plant only vegetation within the RC District or Protection Area, if one has been established, listed on the Plant List. Any pathways or structures proposed as part of a resource enhancement project shall retain existing trees. Landscaping. Ai. Plants. Plants used for landscaping within a Protection Area shall: I.A. Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions; I14. Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource; I1W. Not be depeadafl+dependcnt on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long term irrigation); and IVD. Provide food or cover for wildlife. Bii. The City shall maintain a Plant List on file in the Planning Division listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection (3)(g)(1) of this section. If a plant is listed in the applicable section of the Plant List for resource landscaping, it shall be presumed to comply with subsection (3)(g)(i) of this section. The Plant List is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a guideline and may be updated by the City Manager from time to time as new plants in compliance with subsection (3)(g)(i) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may utilize a plant not on the Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection 3 (g)(i) of this section. Cii-i. Removal of vegetation identified on the Plant List as appropriate for resource landscaping is not permitted from a protection area. invasive plants as identified on the Rlant4-,st. This is not a land -use matter. Ev. New landscaping shall not include any invasive plants on the City's Plant list. FVi. Existing Landscaping: Non -conforming formal landscaped area including ornamental gardens and lawns located within a Protection Area and in existence at the time of the adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC 50.70.005. However, a non -conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC 50.70.025. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 13/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 j—J. Tree Removal. Tree removal on property within the RC District shall be subject to the following criteria: i. Tree removal in a RC district that has not established a RC Protection Area shall be subject to a Dead Tree Removal Permit (LOC 55.02.042 (3)) or Hazard Tree Removal Permit (LOC 55.02.042 (4)). Tree removal pursuant to LOC 55.02.080 is prohibited in an RC District prior to designation of the Protection Area. ii. Tree removal within a designated RC Protection Area shall be subject to a Dead Tree Removal Permit (LOC 55.02.042 (3)) or Hazard Tree Removal Permit (LOC 55.02.042 (4)). Tree removal for development permitted pursuant to this section, excepting subsection (g) and this subsection, within a Protection Area is permitted pursuant to LOC 55.02.080. iii. Tree removal outside of the Protection Area shall comply with LOC Chapter 55. iv. These limitations are not intended to prohibit removal of trees in an emergency pursuant to LOC 55.02.042 (5). k. Limited Hazardous Materials Storage. Uncontained hazardous material, as defined by the Department of Environment Quality, or development providing for the storage or processing of materials that are flammable, explosive, toxic, or that could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life are prohibited in the Resource Conservation District. EXCEPTION: Ai. Materials that are typically used for household purposes and in quantities which are normal for household use. 9ii. Materials that are stored in a boathouse and are typically used for recreational boat operation and maintenance. Section 50.16.065 Resource Protection (RP) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. In addition to compliance with LOC 50.16.030 to 50.16.045, applicants for development that is subject to environmental review on property containing an RP District shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 50.16.070 to 50.16.085, in order to: 1. Prohibit new development within an RP District following delineation of the resource or resources, except as provided in this section. In the event that development is allowed within an RP District, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of or damage to the RP resource pursuant to LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110; 2. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the total land area and the functions and values of resources designated as RP; 3. Allow for development opportunities for at least one single family home in residential zones where an RP District occupies most or all of an individual property, pursuant to applicable mitigation criteria of LOC 50.16. 100 to 50.16.110. Section 50.16.070 RP District and Construction Setback Requirements. 1 • Buffer- shall be "de's � 'armed The RP �ree-sDistrict shall A.JUL.I -_ include the delineated streann or wetland and a protected riparian area City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 14/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 This section defines the RP District as including the water resource and an adjacent protected riparian area. This connects the resource and its riparian area, which serve similar purposes and usually receive the same protections. It differentiates the District from the construction setback, which lacks resource functions and values, and receives much less protection. All references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" are changed to "overlay districts"; "buffer" is replaced with "protected riparian area." feteeted fe The protected riparian area contributes to the functions and values of the stream or wetland, including shelter, food, travel, and nesting needs of wildlife., an to pfavie eentinuity of thefesoufe aesthetics, surface water quality, slope protee stability, and flood proteet+on-stora se. fian ,tions — d , -1 - This states that the protected riparian area (formerly "buffer") has functions and values. This is intended to clarify why the riparian area is protected. The protections were already in place, but the reasons were not well articulated. Changes below modify the language to apply the terms "stream or wetland" for the water feature, "protected riparian area" for the 25-30' area around the water, and "RP District" for the stream or wetland and its protected riparian area together. b. The b ntire RP district including the stream or wetland and its protected riparian area shall be shown on the delineation map prepared pursuant to LOC 50.16.035. 2. The following buN -areas; are Protected Riparian Areas. They are measured outward from the edge of a delineated R -P -stream or wetlandresotifee, shall beand provi included in the RP District: a. Class I Wetlands and Class II Wetlands abutting Class I Stream Corridors - 30 feet b. Other Class II Wetlands - 25 feet c. Class I Stream Corridors- 30 feet d. Class II Stream Corridors - 25 feet 3. ep-•o••s, •--ed---ewt-o==., to BuNr-R..q�.zem«nt-'Reduction of RP District. The review authority may allow pe �s-of the wire t..,4e protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant shows that: a. The proposed development complies with LOC 50.16.105; and b. The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site; and c. Development abuts a Class I or II Resource: i. Development abutting a Class I Resource. The review authority may allow portions of the required buffer -protected riparian area abutting a Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet if: City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 15/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 A. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and B. The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 30 foot average bt f -width. ii. Development abutting a Class II Resource. T he review authority may allow portions of the '-equifed btiff protected riparian area abutting a Class II resource to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet if: A. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and B. The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25 foot average bu fefwidth. d. The review authority may permit a_' Cigar width- protected riparian area that is less than the average minimums required in subsections (3)(c)(i) or (3)(c)(ii) of this section when a qualified professional shows that such an adjustment will not damage the system as a whole, and one of the following conditions exist: 1. The presence of an existing topographic feature or human -made development physically precludes establishment of the minimum buffer width protected riparian area required; or 2. The size or configuration of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide the minimum buffe -width-protected riparian area required. 4. Additional A construction setbacks afe is required from the RP District bti er-by LOC 50.16.075- only, for the following: Aa. New structures, parking areas, active use recreation facilities, streets and driveways - 10 feet. 4b. Accessory structures, decks, and similar outdoor facilities meeting the criteria of LOC 50.14.005 (5)(a) - (c) and LOC 50.22.045 (2) - 3 feet. Section 50.16.075 RP District Development Standards. 1. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, and subject to the requirement for compliance with subsection (3) below, the following development, use or activity on properties containing an RP District are permitted within the RP District of its-buf�ar-, subject to the standards set forth in subsection (2) below: a. Landscaping, b. Tree removal, c. Utilities, d. Streets, driveways, lake trams and public transportation facilities, e. Resource enhancement projects [LOC 50.16.075 (2)(a)(vi)], f. -Structures, g. Parking areas, h. Active use recreation facilities, i. Hard surfaced pathways, j. Limited hazardous materials storage, and k. Signs and kiosks along streets, trails, parks, and minor or major public facilities. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 16/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 2. Except as provided in LOC 50.16.085, all development listed in subsection (1) above is subject to environmental review and shall comply with the following standards: a. Specific Development Standards. i. Landscaping. The delineated RP Resouree and buff -e- zeiie-District shall maintain the natural function and character of resource area, which provides food and shelter for native wildlife. Landscaping within these areas shall therefore comply with the following criteria: On this page, all references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" are changed to "overlay districts." Spelling and numbering errors are corrected. A. Plants: Plants used for landscaping within ^ delineated FeSOUKe and i,•, fe,. ae the RP District shall: (1) Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions; (2) Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource; (3) Not be dependa*Wependent on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long term irrigation); and (4) Provide food or cover for wildlife. B. The City shall maintain a Plant List listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section. If a plant is listed on the Plant List as appropriate for resource landscaping, it shall be presumed to comply with subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section. The Plant List is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a guideline and may be updated by the City Manager from time to time as new plants in compliance with subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may utilize a plant not on the Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection (2)(a)(i)(A) of this section. C. Removal of vegetation identified on the Plant List as appropriate for resource landscaping is not permitted from an RP District ^r- buffer- afe , except as otherwise allowed in this section. P. NE) hefbieides ef pestieides shall be used within the delineated resaufee or buff;af area exeept fef eentr-el of invasive plants as identified on the Plant Lis�z This is not a land -use matter. E. New landscaping within the deli ea4ea r or -and btt� areaRP District shall not include any plants on the City's Plant List. F. Existing Landscaping: Non -conforming formal landscaped areas including ornamental gardens and lawns located within an RP District a died of buffer area and in existence at the time of the adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC 50.70.005. However, a non -conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC 50.70.025. ii. Tree Removal. Tree removal within an RP District oi- RP nistr-i t bu ff- pursuant to LOC 50.16.070 shall be subject to the following criteria: 4-A. Type I and Type II tree removal permits, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042 for development purposes, for those limited development activities allowed and approved to this section: City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 17/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 ?B. Type Il tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042 for landscaping purposes, in conjunction and consistent with a Resource Enhancement project: 3C. Hazard tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(4), except any portion of the tree that is not likely be hazardous to persons or property shall be retained for wildlife habitat and natural resources. 4D. Emergency tree removal permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(5). -5E. Verification permit, in accordance with LOC 55.02.042(6). iii. Utilities. A. Placement/New Construction: Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district or- r -unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If a public or private utility is allowed within an RP District or RP Di triet buy+�f pursuant to LOC 50.16.070, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110. When applying the mitigation process to this section: On this page, all references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" are changed to "overlay districts." Numbering errors are corrected. (1) Step #1 Avoidance. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable, telecommunications and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tunneling will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource or tree roots, and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained. (2) Step #2 Minimization. Sanitary sewer, water, storm drain line and other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the stream where practical or feasible. iv. Streets, Driveways, Lake Trams and Public Transportation Facilities. A. Private streets shall not be placed through an RP District Resoufee of buffer- area unless there is no other practicable method of access to buildable parcels. B. Driveways shall not be placed through an RP District &esewee e buffer -unless there is no other practicable method of access to the buildable areas of property served by the driveway. The amount of disturbance for driveways in the Protection Area shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; C. Trams to access Oswego Lake shall not be placed through an RP District Rese „-ee ei- buff' unless there is no other practicable method of access to Oswego Lake; D. Public streets and public transportation facilities shall not be placed in or through an RP District OF its eunless: (1) For public streets, there is no other practical method of providing for access to buildable parcels. (2) For public transportation facilities (other than regional trails), there is no other suitable location nearby for siting the public transportation facilities which would provide equal or greater public use of the public transportation facilities. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 18/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 (3) For regional trails, (designated as a regional trail on the City's Trails and Pathway Plan), they may be located within an RP District provided the trail width shall be no greater than 12 feet wide (as determined by the standards in the City's Trails and Pathway Plan), E. If allowed pursuant to the subsections of this criterion (iv), the applicant shall comply with the following criteria. (1) Streets, driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary to protect resources within the RP district or buk;ef while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians. On this page, all references to "overlay districts and their associated buffers" are changed to "overlay districts." (2) Stream and/or wetlands crossings shall be avoided. Where unavoidable, the applicant shall use bridges or arched culverts that are wildlife friendly and do not disturb the natural stream bed. The number of stream or wetland crossings for driveways shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; (3) If applicable, the applicant shall plan for future extension of shared access, access easement, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to avoid subsequent encroachments into the RP District er— ; (4) The applicant shall mitigate for loss of any portion of an RP Resoufee District pursuant to LOC 50.16. 100 to 50.16.110. v. Structures. Parking Areas, Pathways Driveways Lighting and Fences. A. Construction Setbacks. (11. Except as provided in subsection (2)(a)(iv) above, structures, parking areas, active use recreation facilities, hard surfaced pathways, streets and driveways shall be set back at least 10 feet from an RP District -bum to prevent construction impacts to the RP District. . (21. In addition to other applicable standards, accessory structures, patios, decks, and similar outdoor facilities, and lighting shall not --be plaee.d elesef thanset back 3 feet from thean -RP District FeSOUfee bUffef b0ttildarV. B. Passive use recreation facilities, such as soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RP district. Any disturbed land area shall be restored with plants as described on the Plant List. C. Exterior lights other than Low -Voltage Landscape Lights as defined in LOC 50.63 are not allowed within the RP District ef it-, ,.tr; any exterior lighting outside of the RP District or its buffer shall be hooded and positioned so that light does not shine into the KY Uistrict a~E' its buil Low -Voltage Landscape Lights are defined in 50.63.010 as "Landscape lighting for which power is provided at less than 15 volts and on circuits limited to 25 amps." It is dark -sky friendly and dissipates at about 8 feet. they afe fist., eted so thati the bet.em of the fenee (eNeept for pests) is not less than 12 inehes above gr-eund, the top of the fence : o taller- than 4 feet -4 11 the f., t 'thi 20 feet F t t 1' ......... ... ..�,.. .. .,.,..,..... ,....� .,, u ocrcurrr-ccrrccrrme, City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 19/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 ,)f of anether design appfeved by the City Managei, to allow �Aildli pa s This section was modified and moved to LOC 50.16.015 "Applicability." vi. Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects such as bank stabilization, restoration plantings, in -channel habitat improvements, and similar projects which propose to improve or maintain the quality of a natural resource within RP Districts "" RP Di stFiet bu - . pursuant to LOC 50.16.070 shall be approved if the applicant demonstrates that all of the following criteria are met: A. The project will cause no permanent degradation, or loss of natural Features in the str-e m ,.err-idEwRP District; and On this page, all references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. B. There will be improvement in the quality of at least one function or value of the resource; and C. Only vegetation described in the Plant List as appropriate for resource landscaping shall be planted. For the purpose of this subsection, "resource enhancement project" does not include required mitigation pursuant to LOC Sections 50.16. 100 to 50.16.110. vii. Limited Hazardous Materials Storage. Hazardous material, as defined by the Department of Environment Quality, or development providing for the storage or processing of materials that are buoyant, flammable, explosive, toxic, or that could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life are prohibited in the RP District and its Exceptions: A. Materials that are typically used for household purposes and in quantities which are normal for household use. B. Materials that are stored in a boathouse and are typically used for recreational boat operation and maintenance. low trails; squar-e feet. This section applied to signs with a footprint of less than 12 feet; since 200 SF of development is now exempt, this is no longer relevant. b. General Development Standards. In carrying out the permitted development activity, the applicant shall also comply with the following general development standards, if applicable to the proposed development, and the construction standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095: i. Resource Alterations. A. Streams shall not be impounded or diverted from their natural channels unless the applicant demonstrates: (1) The diversion or impoundment will cause minimum degradation or loss of natural features in the stream corridor; City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 20/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 (2) The diversion will not cause erosion or otherwise cause damage downstream of the development site; and at least one of the following criteria are met: (a) A diversion would return a previously altered stream to its original location; or (b) A stream channel occupies all or most of a legally created lot; or (c) An impoundment is designed to reduce flooding or improve water quality. B. A wetland shall not be impounded or the hydrology of the wetland modified through such activities as draining the resource or enlargement of the resource to create a pond, unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria for allowing resource enhancement in LOC 50.16.075 (2) (a)(vi) have been met. ii. (Reserved). 3. Land Divisions and Lot Line Adjustments. The following standards apply to properties containing an RP District or its applications for land divisions including partitions, subdivisions, and Planned Developments (PDs), and to lot line adjustments: a. All new lots or reconfigured lots proposed on lands that include an RP District a -- DD Dist••iet buff- r shall have designated sites for buildings that are located outside of the_ RP Distriadeli'e"ted RPFeseur-ee and i u f4;._ ,...,., A -lot division or lot line adjustment shall not create a lot that would necessitate, due to the presence of RP or RC resources on the created lot, an exception under LOC 50.16.085 in order to site a dwelling upon the proposed lot. Exception: This standard shall not apply to lots established as open space tracts, for transfer to a public agency or private trustee to manage as a natural area, or where the entire lot is included in a conservation easement that prohibits development on the site. On this page, all references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. t). Permanent signage is required in planned developments and subdivisions to identify the RP District and buffer- of_., where any common open space protects an inventoried natural resource through conditions of approval. The signage shall be installed before any occupancy permit is issued. Such signage shall be reviewed as part of the development review process, and shall meet the standards of LOC Chapter 47. Section 50.16.085 Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits all Reasonable Development Opportunities. 1. When a delineated RP District occupies most or all of a lot in any residential district, the property owner shall be permitted development on the parcel of a single family home. All other applicable City Codes and Development Standards shall be complied with, and the mitigation criteria of LOC 50.16. 100 to 50.16.110 shall also be applicable. 2. A lot from which density has been or may be transferred to another area in contiguous ownership shall not be eligible for this exception. Section 50.16.090 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 21/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 I . Purpose. The Oswego Canal was originally constructed and continues to be used for conveying water from the Tualatin River to Oswego Lake for the purpose of enhancing and maintaining the lake. Although originally artificial, certain portions of the Oswego Canal have acquired the characteristics of a RP Class I and Class 11 stream corridor. The Canal provides the primary source of water to Oswego Lake for the purposes of recreation, navigation, scenic value, irrigation, maintenance and enhancement of water quality and to produce hydroelectric power. It is also an important element of flood and storm water control for Oswego Lake and surrounding areas and it serves as the route for a sanitary sewer interceptor which is necessary to provide sewer service to several areas of Lake Oswego. This section is applicable to the portions of Oswego Canal described as beginning immediately south of the Bryant Road bridge and extending to the Tualatin River as illustrated by LOC Appendix 50.16-C. These regulations are intended to preserve the community -wide benefits of the natural resource functions and values of the Canal, but are not intended: a. To prevent the Lake Oswego Corporation from exercising its water rights to ensure an unimpeded supply of water to Oswego Lake; b. To prevent the Lake Corporation from undertaking necessary management and maintenance activities to ensure water quality of the Canal or Oswego Lake, or c. To prevent the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation from repairing, maintaining or making necessary improvements to essential public facilities and flood management measures within the Canal per LOC Article 50.44 Flood Plain, applicable Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) regulations, and any other City codes or standards that are applicable. 2. Exempt Activities. The following activities within the Oswego Canal Stream Corridor are exempt from the requirements of this Article when undertaken by the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation: a. Operation of the Oswego Canal headgate, including variation of water flow rates and emergency or routine maintenance and repairs of the headgate, approaches to the headgate, associated banks and channel including ripraped areas, reinforcement areas, gabions and other features; b. Emergency and routine removal of fallen trees, siltation, slides and other debris from the channel and banks of the canal and buf4er­ protected riparian areas as needed to ensure a continuous flow of water to Oswego Lake and to prevent flood damage; On this page, all references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. c. i reatment or waters or tlows of water for water quality purposes, and the control or eradication of aquatic weeds and similar threats to the aquatic environment of Oswego Lake; d. Emergency and routine repair and maintenance of failing or collapsed sections of the canal bank or bis protected riparian areas, including removal of contributing vegetation; e. Maintenance, major repair of the Oswego Canal sanitary sewer interceptor and any service laterals connecting to the sewer. 3. Activities Approved Pursuant to a Maintenance and Management Plan. Activities other than those described as exempt above, or incidental thereto, shall be reviewed as a minor development when proposed by the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation and when as part of an approved maintenance and management plan. Activities approved pursuant to a maintenance and management plan are subject to the minor development review criteria of LOC 50.79.025 and any other City Codes or Standards that are applicable. These projects are exempt from the RP District requirements. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 22/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 4. Environmental Mitigation Required. Any effects of the above activities in subsection (3) which impact the Canal's stream corridor functions and values as determined by the adopted ESEE analysis, when conducted as part of an approved maintenance and management plan shall be mitigated pursuant to a plan approved by the reviewing authority. The mitigation plan shall be appropriate to the scale of disturbance, conform to the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements and shall also, to the extent practical, replace plant communities and wildlife habitat disturbed by the above activities. 5. Boat Houses. Boat houses and docks shall not be placed within the portions of the Oswego Canal : RP District as described in LOC 50.16.090 above and illustrated by LOC Appendix 50.16-C. On this page, all references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. Section 50.16.095 Construction Standards. An owner shall submit a construction plan and narrative to the City Manager prior to any grading, clearing, or construction on a development site which contains an RP or RC District. The construction plan and narrative shall demonstrate that the following standards will be met: 1. RC Protection Areas or RC Districts where no protection areas have been approved and RP District and buffers shall be protected during construction with either: a. A minimum 6 feet tall chain link fencing secured with a minimum of 6 feet tall steel posts. The fencing shall be in place and maintained for the duration of construction. In addition, temporary signage shall be placed on the fencing which shall clearly identify the resource District and shall state the penalty for violations of this Article: or b. Such alternative method to subsection (a) above that is approved by the City Manager to demarcate and protect the RCPA or RC/RP District from the adverse effects of construction activity upon the resources. 2. RC protection b ,,,.,,aafies delinea4ed feseafee b __ _ _ and botindar-iesboundaries and RP District boundaries, as applicable, shall be located and staked by a qualified professional prior to placement of fencing and other protective measures. 3. Hazardous Materials. The site shall be inventoried for hazardous materials, debris and noxious materials, and these materials shall be removed prior to the development of the site. 4. No construction, demolition, grading, or site clearing shall begin until after protective measures, signs, and erosion control measures are in place and have been inspected and approved by the City Manager and all applicable permits have been issued. Fencing and other protective measures shall not be removed, even temporarily, without the permission of the City Manager. 5. No stockpiling of fill materials, or parking or storage of construction equipment shall be allowed within a resource District. 6. When transportation facilities, pathways, utilities, or structures are approved within a delineated RP fe District, they shall be constructed in such a way that a minimum of excavation is required and so that no permanent draining or filling of a stream corridor or wetland will occur. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 23/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 7. Surface runoff and other water sources supplying hydrology to an RP District shall be designed and maintained so as not to adversely impact the functions and values of the resource. 8. Any additional construction requirements imposed as conditions of approval or which may be required by the Development Standards, the Lake Oswego Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) or the Erosion Control Code (LOC Chapter 52). [ Cross -Reference: Mitigation and Avoidance Review Requirements of LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110.] Section 50.16.100 Mitigation; Purpose. Purpose. Mitigation is a way of repairing or compensating for adverse impacts to the functions and values of a natural resource caused by a development. Mitigation may consist of resource area creation, restoration, or enhancement. Some examples of mitigation actions are construction of new wetlands to replace an existing wetland that has been filled, replanting trees, and restoring stream side vegetation where it is disturbed. LOC 50.16.100 to 50.16.110 recognizes that true replacement of mature or complex natural resource systems is difficult and can take many years. Mitigation is discouraged by first requiring that avoidance of development siting within the resource be explored. Then, if that is not possible, actions should be taken to minimize damage to the resource. Mitigation ratios are established according to the type of mitigation proposed and the value of the resource. Maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation measures4s are also required. Section 50.16.105 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required. The approving authority shall permit development allowable within-: 0 A„ Dr A delineated DD ; an RC Protection Area or RP District established by LOC 50.16.070 pursuant to LOC 50.16.060 or 50.16.075 through 50.16.085, whichever is applicable, only if it finds that the following progressive steps have been met: On this page, references to overlay districts and their associated buffers are changed to overlay districts. 1. Step #I Avoidance: The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district cannot be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property. 2. Step #2 Minimization: If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource according to subsection (2)(a), above, and the review authority finds that detrimental impacts cannot be avoided; then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 24/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 a. Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging; and b. When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC 50.16.110 (5) or (6), whichever is applicable. Section 50.16.110 Mitigation Requirements. 1. Mitigation Plan. When mitigation is proposed or required as part of a development application, or when required or imposed as a result of a violation of this Code, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that: a. For proposed development, demonstrates compliance with LOC 50.16.105 and this section. For mitigation of violations of this Code, demonstrates compliance with LOC 50.16.105 (2)(b). b. Includes a maintenance and monitoring plan. The maintenance and monitoring plan shall include task timelines and quantitative goals to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time. As part of the monitoring plan, the applicant or other legally responsible agent shall provide an annual report to the City Manager on October 31st of each year for a 3 year period. The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with narrative and pictures. c. Provisions for regular maintenance and periodic monitoring of the mitigation site. Failure to comply with an approved mitigation plan shall be deemed a violation of this Code and a public nuisance and may be enforced pursuant to LOC Articles 34.04 and 34.08. 2. If a Division of State Lands (DSL) wetland permit, Army Corp. of Engineers, or other State or Federal permit is also required, the City shall not issue a building permit until all applicable State and Federal wetland permit approvals have been granted. 3. Mitigation shall be completed prior to a final inspection, issuance of a final occupancy permit, or acceptance of a public improvement. 4. On-site mitigation is required where possible, taking into consideration the existing natural and human -made features of a site. If the review authority finds that on-site mitigation is not possible, then off --site mitigation shall be permitted according to the following priorities: a. Within the same drainage system (as defined by the Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Plan or the Winterowd Natural Resources Inventory) and within the City limits; or b. Outside of the drainage system, but inside the City limits; or c. Outside the drainage system and City limits, but within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary. 5. Stream corridors and treerg_oves: When mitigation is proposed, the review authority shall require a minimum mitigation ratio (area of resource District created or enhanced to area of resource District lost) of 1:1 for stream corridor and tree grove resources. 6. Wetlands: When wetland mitigation is proposed within an RP Class I or Class II District, the review authority shall require minimum mitigation ratios (area of wetland created or enhanced to area of wetland lost) as follows: a. Wetlands Creation or Restoration - 2:1 ratio b. Wetlands Enhancement - 3:1 ratio City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 25/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 c. Wetlands Creation, Restoration or Enhancement- 5:1 ratio where the wetland is a Class I RP District and is forested or contains a sensitive, threatened or endangered species as identified in an adopted ESEE inventory. 7. Vegetation restoration shall be required to mitigate the loss of plant communities disturbed by development activities. In-kind vegetation shall be required for all mitigation projects, including trees, shrubs, and ground cover plants as identified on the Plant List (on file in the Planning Division). The restoration plant community chosen shall recreate a diverse and healthy environment which is compatible with the resource. 8. Initial 3 Year Bonding Period. a. Except as provided in subsection (8)(d) of this section, the applicant or property owner of a development subject to an approved mitigation plan shall post a performance bond or a letter of credit to the City that is equal to 120% of the value of the improvements installed pursuant to the plan for a 3 year period. The bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure the success of mitigation improvements and the survival of plant materials. b. The performance bond or the letter of credit will be released by the City after three (3) years upon receiving proof that the mitigation measures have been successfully implemented according to approved plans. Following release of the financial guarantee, the property owner(s) or other designated party (such as a homeowners association) shall remain responsible for maintenance of the resource. c. If mitigation improvements fail during the bonding period and the responsible party does not replace said improvements after notification by the City, the bond shall be forfeited and shall be used by the City to correct the problem pursuant to the Mitigation Plan and the Conditions of approval. d. Property owners of individual tax lots that are lots of record which are zoned for single family residential use, are not large enough to be further divided, and were in existence prior to the date this Article becomes effective shall be exempt from these bonding requirements. 50.02.05 "Definitions" Ditch: A manmade water conveyance channel. Channels that arc manipulated streams are not hes. This is exactly the definition used by the Department of State Lands; see OAR 141-085-0510. Using the DSL definition means the DSL could advise the City if we were unable to determine whether a channel was a ditch or not. Protected Riparian Area: The area adjacent a water resource described in LOC 50 16 070 (2) The Protected Riparian Area may provide resource functions and values and / or protect the and val This definition uses the same language as 50.16.070(2). This definition is included to clarify that the Protected Riparian Area provides its own functions and values and also protects the adjacent resource area. City of Lake Oswego Proposed Code Changes 26/26 Development Code Chapter 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" 09/27/10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ) LOC 50.16 "SENSITIVE LANDS" TO DEFINE ) TERMS AND ALLOW DE MINIMIS DEVELOPMENTS ) NATURE OF APPLICATION LU 10-0043 - 1745 (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER A request from the City of Lake Oswego to make legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 16, "Sensitive Lands" and Chapter 2 "Definitions." The proposed amendments would allow de minimis development within RP and RC overlays; clarify the terms "resource buffer" and "construction setback"; and add definitions of "ditch" and "Protected Riparian Area." HEARINGS The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of September 27, 2010. The Planning Commission received 5 letters and heard testimony from 14 people on this matter. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Participation Policy 1 Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1, Policies 4(a) and 7(a, b, c) Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Section 1, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Section 2, Policies 1,2,3,9, and 14 Section 3, Policies 1,3,6,8, and 9 Section 4, Policies 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and13 Section 5, Policies 1,4,5,7, and 9 Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources Section 1, Policy 3 Section 2, Policy 3 B. Lake Oswego Communitv Development Code LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision EXHIBIT B-1 LU 10-0043 LU 10-0043 PAGE 1 I C. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 2 Title 3: Water Quality, Flood Management and Fish and Wildlife Conservation 3 Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods 4 5 D. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 19 6 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 7 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 8 Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces 9 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 10 11 CONCLUSION 12 13 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 10-0043 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. 14 15 FINDINGS AND REASONS 16 17 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated September 16, 2010, on LU 10-0043 (with 18 all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and 19 conclusions set forth in this document. In the event of any inconsistency between this supplementary 20 matter and the staff report, this matter controls. To the extent they are consistent with the approval 21 granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter. 22 23 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 24 25 1. The Lake Oswego City Council has adopted Resolution 10-51A, which contains the Council's 26 goals for improving the City's Sensitive Lands Article and other environmental programs. The 27 City's application is in furtherance of Resolution 10-51A Section A, Goals 1 and 2. 28 29 2. Much of the public testimony provided at the September 27th hearing related to concerns about 30 the Sensitive Lands Article ("Article") overall, and to issues addressed in Resolution 10-51A that 31 are beyond Section A, Goals A(1) and A(2). The scope of the application before the Planning 32 Commission was limited to the amendments proposed. 33 34 3. The Commission finds that simplifying this Article by the amendments proposed, and allowing 35 development with de minimis impacts to the resources is intended in part to reduce the 36 perceived burden of the Article, and thereby encourage residents to understand the Article and 37 seek to voluntarily comply with its provisions. This in turn should increase overall code 38 compliance, and result in greater benefits to environmental resources. 39 40 4. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan recognizes the goals of: 41 a. Preserving and restoring environments which provide fish and wildlife habitat (Goal 5, 42 Section 1, Goal); 43 b. Protecting and restoring the community's wooded character and vegetation resources (Goal 44 5, Section 2, Goal); 45 c. Protecting, maintaining, enhancing and restoring wetland (Goal 5, Section 3, Goal). 46 d. Providing for economic development opportunities which enhance the prosperity and 47 livability of the community (Goal 9). 48 e. Providing for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas (Goal 10(c)) LU 10-0043 PAGE 2 2 Each of these goals have policies which implement the goal (see Paragraph 5 below). In some 3 cases the policies require "maximization" of efforts, e.g., developers are required to maximize 4 protection of the "natural functions and values." In other cases, polices are stated without 5 quantification, e.g., policies require the City or developers to "protect, restore, maintain" 6 without a numerical threshold or quantification of the preservation efforts. 7 8 5. The Commission finds that de minimis intrusion into resource areas do not appreciably affect 9 the functions and values of the resources, while still permitting reasonable development 10 opportunities. Further, when examining proposed amendments to the Community I1 Development Code, and their conformance with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies, 12 the Commission notes that maximization of the various policy objectives is required within the 13 context of the Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. See Lake Oswego 14 Comprehensive Plan, Introduction, Definitions and Obligations of Goals, Policies and 15 Recommended Action Measures, Section II Policy, "Obligation". 16 17 6. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies promote limitations on development and tree removal in 18 tree groves and riparian buffers in Goal 5, Section 1, Policies 1(a, c, d, e), 4(a, b, c, d), and 6; 19 Section 2, Policies 1, 2, 3, 9, and 14; Section 3 policies 1, 3(a, b, c) 6(b) and 9; Section 4 Policies 20 1, 3, 4(a, d), 7(a) and 13; Section 5 Policies 1, 5(a, b, d, e), 9(a, b); and Goal 6, section 1, policy 3 21 and section 2, policy 6. DLCD's Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 6 require the City to adopt and 22 maintain a program that protects natural resources, in order to promote a healthy environment 23 and natural landscape that contributes to Oregon's livability and improve the quality of the air, 24 water and land resources of the state. Metro Titles 3 and 13 require a City program for water 25 quality, flood management, ecologically viable streamside corridor system, integrated with 26 upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape; and prevent water pollution 27 and improve water quality throughout the region. The City's protection of trees in riparian and 28 upland habitat areas is one mechanism the City employs to achieve compliance with Goals 5 and 29 6, and Titles 3 and 13. 30 31 7. The Commission finds that de minimis impacts to natural resources, by their nature, do not 32 appreciably degrade the resource, when considering the entire resource within the city's 33 jurisdiction, and therefore, by their nature, do not lessen the preservation and protection of the 34 natural resources' contribution to the environment and natural landscape. 35 36 8. The Commission finds that amendment of the Sensitive Lands Article to allow removal of trees 37 for new development of up to 200 square feet in the RC or RP districts will have a de minimis 38 impact because: 39 40 a. The ability to site development requiring tree removal will be constrained by the 41 Tree Code requirements for tree removal. If the proposed development of up to 42 200 square feet is proposed in an area where tree removal would be necessary, the 43 City's Tree Code (LOC Article 55) will apply: If the tree proposed for removal would 44 have a significant effect on the character, aesthetics, or property values of the 45 neighborhood, landowners must demonstrate that alternative development 46 locations have been considered to minimize tree removal. A tree removal permit 47 would require public notice, staff review, and an opportunity for appeal, to ensure 48 that the criteria for tree removal have been met. LU 10-0043 PAGE 3 b. With a cumulative total of 200 square feet of development, an alternative location could be found on most sites, thus lessening the number of tree removal permits sought to site small (< 200 sq. ft) developments. c. Considering the small numerical number of tree removal permits that may be obtained, the impact upon the overall area of the tree canopy within the City is expected to be negligible. The Commission concludes, therefore, that the tree removal permitted by these changes will have an insignificant impact on overall tree cover in tree groves and riparian areas, and that the proposed amendment complies with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 policies cited above. 9. The Commission finds that development is limited in natural resource areas because it impacts resource functions and values in a variety of ways, such as by the presence of people and pets, lighting, noise, and use of biocides and fertilizers. The physical displacement of habitat caused by a dwelling unit is only one element of its total environmental impact. 10. Allowing the footprint of an existing dwelling to be increased by up to 700 square feet with the limitations described below will have a de minimis impact because: a. Additions are allowed only to existing primary residential structures; additions will not allow new residential uses to be established in the resource area. b. Additions will not be closer to the resource area than the pre-existing use. c. The size of additions are limited by other factors including lot coverage, architectural/ design considerations, and setbacks. d. Metro, following enactment of Titles 3 and 13, concluded that 500 square feet additions to structures — all structures —have a de minimis impact upon the natural resources of a jurisdiction. See Metro Model Code, quoted in Exhibit E-2. The Commission concurs with Metro's conclusion. e. Additions to existing primary residential structures will be limited when considering that the opportunity to expand will be limited by internal configuration of residences. f. The Commission finds that an additional 200 square feet expansion area, although not identical to Metro's 500 square feet de minimis expansion, will similarly have a de minimis impact upon the natural resources, particularly when considering the limitation on the type of structure (primary residential v. any structure) and internal configuration limitations (adding an additional 200 square feet beyond 500 square feet will present less opportunities for full expansion due to the layout of residence and the prohibition against expanding closer to the resource). The Commission concludes that the primary residential additions permitted by these changes will have a de minimis impact on upland or riparian habitats, and that the proposed amendment complies with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 policies cited above. 45 11. The Commission finds the existing Sensitive Lands Article allows repair and replacement of 46 utility lines in resource areas when there is no other practicable alternative. See LOC 47 50.16.060(3)(g) and 50.16.075(2)(a)(iii). Because of the necessity that the portions of utility 48 lines within a resource area be connected to the utility lines outside the resource area, in most LU 10-0043 PAGE 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 instances it is not practicable to relocate utility lines outside of a resource area in order to repair or replace utility lines within a resource area. The Commission further finds that repairs and in-kind replacement of existing utilities and placement of individual service lines typically involve a narrow width of intrusion into a resource area, and the abutting, undisturbed resource area will assist in recovery of the disturbed area. Further, restoration of the disturbed area will be required. The Commission concludes that repairs and in-kind replacement of existing utilities and placement of individual service lines can reasonably be expected to be de minimis to the effect upon the entirety of the resources areas within the City, and that the proposed amendment complies with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 5 policies cited above. However, the Commission concludes it is not possible to determine the impacts of the construction of new utility lines without additional information. Therefore, an unlimited permission to construct new utility lines is not warranted. ORDER IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 10-0043 be approved by the City Council. I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. DATED this 11th day of October 2010. LU 10-0043 Jon Gustafson /s/ Jon Gustafson, Chair Planning Commission Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support PAGE 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ATTEST: PRELIMINARY DECISION - September 27, 2010 AYES: Glisson, Gustafson, Jones, Paretchan NOES: Johnson ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None EXCUSED: None ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER - October 11, 2010 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: EXCUSED ABSENT: LU 10-0043 Glisson, Gustafson, Jones, Paretchan None None None Johnson None PAGE 6 RESOLUTION 10-51A A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, in the 1990's, in an effort to protect significant natural resources as called for by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 5 and 6, the City indentified and mapped significant resource areas, and in 1997 adopted regulations known as Sensitive Lands regulations; and WHEREAS the City anticipated that, with certain modifications, the Sensitive Lands regulations would qualify for compliance with Metro's Title 3 and 13; and WHEREAS the Sensitive Lands regulations have not been significantly amended or modified since adoption; and WHEREAS concerns and questions raised by the community led the City to conduct a thorough review of the program by supporting the Planning Department in convening a technical task force (the Second Look Task Force) to evaluate the Sensitive Lands program and recommend program improvements; and WHEREAS, from September 2009 to May 2010, after 17 meetings, one Public Open House and Comment Session, and including field trips, case studies, presentations and extensive document review, the Second Look Task Force compiled recommendations for program improvement, which were presented to the Planning Director and reviewed and evaluated by the City Council; and WHEREAS, following three public comment sessions in review of Task Force and staff recommendations held in June and July 2010, the City Council is prepared to direct program revisions with a goal of offering greater flexibility for property owners, while maintaining environmental protection and compliance with Metro and State standards; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego as follows: The City Council directs staff to prepare the following program revisions (as outlined more thoroughly in the Staff Report dated July 15, 2010 and in the Second Look Task Force Report dated May 28, 2010): Section A: Implement the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section A, which recommends immediate amendments to: 1. Modify the Development Code to permit de minimis impacts, with specific attention to allowing more uses in buffers, such as fences, gardens, lighting, pervious surfaces, etc. Resolution 10-51A EXHIBIT F-1 Page 1 of 3 LU 10-0043 2. Clarify the terms "ditch," "resource buffer," and "construction setback" 3. Exempt invasive trees from tree removal permit requirements 4. Amend the City fee schedule to eliminate the resource delineation fee Section B: Implement the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section B within the next year, including the following steps: 1. Develop and initiate a free map correction process 2. Consider removing small, isolated tree groves from the overlay zone on private property, not including private dedicated open space 3. Improve the readability of the Sensitive Lands code 4. Develop a two -track review system 5. Develop standards for mitigation measures 6. Direct staff to return to Council with habitat friendly development codes Section C: Return with a supplemental budget request for the enhanced communication and community outreach activities identified in Staff Report Section C as follows: 1. Expand Landscaping for Conservation outreach and education programs 2. Develop a handbook on best practices for restoration; provide some on -the - ground support and grant opportunities 3. Develop new informational materials for property owners 4. Strengthen the City's connection to watershed councils and seek their assistance in these outreach efforts. Section D: Schedule study sessions on the new resource protection and environmental initiatives identified in Staff Report Section D as follows: 1. Direct staff to report to the City Council by February 1, 2011 on advantages, disadvantages, funding mechanisms and an implementation plan to organize and operate internal resources to support watershed based environmental management, including linking the surface water resource program and sensitive lands. 2. Direct staff to prepare by November 1, 2010 a current fiscal year and a longer term multi-year plan to improve maintenance of City property by removing invasive species and restoring those lands with appropriate species. The City Council recognizes that the degraded condition of our public lands occurred over many years and that it will take many years of dedicated sustained effort to correct the situation. 3. Create a program for ongoing outreach on environmental and resource topics 4. Develop an on-line data service program similar to Portland Maps Section E: Implement regulatory changes identified by the City Council as follows: 1. Consider increasing RP buffers, on City -owned land only, consistent with the Metro Model Code 2. Review significant tree and riparian resources on City -owned lands and add designations where appropriate Resolution 10-51A Page 2 of 3 3. Direct staff to return to the City Council with recommendations for an appeal process and options, with an emphasis on fairness and equity, including a discussion and timeline for 18 properties, by the end of the year Section F: This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney Resolution 10-51A Page 3 of 3 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 AAvenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Guy R. Graham, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer CC: Joel Komarek, Dave Prock, Erica Rooney, Eric Day, Denise Frisbee and Jonna Papaefthimiou SUBJECT: Lake Oswego Text Amendment — Utility Line Exemption DATE: November 1, 2010 FAQ t IQ i Ll This report is for information only; no action is requested at this time. A public hearing on this topic is tentatively scheduled for December 13, 2010 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The following is a summary of the proposed Lake Oswego text amendment which provides a Utility Line Exception in designated sensitive land areas. This exception would allow the placement of public utility lines in designated sensitive areas without being required to go through a land use approval process. The applicant would still be required to delineate and mitigate, according to Lake Oswego Code, for any disturbance in these areas. Public utilities provide vital water, wastewater and surfacewater infrastructure services to the community. As the community grows, and/or service needs change, their routes and required improvements are typically determined by population growth patterns, available space, ground topography and life -cycle costs. Being required to go through the land use approval process to permit these utility improvements costs the City time and money in preparation and review for projects which the location and size of the improvement are generally predetermined. No additional detrimental effects to the sensitive land areas would occur without the land use review as the mitigation for any disturbance is still required to comply with existing City Code. Planning Commission Concerns In September 2010, the Lake Oswego Planning Commission (PC) held a public meeting to listen to various Page 2 proposed development code text amendments. At this time the PC had a pretty specific objection to the utility line exception. Their objection was that they were concerned about large public or private utility lines being located in sensitive land areas without City oversight and approval. Because of this concern, the PC voted to not approve the utility line exception as staff had proposed. It may not have been communicated to them that all utility operators can now locate their improvements in sensitive land areas, if the areas are unavoidable, as long as they mitigate for the disturbance according to City Code. One possible remedy to the PC's concern would be to narrow the exception so that it only applies to public utility operators. If only public utility operators are allowed to use this exception the City can have confidence that any improvements that are made to the public infrastructure are necessary. Proposed Text Amendment The proposed code language is an example of how the amendment could be written that would allow the City to accomplish its public works goals while protecting the sensitive land areas. (Proposed change is in BOLD) Section 50.16.015 Applicability 1. This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas. 2. Sensitive Lands Development Review Required. 3. Exception: The provisions in LOC Article 50.16 shall not apply to: a. A resource located within the boundaries of a partition, subdivision, Planned Development, or lot line adjustment, approved prior to August 21, 1997 if: i. The resource was identified and protected pursuant to regulations in effect at the time of approval; and ii. The proposed development is in compliance with the conditions protecting the resource imposed at the time of approval. Any modification of the prior approved partition, subdivision, or planned development that would impact or modify any protection measures imposed at the time of original approval shall be subject to the standards and criteria of this Article. b. Resource restoration required as a result of violation of this Article or pursuant to settlement of a potential enforcement action by the City Manager, subject to City Manager approval of the restoration plan and procedures, and compliance with the Construction Standards set forth in LOC 50.16.095. c. Development that meets all of the following criteria: i. The development does not result in any new permanent structure or development within the RP or RC District, or its associated buffer, except the replacement or vertical expansion of an existing non -conforming structure, within the footprint of the non -conforming structure; and ii The development does not remove any vegetation designated as native vegetation in the Lake Oswego Plants List; and iii. All replacement vegetation used is listed as "native vegetation" in the Lake Oswego Plants List. d. Utility Line Exemption - Repair and replacement of existing utility lines and utility line appurtenances and new utility lines and utility line appurtenances if they are located in an existing utility easement or in improved public right-of-ways where: i. The disturbed portion of the resource district is restored according to City Code; and Page 3 ii. Non-native vegetation is removed from the impacted resource area and is replaced with native vegetation from the Lake Oswego Plants List in accordance with LOC 50.16.110. This proposed change is respectfully requested by Public Works Department, and supported by the Planning and Building Services Department. Staff feels that this change will allow the City to permit its utility improvements, which are located in sensitive land areas, in a more efficient, timelier and more cost conscious manner without creating any greater harm to the designated sensitive land areas in Lake Oswego. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT Utility service lines are intended to be planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained sustainably, resulting in reliable, lowest life -cycle costs for services. As was mentioned earlier, the expansion of services to serve growth and/or modification(s) to improve existing services requires taking advantage of ground topography "gravity" and/or relational (i.e. close proximity) efficiencies. The construction of utility lines within environmentally sensitive lands only makes since when this option is the only viable, practical and sustainable option available. The fiscal impacts to alternative utility service line alignments (outside of environmentally sensitive areas) can be significant, including additional material costs, energy costs (pumping systems and "back-up" electrical systems), operational and maintenance costs as well as resulting in potentially less reliable (especially when compared to "gravity" systems) services. RECOMMENDATION The Public Works Department recommends that Council thoughtfully consider the requested text amendments (as noted in this memo) and incorporate them with the other staff proposed text changes to LOC 50.16 "Sensitive Lands". ATTACHMENTS None Reviewed by: Department Director (if there is a financial impact) Finance Director (if legal issues) City Attorney Alex D. McIntyre City Manager 3.,z 46& HARRIS STREAM I&J, �; , LLC Restoring Stream Health and NatuTLil Functions November 9, 2010 To: Lake Oswego Planning City Council From: Andrew Harris Subject: Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 "SENSITIVE LANDS" The following comments are presented to follow the counci report formatting and page numbering. INTRODUCTIIONBACKGROUND Resolution 10-51A Section Al states "Modify the Developr_:ent Code to permit de minimis impacts, with attention to allowing more uses in bv.,f¢ers, such as fences, gardens, lighting, pervious surfaces, etc." "De minimus" means "lacking significance or importance_.- so minor as to merit disregard" as defined by the Merriam -Webster dictiona-�,y-. DISCUSION SECTION Allow de minimis impacts No. 4 - FENCES (page 7) Facts: 1. The proposed change allows fences in wetland and t -I .-low the top of bank of a stream. 2. The proposed change does not mention allowing feir::es in buffers. 3. The consequence will be significant and important n.-: tgative impacts to the natural functions of wetlands or streams. 4. These natural functions include: • Conveyance of normal and flood flow • Conveyance of stream sediment load • Conveyance of wood and other floating materiab • Flood storage and flow attenuation (reduction of ?cak flows) • Stream bank stability and erosion control (aided riparian vegetation) • Temperature regulation by water quality benefits ,'Y-om shade and vegetation filtration • Hydrology that supports riparian vegetation and !.. sociated wetland • Wildlife habitat, including food, shelter, nesting. ;end breeding opportunities • Movement along a stream and adjacent to it for 1-. bitat resources I 2270 Arbor Drive, West Linn, OR 97068 • (5'3) 866-0901 harrisstreamstervices@comcast. .-et DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Considerations: 1. The important questic-:s to ask are: • What are the impacts'. • D the impact `lack si ificance or importance"? and • What is the best wa-y- allow the proposed use while avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating for the in-.rzts? 2. Floodways and floo6 - :-one areas are almost always outside the bank of the stream. The exceptic-L 3 when the stream is severely degraded by channel incision. 3. Fencing in a stream...:tland, or associated flood prone area does not make sence. If a property owner �1ts a fence to provide security or confine your pets, having an opening for wildii. would defeat that purpose. 4. Fencing all the way 'he ground across a stream would provide security but the impacts to the owner": -)roperty and adjacent property would be far greater than "de minimis". Recommendations: 1. Do not allow fences ithin a wetland or top of bank of a stream. 2. Do not allow fences flood prone areas. 3. Do not allow fences 2... potential flood prone areas adjacent to streams that are degraded by ch.:: nel incision. 4. Allow fences adjace._ to but not crossing wetland, stream, and associated flood prone areas p7Aded the impacts to natural functions are truly insignificant. 5. Provide gates in the : ince to allow access to the resource areas when desired. Justifications: 1. Impacts are not "de imn _.imis" as directed in Resolution 11-5 1 A, Section A.1 2. Fences would be in _ream or wetland, NOT in a buffer as directed in Resolution 11-5 1 A, S,:; tion A.1 3. The Second Look tas' orce did not recommend fences or other sues in stream or wetland resource area-,-. 4. FEMA standards prof: Siting development in a floodway and requiring restrictions in the floodway fringe: is a factor to consider before allowing development in these areas. No. 5 - UTILITY LINE Exemption Considerations: 1. The permit process provides a way to assure that we protect and conserve natural resources. 2. The utility line exemption creates a double standarc'. especially when allow an exception for city new construction 3. The City even requires a permit to do resource enhancement projects. Do we want to exempt something that could and has in the 'east had sever impacts to streams and wetlands. 4. Make the process expedited and reasonable for all p�::rmits. 5. Is this exemption "Leading by Example? I think not. 6. State and federal permits may still be required anyway. Recommendation: 1. Do not allow utility line exemptions for repair, replo;,ement or new construction of utility lines. NOTE WORTH INFORMATION 1. Stream Morphology Streams are more than just stream channels defined by t-L3e top of bank. A stream's riparian and flood prone areas (floodplains) are also req -.-fired for the proper function of stream systems. See Figure #1 and photo # 1. DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT NATURAL runnel --� -- -- , •, KFULL—* +c t I.. 1 I FIGURE 41 - STREAM MORPHOLOGY PHOTO 91- PHOTO C JMPARISON OF STREAM MORPHOLOGY 2. Impaired Stream Conditions One noteworthy consideration is the impaired condition of many urban streams. Unfortunately, this is a common condition. Impaired streams typically have limited ability to provide natural functions. Imbedded in federal. state, and local regulatory programs is the understanding that for streams to be healthy they must properly perform their natural functions. See Photos #2, #3, and :4. PHOTO 92 - IMPAIRED CONDITION (no flood prone area or riparian vegetation) PHOTO #3 - RESTORED NATURAL FUNCTIONS (with flood prone area) PHOTO # 4 — RESTORE-) CONDITION (with riparian vegetation and associated wetland) 3-z 600 NE Grand Ave. www. Oregon metro. 9ov Portland, OR 572.32-2736 503-797-1700 503-797-1804 TDD 503-797-1797 fax VMetro I People places. Open spaces. November 9, 2010 Jonna Papaefthimiou Natural Resources Planner City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear jonna: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission recommendations related to a text amendment to LOC 50.16 Sensitive Lands; file LU 10-0013-1745. In general, Metro staff feels that the proposed text amendments are in line with the intent of Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan) Title 13: Nature in.Neighborhoods; however, we have some concern regarding one of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Specifically, we are concerned with the Planning Commission's recommelydation to increase from 500 square feet to 700 square feet the amount of intrusion that could occur in a resource area that would be exempt from the requirements of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance as a resu It of an alteration, expansion or replacement of an existing primary dwelling unit as outlined in LOC 50.16.015(4), Metro's Title 13 Model Ordinance allows for the alteration, expansion or replacement of a structure that will not intrude more than 500 square feet into the resource area to be exempt from the Title 1:i regulations. The Model Ordinance was developed by a subcommittee of Metro Technical Advisory Committee members, including a representative of the City of Lake Oswego. Based on their collective planning and development experience, the subcommittee felt that 500 square feet was a reasonable amount of intrusion that would balance the negative impact to the resource while providing some opportunity and flexibility for an applicant. The 500 square foot limit has been adopted by the other jurisdictions in the region that are in compliance with Title 13. We propose that the City of Lake Oswego develop a discretionary process as recommended by the Lake Oswego Second Look Task Force to complement the existing process contained in LOC 50.16. A discretionary process could provide the opportunity for an applicant to propose an additional amount of impact beyond 500 square feet for those limited number of situations where the existing primary structure already intrudes into the resource area. This process could still provide flexibility while providing greater overall protection for the City's natural resources. I understand that the Planning Commission also discussed the requirements of LOC 50.16 as they relate to utility work. Metro staff concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to provide an exemption for the repair and replacement of existing utility lines and utility appurtenances if they are located in existing utility easements or in improved public rights of way, while not providing; an exemption from the requirements of LOC 50.16 for new utility projects. This determination by the Planning Commission is consistent with Title 13. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO November 9, 2010 Page 2 As you know, any successful natural resource protection. program includes an educational and voluntary incentive component that complements the formal protection requirements. Accordingly, Metro looks forward to partnering with the city to promote education and outreach efforts such as your current partnership with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park and Tryon Creek Watershed Council. Furthermore, Metro's Nature in Neighborhoods Restoration and Enhancement Grant Program for 2011, which supports hands-on activities and environmental education programs that protect and contribute to watershed health, is currently underway and information regarding the program can be found at h=://www.oregonmetro.gov index.cbp_4go/bv.web/id=24982 Please share this letter with the Lake &> wego City Council at their study session on November 9, 2010. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 503-797-1840. Sincerely, Tim O'Brien, A)CP Principal Regional Planner cc: Metro Council President Carlotta Collette Christina Deffebach, Manager Brian Harper, Assistant Regional Planner 3z BUFORD ASSOCIATES, INC. consuRing engineers • land surveyors 415 N. STATE STREET • LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 • PHONE (503) 635-3511 FAX (503) 635-2911 November 9, 2010 File: CCouncil Fences MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL City of Lake Oswego RE: FENCES Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon Mayor and City Council: An item on the agenda of your meeting tonight considers "Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 Sensitive Lands", specifically fences. I have discussed the matter with Andy Harris, a member of the Second Look Task Force. Andy and I have known each other for quite a few years. We don't agree on all issues concerning the Sensitive Lands Ordinance; but, we do agree on some very basic issues concerning the construction of fences on private property. Item 4 of the staff report, page 7 of the agenda packet, states "Fences located within a Wetland or below the top of bank of a stream, ..." In my opinion, as a Registered Professional Engineer, and as an engineer holding a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering, with a major in Hydraulics, there is no reason the City should propose an ordinance which specifically allows construction of a fence below the bank of a stream. Also, the ordinance should not specifically allow construction of a fence within the floodway of a stream. It simply makes no sense; and, indicates poor judgment. A fence should not be constructed where it will impede the natural flow of a stream under normal conditions or flood conditions. A fence could create a barrier to the flow of water in a stream and be the cause of flooding. Also, in my opinion, the City should not propose within an ordinance that construction of a fence within a wetland is an acceptable practice. It just makes no sense. In addition, item 4 goes on to say "... when the fence is constructed so that for each 100 feet or portion thereof of fencing, at least one 2 -foot section is: i. Not less than 12 inches above the surface, and ii Not more than 4 feet tall from the surface." This, in my opinion as a property owner, and as a father that has raised three children, and as someone who has had dogs and other animals running on their private property, is not what the City should try to require and/or limit on private property. The purpose of a fence is to contain children and family pets on your own property. You simply cannot achieve your objective when the City tries to control the design of fencing on your private property. It makes no sense; and, the City is over -stepping reasonable property controls. submitted, WRIVIN V41-76 LAKE OSWEGO Ceniennia11910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT 3.3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Morgan Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner, ISA Certified Arborist (PN -6145A) Jonna Papaefthimiou, AICP, Natural Resources Planner Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning and Building Services Planning & Building Services Department SUBJECT: Invasive Tree Species to Exempt from Tree Removal Requirements DATE: October 28, 2010 ACTION This report is for information only; no action is requested at this time. A public hearing on this topic is tentatively scheduled for December 13, 2010. Review staff recommendations to exempt invasive tree species from the City's tree removal permit requirements pursuant to Resolution 10-51A, and direct staff to develop code language modifying LOC Chapter 55 "Trees". In addition, provide direction on Council priorities in developing a schedule and process for future tree code considerations. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Trees are a dominant visual element in Lake Oswego and also provide a wide array of social, economic, and environmental benefits. "Trees not only beautify streets and neighborhoods and provide wildlife habitat, they also function to increase water, air, and soil quality and provide tangible economic benefits to homeowners and commercial districts."' The City-wide tree canopy cover for Lake Oswego is 44.4% as described in the June 2009 State of the Urban Forest Report. This is one of the highest percentages of canopy cover in the Metro region and surpasses the American Forest Foundation's recommended average 40% canopy cover for Pacific Northwest cities.z For the last 21 years, Lake Oswego has been recognized as a Tree City USA, which is a special program of the National Arbor Day Foundation that recognizes cities that meet standards set for tree planting and care. 1 City of Lake Oswego. "State of the Urban Forest Report." Accessed October 14, 2010, http://www.ci.osweao.or.us/plan/communitv forestry/StateoftheForestReDort.ndf. 2 American Forest Foundation. "Setting Urban Tree Canopy Goals." Accessed October 14, 2010, http://www.americanforests.orq/resources/urbanforests/treedeficit. php. Page 2 Chapter 55 of the Lake Oswego Code (LOC) regulates the removal of trees in the City and stipulates protection measures to preserve trees during construction. The tree code works well to protect individual trees throughout the City, but does little in regard to the overall health and sustainability of the urban forest. The purpose of the tree code is to "protect trees as a natural resource of the City." In recognizing that certain tree species are becoming increasingly invasive in natural areas, and in an effort to better manage the overall health and sustainability of the native ecosystem, removal of invasive species ought to be encouraged by the tree code. Invasive species are broadly defined as species that were introduced by humans to locations outside of their native range that spread and persist over large areas, outcompeting native species. More information is included in the attached handout "What the heck is an invasive plant?" produced by the Plant Conservation Alliance.3 Invasive species negatively impact natural ecosystems by displacing native species, reducing biological diversity, interfering with natural succession, and more. On July 20, 2010, the Lake Oswego City Council adopted Resolution 10-51A, directing staff to implement revisions to the City's Natural Resource Protection Program. Section A, Item 3 states, "Exempt invasive trees from tree removal permit requirements." International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist Morgan Holen (PN -6145A), working as Assistant Natural Resources Planner for the City, conducted research about invasive tree species and contacted local arborists to request feedback pertaining to invasive trees. This report recommends specific invasive tree species to exempt from the City's tree removal permit requirements, and further provides considerations for future tree code updates. DISCUSSION First, tree species believed to be invasive in the Pacific Northwest were researched. The City of Portland has a widely accepted list of nuisance tree species that are invasive and "threaten the health and vitality of native habitats, humans, and cause economic harm to public and private landowners" (Portland Plant List, page 4-1). The tree species listed in the Portland Plant List provided a starting point. Other resources used include a draft list of invasive species prepared by Clean Water Services, and tree species reported to be invasive by the Native Plant Society of Oregon and the Plant Conservation Alliance. Additionally, the City sent an e-mail to 33 ISA Certified Arborists who work locally in and around Lake Oswego in order to solicit feedback regarding the exemption of invasive tree species from the City's tree removal permit requirements. A list of arborists that were e-mailed is enclosed. Eight (24%) arborists responded with comments and suggestions, which were considered in developing these recommendations. Invasive Tree Species to Exempt from Regulations Twelve tree species are deemed invasive by one or more professional organizations and are recommended for exemption from the City's tree removal permit requirements outright. These invasive tree species are described individually in Table 1 (next page). The City can encourage the removal of invasive tree species by exempting these species from the tree removal permit requirements. This change is not intended to force the removal of invasive tree species on 3 Plant Conservation Alliance. "Fact Sheet: What the Heck is an Invasive Plant?" Alien Plant Working Group. Accessed October 19, 2010, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/whatis.pdf. -m 'Dz00X. n. oma. 7 - d V S. ff��ll N a ct FL D ° mm 0 CH D= oM. < Cl)y C my(Mrp co CX N G C N n��cg HC>�(pA� vg j N � N a S N ry N O d N m 7 - N !!1 p C y V + D N tt[OODD� N 01. m -0 .. Oa 0 of a 6 V 0 5 a cam$<w bo V < r$ o ONCi� C . . 91 � N 3 j V t S N 3 j N D) N N N O w CD V 01 V1 A W N F+ to m g F _0 m m m •* Z ro c m a o m m t O " d 3 3 03 c m Z O w a a m s G 3 cr C _R a e H 3 c p Cr o 'c' N 3 U rz crb C rD G a° a o rD z z z z z z z z z z z z O O 'O O O O O O O O O O N O N N N N N N N iA N N N N O yMi O Ll O N i7 N O N O N H O O O N r7i O O O N O O f °a F CL (D N (OD CL 00 N (D (D .am. d T O a n (D m O N 3 o C CL a d N < A m m :^ ° 3 p v O. n < < O) O ^ s O o o d ^ IM N rNo rD 0 X t1 7 rND v c o F £ O O ;:' y C z p (D ^ (D Oa '3 G d 3 ppmpp ODO H o O 3 3 N £ N O. O a L a a n D-1 a n (Do. N rD eD d ° O oo a DO 7 O. =7°. x 0 C N 3 N O °�' S fD Q v O' N H m O ° A Q N N OM r•F j w ? 4 CL c m f °m a C n rb O' D O Q 7 io a n ? cr O rD H s O ? O 06 Q O� a N tCi (D 3 :3 N O O. O OJ md N 3 ° c a oa °N w A Q d 3 d C p a N ^ O 3 K ro N m O 3 �. o0 ^ d N • DO N N Q = N O. C 61 (D 5 an d CL C 3 0 — 9 CL A m N � °^ d m 7 a a, m ° < m " CD CD 'NO GfD+" Cc on Page 4 private properties if property owners do not want to or cannot afford to. The City should take an active role in the removal of invasive tree species from public properties during routine maintenance and when developing long-term management plans for parks, open spaces, and natural areas. Special Considerations. Exempting some trees from the tree code raises issues about mitigation requirements and limitations to the exemptions. Staff makes the following observations and recommendations: • Invasive tree species should no longer be accepted when proposed for planting as part of a development application landscape plan or mitigation plan. Replacement for invasive tree species removal should be required in public rights-of-way (ROWS), Resource Protection (RP) Districts, and where removal of invasive tree species is associated with a previously approved development or as mitigation for an earlier tree removal permit. Replacement plantings are especially important in public ROWS and in RP Districts because of the special value of trees that are intercepting stormwater over paved areas (preventing stormwater pollution) and shading water resources (preventing temperature pollution). Additionally, the City should allow the replacement rather than removal of invasive tree species that were previously required to be planted as part of an approved development or for mitigation. The number of replacement trees should be determined by the number of trees removed. If the available planting space is a limiting factor for the successful establishment of replacement trees, replanting may be proposed at another location in order to meet the replacement requirements. No required replacement is proposed for the removal of invasive tree species located outside of public ROWS or RP Districts and not associated with previously approved development or mitigation. Nevertheless, in recognizing the benefits of trees regardless of their location, the City should encourage replacement plantings on private properties and provide education and outreach to help people make informed choices about planting the right tree in the right spot. Prior to the removal of an exempt invasive tree, the property owner must positively identify the tree as an invasive species. Some species are more difficult to distinguish from native` varieties, but there are unique characteristics that can help and the City can prepare a guide to help the public and staff with species identification. The City could offer free identification to people that call for assistance, which will also promote one-on-one interaction between the City and property owners and an opportunity for education and outreach. If a tree cannot be positively identified as an invasive species, that tree should not be considered exempt. In addition to developing a photographic manual to aid invasive species identification, the City could also provide property owners with information about tree removal, including techniques to help control sprout growth for species that reproduce vegetatively from stumps and roots. Staff could develop a brochure to attach to the verification letter and to tree permits generally with information on tree removal, new tree selection, planting, care and maintenance, and the benefits of trees. Provision of additional services such as tree identification, one-on-one interaction, developing brochures and additional education and outreach materials, all have budget implications because they would require additional staffing. Verifying and documenting that a removed tree is invasive is a critical issue. The City could either (A) provide a free permit process to verify and document the removal of invasive tree species, or (B) give property owners the responsibility to properly identify and document invasive species prior to removal, so Page 5 as to avoid challenges by neighbors or other interested parties. The former would essentially be a free permit, which would require staff time but help to ensure proper species identification and documentation prior to removal. The latter would result in less staff time in most cases, but places the responsibility on the property owner, which could result in greater controversy and staff time expended if species are not properly identified and documented prior to removal and the removal is challenged. Staff recommends Option A and suggests that the City develop an exempt invasive tree form for the applicant to fill out, attach a photograph to, and submit for free to the City for verification and permanent documentation. The form and photograph could be submitted electronically, through the mail, in-person at City Hall, or during a courtesy call to verify species identification. This process will help to avoid conflicts regarding the removal of trees that may or may not be listed as species exempt from the tree removal permit requirements and will also help to ensure replacement of invasive tree species removed from public ROWS, RP Districts, and previously approved development or mitigation. Rather than issuing a permit, the City could issue a verification letter. Other Invasive Species. In addition to the invasive tree species identified in the table, Portuguese laurel (Prunus (usitanica) is widely accepted as being invasive. However, this species is a densely branched perennial that is more shrub -like in appearance and is not typically considered a tree. Because Portuguese laurel is a shrub and looks like a shrub, documenting its removal is probably not necessary. It is reasonable to simply exempt this species from the tree code altogether, in the same manner as English ivy, poison oak, and English laurel are currently exempted; the definition of tree found in Chapter 55 could be amended to include Portuguese laurel as a plant that is not considered a tree for the purposes of the Chapter: Section 55.02.020 Definitions. Tree means any woody plant having a trunk 5 caliper inches or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). If a tree splits into multiple trunks above ground, but below 4.5 feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split, and is considered one tree. If the tree splits into multiple trunks below ground, each trunk shall be considered one tree. For the purposes of this Chapter, English laurel, Portuguese laurel, photinia, arborvitae, poison oak, and English ivy shall not be considered a "tree". Therefore, rather than exempting Portuguese laurel because of its invasive nature, this species would simply not be considered a tree and would consequently not be subject to the requirements of LOC Chapter 55. Future Tree Code Considerations In reviewing this proposal with local arborists and the City's Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB), staff received a number of comments relating to a broader scope than invasive tree species per se, which are summarized below. Staff is not asking Council to deliberate these issues now, but seeks direction on Council priorities in developing a schedule and process for future tree code considerations. 0 Staff notes the need for a broader public process if LOC Chapter 55 will be evaluated and revised. Staff should revisit the work of the 2002-2003 Tree Code Task Force as a starting point to recommending revisions to LOC Chapter 55. The current diameter threshold for regulated trees is 5 -inches as per LOC Chapter 55. This is the lowest diameter threshold of any city in the Metro Region. Staff could evaluate the City's minimum Page 6 diameter threshold for regulated trees. In LOC Chapter 55, the definition of diameter at breast height (DBH) and the City's standard method for measuring DBH included in the definition of tree are not consistent with standard arboricultural and forestry practices. The definitions and methodology are not wrong, but could be improved. Staff could revise the definition of DBH and the methodology for measuring DBH based on industry standards. Some arborists have suggested that the existing tree code should be modified to permit the removal of trees for hazardous condition when trees are in conflict with infrastructure and when relocating that infrastructure is not an option. Currently, trees are not permitted for removal solely because of conflicts with infrastructure. Proper planning prior to development can help to reduce conflicts with infrastructure, such as planting the right tree in the right place and in some instances, installing root barriers or other preemptive measures. Techniques like grinding raised sections of concrete down to grade can be used to resolve some conflicts in the short-term, but long-term fixes are situational and few and far between. Staff could investigate the implications of permitting the removal of trees that are causing infrastructure damage. Certain tree species, which are not known to be invasive and include some native species, are common nuisances and regularly identified as hazardous in high -use areas. This may be attributed to inherent species limitations, such as trees that are fast-growing and relatively short-lived with a tendency to fall apart or fall over with maturity, or other undesirable characteristics. Nevertheless, these same tree species can have tremendous habitat value if located in open space tracts, wetlands, or other areas with high environmental value. Staff could explore a streamlined process for issuing hazardous tree permits in high -use areas for certain tree species that are known to be common nuisances. Currently, trees planted as mitigation for tree removal are not inspected. The City does not actively monitor replanting because of constraints with staff time. Replacement trees help to diversify the distribution of age classes throughout the City and set the stage for the City's future forest. Proper planting and maintenance are essential if these trees are to become long-term amenities. Staff could develop a process for verifying the installation of mitigation trees, but this approach would require additional budget support. ALTERNATIVES Council may direct staff to return with specific implementation actions for the changes proposed here, including: 1. Code language to exempt the 12 invasive tree species from the City's tree removal permit requirements and an ordinance for adoption at a future meeting. 2. Code language modifying the definition of tree to include Portuguese laurel as vegetation that is not considered a "tree" for the purposes of LOC Chapter 55. 3. A manual to aid invasive tree species identification. 4. A process for verifying and documenting species prior to invasive tree removal. 5. A brochure to include with tree removal permits and exempt invasive tree species verification letters that will provide property owners with information on tree removal, new tree selection, planting, care and maintenance, and the benefits of trees Page 7 6. A schedule and process for future tree code improvements. RECOMMENDATION The NRAB reviewed a draft of this report and staff presented the recommendations contained herein at the October 20, 2010 NRAB meeting. Four local arborists attended this meeting and provided comments to the NRAB. After hearing from staff and the arborists, the Board deliberated the recommendations and voted unanimously to support the draft staff recommendations to exempt invasive tree species from the City's tree removal permit requirements, with strong support for a free verification process prior to invasive tree removal provided by City staff. The NRAB recommended a separate forum to discuss future tree code considerations and generally encourages Council to include revisions to LOC Chapter 55 as a Council goal. Staff recommends developing code language to exempt the 12 invasive tree species from the City's tree removal permit requirements and to modify the definition of tree to include Portuguese laurel as vegetation that is not considered a "tree". Additionally, staff recommends developing a manual to aid invasive tree species identification, developing a free City -managed process for verifying and documenting species prior to invasive tree removal, and developing an informational brochure to include with tree removal permits and exempt invasive tree species verification letters. Lastly, staff seeks direction on Council priorities in developing a schedule and process for future tree code improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plant Conservation Alliance. "Fact Sheet: What the Heck is an Invasive Plant?" Alien Plant Working Group. Accessed October 19, 2010, http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/whatis.pdf. 2. Holen, Morgan. "List of Local ISA Certified Arborists." Emailed on August 26, 2010 to solicit feedback regarding invasive species to exempt from permit requirements. Reviewed by: 4�e� 17��_ Department Dir �� �,I V Alex D. McIntyre, --- City Manager How Bad Are Invasive Species? Invasive species impact native plants, animals, and natural ecosystems by: • Reducing native biological diversity ■ Altering hydrologic conditions & flooding regimes • Altering soil characteristics • Altering fire intensity and frequency • Interfering with natural succession • Competing for native pollinators ■ Repelling or poisoning native insects • Displacing rare plant species • Increasing predation on native birds ■ Serving as reservoirs of plant pathogens • Replacing complex communities with monocultures • Diluting the genetic composition of native species through hybridization Jil M. Swearingen, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Center for Urban Ecology. (11 May 2007) For additional information, please go to: Alien Plant Working Group'Weeds Gone Wild' http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force http://www.anstaskforce.gov Ecological Society of America http://esa.sdsc.edu/invas3.htm National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils http://www.naeppc.org National Audubon Society http://www.stopinvasives.org National Invasive Species Council http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/main.html National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams http://www.nature.nps.gov/epmt The Nature Conservancy's Global Invosive Species Initiative http://tncweeds.ucdevis.edu University of Georgia: Invasive & Exotic Species http://www.invasive.org US Geological Survey http://www.nbii.gov/search/sitemap.html Weeds Gone Wild. Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas is a project of the Alien Plant Working Group (APWG), a subcommittee of the Plant Conservation Alliance. It is a cooperative effort intended to provide educational materials on the threat posed by invasive exotic plants to the native flora, fauna, and ecosystems of the United States. Additional fact sheet authors are needed, please contact the Chair of the APWG at: jil_swearingen@nps.gov for more information. http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/ rt rmm� \ erm� 10 1� FACT SHEET: What the heck is an invasive plant? What the heck is an invasive plant? You say it. nifty, and I say it' noxious. You say it c lovely, and I say its lousy. Nifty, noxious, lovely, lou4y - I_et' call them what they are! What is a Native Species? All organisms are native to planet Earth (until further notice) and each species of bacteria, fungi, plant, ani- mal, and other creature has a home somewhere on this planet where it has existed and evolved for thousands of years. A native or indigenous species is one that oc- curs in a particular place without the help of humans, which is not always easy to determine. Species native to North America are generally recognized as those occur- ring on the continent prior to European settlement. An organism's home, or native range, is determined by a host of influences such as climate, geology, soils, hydrology, biological interactions, and natural dispersal. Living things disperse within their native ranges by moving around on their own or with the help of air, water, wind, and other animals. However, beginning with Columbus' discovery of America in the 15th century, people have played an increasingly significant role in moving plants, animals and other organisms around the world, to places for beyond their likely natural dispersal ranges. And this is where the trouble lies! What's an Exotic Species? An organism is considered exotic (alien, foreign, non - indigenous, non-native) when it has been introduced by humans to a location(s) outside its native or natural range. This designation applies to a species introduced from another continent, another ecosystem, and even another habitat within an ecosystem. For example, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), a tree that is native to the southern Appalachian region and portions of Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, was planted throughout the U.5. for living fences, erosion control, and other uses for many years. Black locust is consid- ered exotic outside its natural native range because it got to these new places by human introduction rather than by natural dispersal. Another example is saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), a wetland plant that is native to eastern North American estuaries. Saltmarsh cordgrass was introduced intentionally to western North American shoreline habitats, where it did not occur previously. Sadly, it has become established and is now considered a serious invasive species, displacing native species and adversely impacting wetland com- munities and several endangered native bird and plant species. European settlers brought hundreds of plants to North America from their home lands for use as food and medicine, and for ornamental, sentimental, and other purposes. Introductions of exotic plants continue today and are increasing due to a large and ever-expanding human population, increased international travel and trade, and other factors. Once an Exotic, Always an Exotic! An estimated 3,500 species of exotic plants have escaped cultivation in the U.5., are able to reproduce in the wild, and have become established, or "naturalized". These plants, however much a part of our current landscapes and ecosystems, are nonetheless exotic, since they were moved here by people. For centuries, horticulturists have imported and disseminated interesting new exotic plants. Unfortunately, many of these have become invasive pests that are having serious impacts to native species and ecosystems. What Makes an Exotic Species Invasive? (When is a Guest a Pest?) Many non-native species exist in apparent harmony in environments where they were introduced. For example, a relatively small number of exotic plants (e.g., corn, wheat, rice, oats) form the basis of our agricultural industry and pose little to no known threat to our natural ecosystems. The most important aspect of an alien plant is how it responds to a new environment. An invasive species is one that spreads and establishes over large areas, and persists. Invasiveness may be characterized and enhanced by robust vegetative growth, high reproductive rate, abundant seed production, high seed germination rate, and longevity. Some native plants exhibit invasive tendencies in certain situations. How Many Plants are Invasive? According to the Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group, about 1,050 plant species have been reported as being invasive in natural areas in the United States (see list of links). This represents an astonishing one-third or so of the exotic plant species established and self -reproducing in the wild. Some invasive species were planted intentionally for erosion control, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat enhancement, and ornamental purposes. Others have escaped from arboretums, botanical gardens, and our own backyards. Free from the complex array of natural controls present in their native lands, including herbivores, parasites, and diseases, exotic plants may experience rapid and unrestricted growth in novel environments. r 0) X, rD O L" m UQ 0 Ln O W Q1 V Cln N w A O d N n O (�D 0 0 c y u p C < G D A N w A A w O W m w N m O rD H 3 0' a3i m ID M X rD 1 LA O v 3 O_ Ln O W A to N 00 C) O r W X- rD O m m O Ln O W V A D1 O W V N N W v v 3 O 3 L" n S O x- rD M n O n O 0 3 Ln O W w O A V w M w 131 NN N N W V C) Ln 3 d O. D_ m cu N � 3 rD N ;o :;o W L`) 7 < N 00 —, rD M N 0 r+ w o O pr LA a I I UO a) n � � O rD D C rD < N rD lD n• rD 3 A W w X- 4r —• UQ rD 3 y O o v 0 - LA C C < m rD ;n 0 Ln W Ln to O Q) O O W O W W In m m V W 1--A In I--� A lD W 00 In O1 N m F+ m V W N V O A w W O N N W I N � aco oce a I c a0 N A w 3 -0I rD rD LA O r O Q) r w W- rD O LA 70 O O W In w A (n m W m NN W N N U) r rD 3 O n v lu n 0 0 �X- C CD r 3 " 3 1 N i rp < 6� NMI r r n 0 CD0 O w r 3 3 0- m LnLn O O Ln r -j (n A V 00 A O v w O O O W JIF.' O O W W In m tp Ki p. O 00 41 kow A M w U'1 O^^ (D V� rD Z O S r�D C Q_ S 0 0 3 0 i t.0 00 V 0 v S v 3 3 r* rD r 7Z ;;cZ w = 3 3 O_ rD o m m O rD 3 . r rD r6 3 °—' O 2 mrD () W 3 LA -0 LA rD-0 �• go 0 D LALA O n E; 0 r n n w � d rD A W (D CD O (WA 3 rD 00 0 In Cn Cn O O O www cn A A m m A N A O m w w W A m w A rD 0 : W 3 7 N O O rD 3 0 CD N rD 0 0 o cD 3 �N Q1 Ln c p d < 3 X = rD C 61 3 rt x p 00 c N D_ W p 3 D_ cn c S :3 O o 0 c M O G) O m Ln Ln 00 W W Ouj t~D O � W V O Q 3 A O an of 3 O_ fD 3 v Cc N rn' 3 00 3 M rD M. 00 + M 3 O 3 3 m 3 v O n 3 CL W V N A O LD w Lnl AD C9 rD a O 3 Ln O W In N 01 NNN N N z n rD N v v A A Z 0 S rD D Q O O v D_ In O W Ln v vi Q1 m O Q1 O W 3 rD 3 < C) T T _. -, C 3 0100 OJ O m 1 { O1 u) S rD 0) � r 3 M M to m D ul <--"O n rD M (D rD N 3 n rn W r v 0 n� < < M rp Q O Ul3 m O Cm In Ln O O O www A A m ikr lIli 1.0 D N V 1--+ N N � WO In C. + (D � O (D rD S � rD (D rD O 07 D (<D O 4 Im 3 ►1 A m rn Fl - 0 O 3 c CDD O 3 D o - o N rD n� rD Ln O m 3 0. In O w Ln v N W 1--a O lD 3 (D N O 7 K N S O O C-) W 0 S 3 m N rD 3 3- O rD rD 00 (D m n v 3 A v 3 A O C < rD O V V N W Ln V O OA 0, O' S n O SI rt m rD n 0' rD 90 r of 3 D_ A nU rD LA r nu O Ln r�D O Ln O W V Lo LU r O W F-, ID 3 o 713 w 13 �3 0 3 0 3 3 3 A O O1 3 ED nl cu m O rD 00 O 3 rD n rD O a 3 Q Ln O w lD N tD lD A W V W l< W M— m p v' <i m x V rD h n O O 1 a 3 D_ Ln O W N 00 V N N W N N m ca O c 00 rD O N D cr O O n, O rD S co v m r w rD O m as O Lp O W A to N N w A A r c o D W O rD D cr W o c =. Ln D N v N m X .D m (D n W rD 3 A .O O M v 3 D_ cn O W N W In A N N V F-� N uj N O m A O O1 3 ED nl cu m O rD 00 O 3 rD n rD O a 3 Q Ln O w lD N tD lD A W V W l< W M— m p v' <i m x V rD h n O O 1 a 3 D_ Ln O W N 00 V N N W N N m ca O c 00 rD O N D cr O O n, O rD S co v m r w rD O m as O Lp O W A to N N w A A r c o D W O rD D cr W o c =. Ln D N v N m X .D m (D n W rD 3 A .O O M v 3 D_ cn O W N W In A N N V CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 2010 Mayor Jack D Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on November 9, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Jordan, Tierney, and Vizzini. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Donaldson, Assistant City Manager; Larry Goff, Assistant Fire Chief; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen Information Specialist; Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning and Building Services; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Morgan Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner; Guy Graham, Public Works Director 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Emergency Operations Plan Update David Donaldson, Assistant City Manager provided a background of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) via PowerPoint presentation which would be presented for adoption at the December 10, 2010 Council Meeting. He reviewed the City's role and responsibility during an emergency that included as a first step the City declaring an emergency. The role of the plan was to help the City organize in the event of an emergency. The plan has 15 Emergency Support Functions (ESF) that match up with similar functions of the County, State and Federal Government. Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen Information Specialist presented an overview of training and exercise which included National Incident Management System (NIMS) and ICS training. NIMS provides a nationwide template for terminology, roles and responsibilities in an emergency. A new computer based program called WebEOC, an emergency management system, has also been implemented. Training and exercise also included winter storm tabletop and regional functional exercises as well as elected officials training. Larry Goff, Assistant Fire Chief presented an overview of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program and Amateur Radio Emergency Services (LO -ARES), also known as HAMs. Ms. Hirshberger stated emergency preparedness began on the local level, specifically in the home. She presented information on HelloLO, the Emergency Preparedness Forum, the Emergency Management website and the CERT newsletter. Mr. Donaldson stated that they had prepared a FEMA compliant hazard mitigation plan and received $925,000 or $950,000 in grant money which was being used to expand the capacity of the dam to release water more quickly. This was expected to be completed within the next 45 days. The Lake Corporation partnered on the project. It was expected to reduce flooding both on the lake and on State Street. He stated the overall goal of the plan was for it to be NIMS compliant and consistent with the County's plan. They have also developed Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans with several departments that consider how the departments would operate should the building be shut down. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 November 9, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff had accompanied Mr. Goff to the regional emergency management meetings and knew first hand that Lake Oswego was prepared. Mr. Goff was available to speak to neighborhood associations about preparedness. Mr. Goff responded to Councilor Tierney that the biggest risk to the City successfully responding to a disaster was the citizens not being prepared. There were typically 13 firefighters on duty at any one time to cover approximately 50,000 citizens. Alex McIntyre, City Manager stated his biggest concern was getting the first responders into the city as most lived outside of Lake Oswego. Councilor Jordan encouraged everyone to get involved in the CERT training in some way. Mr. Donaldson responded to Councilor Hennagin that they have considered how to respond to an occurrence like a 300 year earthquake. Mr. Goff said that they realized that a seismic event would result in bridge and overpass failures. He confirmed that there were emergency generators in all the fire facilities. The amateur radio operators were very self sufficient as well. 3.2 Proposed Changes to LOC 50.16 "Sensitive Lands" Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resource Planner explained that the mural displayed via PowerPoint had been newly painted on the backside of the Rite-Aid and Starbucks at the Lake Grove Shopping Center. The project was collaborated between the City, Lake Grove Business Association and Miller Paints. AmeriCorps Community Forestry Coordinator Nicole Roscos. Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning stated when they met last July, it was to determine which Second Look Task Force recommendations the Council wanted to adopt and move forward. The proposed amendments would clarify to citizens what uses they could make of their own property in the buffer areas. Next week they would discuss natural area restoration and maintenance and cross department staff proposals for improving the City's education and outreach efforts around natural resource protection. The Second Look Task Force noted that having a protection program is not a choice but is required by Metro's Title 3 and 13 and natural resources are not evenly distributed around the City. The inventory included approximately 1,800 properties that had some designation of sensitive lands. There are approximately 11,600 single family residential properties in the city. Of those, approximately 950 are private properties with sensitive lands designation which is less than 10 percent of the single family residential properties in the city. In 90 percent of the properties, the designated resource addresses only a small portion of the property. The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission both in a study session and a public hearing. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Hennagin that they were there to discuss the proposed Code amendments and the invasive tree update and improvement. She gave an overview of the issues to be discussed at future Council meetings, noting upland tree groves would be addressed on November 30. Ms. Papaefthimiou presented the changes in the Code recommended by the Planning Commission via PowerPoint. An overview was given of the current exemptions and the proposed additional exempt uses. One proposed additional exemption was for up to a 700 square foot addition to an existing primary dwelling when the new intrusion is not closer to the water feature. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained for Mayor Hoffman that the 700 square foot footprint was a compromise between the 500 feet and 1000 feet figures suggested. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified for Councilor Tierney that they would establish the boundary of the water feature and determine the shortest distance from the house to that edge and require that the addition could not reduce that distance. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 November 9, 2010 Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Mayor Hoffman that on November 30 the proposal for the fee schedule is to eliminate the fee for that application in all cases. The City would delineate it in the case of a stream and the property owner would do the delineation in the case of a wetland. Often if the lot is developed, it is already delineated. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Jordan that in addition to complying with the sensitive lands regulations when an addition was done, compliance was also required with the City's rules related to FEMA. Other complications arise when building in the floodway, but these were addressed by the Public Works Engineers. Whether additional flood insurance would be required was a good question. Ms. Frisbee pointed out that the Metro model code called for a 500 square foot addition and Metro indicated in a letter they would be more comfortable if the 700 square foot figure were backed down. Councilor Olson stated it needed to be made clearer that it was the footprint square footage as opposed to the total square footage. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Vizzini proposed additions needed to show a drainage plan and meet the drainage standard as part of their application, but it would not increase their obligations over the existing house. Ms. Frisbee stated in response to a question from Councilor Vizzini that she would verify with Storm Water Management in Public Works if doing the addition would trigger storm water management for the entire building. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Tierney that when they met with Metro, they wanted to see if they were going to strengthen their education and outreach and what the overall package would be. The November 9 letter from Tim O'Brien was attempting to reflect that. Councilor Tierney appreciated that Staff and the Commission were looking at additional measures to allow for reasonable impacts into the RC and the RP. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Olson that the language about the expansion being no closer to a protected water feature than the existing structure was also in the Metro model code. She agreed that additions were usually made to the back of structures which could make it impossible for a lot of people to expand without being closer to a water feature, but others would be able to expand. If the protected feature was a tree grove or something other than a water feature, the full 700 square foot expansion could be made. Ms. Frisbee agreed with Mayor Hoffman that if the property were in a tree grove, there would be a free pass for an additional 700 square feet. The outer edge of the tree grove is the less functionally valuable portion of the resource, but development near a water course or stream is inherently a big problem. They would still have to comply with tree code; requests to build outside decks comprised 90 percent of the requests. The tree code requires a permit but allows trees to be cut down for development purposes. Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Tierney that the decks counted when measuring distance to the water feature. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Moncrieff that for the de minimis development the City was not more restrictive than Metro. The amendments would make them less restrictive in that instead of having a 500 -foot addition and 120 square feet of new development, a 700 -foot addition with 200 square feet of new development would be allowed. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Hennagin they could not do the 700 square foot addition if they exceed their maximum allowable footprint. There was still lot coverage that applied on every lot. Ms. Frisbee agreed the lot coverage issue was important along with setback issues which ended up often being more limiting than the restrictions they were discussing. Councilor Jordan found it interesting that there could be up to 1,400 square feet additional when people were talking about wanting smaller homes. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 November 9, 2010 Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Moncrieff that the lot coverage restrictions had nothing to do with sensitive lands but was the City lot coverage restrictions that applied to every residential structure. Ms. Papaefthimiou reviewed the proposed additional exempt uses for de minimis impacts which included up to 200 square feet of new development as long as the development was not actually in a wetland or a stream, no grading or filling was done in the riparian area, and the exterior lighting was low voltage. This would allow for things such as sheds or hot tubs. She confirmed for Councilor Olson that the Metro model code allowed up to 120 square feet of new development annually. Ms. Frisbee stated cumulative structures could cause problems and Metro was supportive of the City moving to a higher limit as opposed to a lower limit on a cumulative basis. Councilor Olson struggled with the fact that there was not more flexibility. One was forced to choose between a garden and a shed for example. Fences also counted into the 200 square feet. The Metro model code would be better in this case. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Mayor Hoffman that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of cumulative impacts more in the context of how it would be tracked or enforced. Although the Metro model code allowed 120 square feet every year, that was not their intent when it was drafted. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Hennagin that this did not have the same restriction as the 700 square feet of addition to a house not going further into a riparian area. This would be available to all people who own sensitive lands to develop within the riparian buffer. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that it could not be below the top of the bank of a stream or actually in a wetland. If native plants were removed to plant a lawn, the lawn would count as new development. Councilor Olson attended the Planning Commission public hearing on this issue. It was pointed out that 200 square feet was a reasonable number for an average city lot but for larger areas, it was minimal. Ms. Papaefthimiou agreed with the suggestion of Councilor Jordan that a provision could be made that larger lots would have a larger potential impact area. Councilor Vizzini was disturbed that there could be a serial depletion of resources. It was a loophole one could drive a truck through. He suggested something be crafted that was sensitive to the size of the property and the size of the resource as opposed to a single amount. Councilor Moncrieff stated Staff was being given an almost impossible task by being asked to provide the landowners with certainty while also asking them for flexibility as well as a simplified Code with less exemptions and variances which was also reasonable. Councilor Vizzini suggested going to percentages as opposed to absolute square footage. If 200 square feet makes sense for the standard Lake Oswego lot of 7,500 or 10,000 square feet, that should become a benchmark for sizing up. The question should not be the percentage of the total lot but the percentage of the resource area that would be intruded upon. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Tierney they were trying to set up bright lines for people so they did not need to go through processes. Discretionary reviews were staff intensive processes. They would revisit the data summary to get a sense of lot sizes, start with 120 square feet and then adjust it accordingly with a maximum at some level. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Tierney that fences would be included in the square footage. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 November 9, 2010 Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that if someone had 20,000 square foot lot with 500 square feet of a tree grove, even though they may have plenty of area to build an improvement, they would still get to go 200 feet into the tree grove. Councilor Olson stated the Code changes were meant to provide more flexibility and make things less complex but they did not. To solve some of the complexity, she suggested removing tree groves from private backyards. Councilor Moncrieff noted that on July 20, Council passed Resolution 10-51A that directed Staff to come back with these specific Code changes and this is exactly what Staff has brought back. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Jordan that the uses they were looking at were just exceptions, which do not require any type of application. If someone wanted to do a project more than 200 square feet, under the current proposal it would not qualify as an exception, but they could still make an application to do that development and work with Staff to find the best way that it might fit. They could also apply for a buffer reduction. These would be application processes where they would have to do the paperwork and pay the fee. It would not be just an exemption. Mayor Hoffman reminded they were asking Council to confirm what they and the Planning Commission have produced was responsive to what Council asked Staff to do in July and he believed it was. Councilor Hennagin preferred to see some kind of proportional plan based on zones. Mayor Hoffman stated the challenge was that it was not the zone but that a 50,000 square foot lot could be in an R7 zone. Councilor Hennagin was more concerned about making it proportional so that larger lots would have an exception that was larger than 200 square feet. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Vizzini that they had considered setting a maximum that is a percentage of the resource area on the property. The problem with doing it as a de minimis exception was that if your development was a percentage of the total resource area, you would have to figure out what the total resource area is which often means walking the property, making a survey and producing maps and becomes cumbersome for those wanting just to buy a garden shed to place on the property. Ms. Papaefthimiou stated the footprint of a fence was very skinny and would not significantly impact the 200 square feet of allowable development. Ms. Frisbee explained that there was a permit requirement for fences over a certain height. The City wanted to extend that so fences are allowed even in a resource area with no special permitting required, essentially fences would be exempt. Ms. Papaefthimiou agreed with Councilor Vizzini that the language could be adjusted to read up to 200 square feet plus fences. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Tierney that the language regarded sturdy, recognizable, fences that could keep a dog in or out of a yard, for example, not necessarily habitat friendly fences. Ms. Papaefthimiou summarized the discussed change stating that in the resource buffer, which is to say in tree groves and in the 25 or 30 feet from the top of bank of streams, any fence was allowed that met the Fence Code. Additionally, recognizing that often a stream runs along a property line and owners might want to fence that area also, even below the top of bank of stream or in a wetland if that is the edge of their property, those fences were also specifically allowed. They tried to simplify the standard as much as possible without totally getting rid of the provision to protect wildlife, so it had to have one escape path for wildlife, such as a smaller 2 -foot segment of the fence to prevent wildlife from becoming trapped in a backyard area. Ms. Frisbee stated the reality was that people did not come in to put a fence across their wetland or below the top of the bank. People have expressed a desire to put a fence in their backyard without having to worry about exactly where the resource buffer is and without having to delineate. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 November 9, 2010 This effort was in response to that need. People wanted to keep their cats and dogs in the yard without worrying about putting in the escape hatch or the 6 -inch escape way. In response to the concern raised about someone possibly putting a fence across a wetland or below the top of a bank, they included the provision that the wildlife friendly requirement would then need addressed. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Vizzini that they did not want to put people through the effort of delineating in order to see exactly how far the resource extended. Along with easing the restrictions, they were following up with better education about best practices by talking to those wanting to build fences. Ms. Papaefthimiou agreed with Councilor Vizzini that the goal was to come up with a way to put a fence in a backyard in a way that still allowed for the migration of animals across the landscape. Education and outreach programs would help with those goals. Ms. Papaefthimiou affirmed for Councilor Jordan that one could fence their tree grove and the issue was whether or not people could build fences in streams or wetlands. Councilor Tierney was not supportive of number 4, page 7 of the Staff report that allowed fences in wetlands and the RPs. The letter from Gary Buford concurred with his opinion. Councilor Olson added they needed to be careful as it also allowed a fence below the top of bank of a stream. Some people have a stream and then there is a very gradual slope up of maybe 100 feet. This would allow them to put a fence somewhere between the top and the stream. Councilor Tierney noted that would get to the question of how the top of bank was defined. Ms. Papaefthimiou proposed Staff return with language that does not rely on the top of bank but simply says that fences are allowed except across or below the ordinary high water mark, for example. Councilor Olson questioned how to deal with a property owner with a ditch that was dry three- quarters of the year and one foot beyond their property line where they wanted to put a fence. Mayor Hoffman believed there was enough agreement to move forward. Councilor Olson stated that somehow they had skipped over a lot of number 3. They discussed the 200 square feet but not the grading permit or lighting. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Olson that in regard to issues of grading, a property owner who wanted to put in a shed and level the ground would not need a grading permit. The grading permit was issued by the Building Department, and she believed it would involve about 10 cubic yards of fill. At that point, they would already have to go through an application process to comply with the Building Department's requirements, so also doing an application through the Planning Department at that time would not be burdensome. It did not mean it would not be allowed, but rather it would not be exempt. Low voltage landscape lighting includes lights that dissipate at about 8 feet in distance from the light source. The intent was that it would still be sufficient to light a pathway, house numbers, driveways and the like. A road or house going through the application process could be approved for brighter lights such as street lights or exterior lighting to the house. Councilor Moncrieff stated that in the neighborhood planning process, people were lobbying strongly for lower lights without glare that did not spill over into other neighbor's property lines. Councilor Olson stated anyone could get any kind of lights they wanted unless they had a tree grove in their backyard that was designated sensitive land. Councilor Moncrieff noted that the issue came up with the high school football games as well. Light spillover always came up. Councilor Olson clarified that spillover was not the issue. They were discussing low voltage lights that had limited range which was different. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 November 9, 2010 Councilor Hennagin wondered if the terminology was appropriate. Halogen lights with low voltage could emit huge amounts of light. Wattage would be a more appropriate term. If yard lighting was to be restricted, it should be restricted in all outdoor yards not just yards in a resource protected area. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Jordan this was the type of lighting that could be used within the resource. Other lighting was allowed outside of the resource. If a house was already built within a resource, security lights were not prohibited, because those lights would be accessory to the structure, which would be a legal permitted dwelling. The proposal was for a new development in the resource area that was free standing. Councilor Olson noted there were already other restrictions on lighting on houses in the Code. There were prohibitions against security lights in the sensitive lands code already. Ms. Frisbee stated this was intended to allow more flexibility by allowing a certain type of lighting in the resource area. The issue was if enough lighting was allowed. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Tierney that she did not believe there would be a restriction in the lighting allowed if a shed was put in a backyard outside an RP or an RC. Councilor Tierney concurred with Councilors Olson and Hennagin that the lighting restrictions in that section was not important and critical and proposed they be deleted. Mayor Hoffman stated the direction from Council was that the City would allow lighting in the RP and RC zone. Ms. Frisbee understood that Council did not want lighting to be limited or prohibited as a use in the resource area in any way other than what the Code currently allows for other non resource properties. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed it would just say not within wetland or stream, no grading for fill and that was it. Subsection III would be stricken. Councilor Tierney stated that he worked for PGE and could be the beneficiary of the utility provision so he recused himself and stepped down from the dais. Ms. Papaefthimiou presented the proposed exemptions from review of utility work under the sensitive lands Ordinance. The proposal was to exempt the repair and replacement of existing lines in utility corridors or developed right-of-ways and to require new lines to come in and be reviewed, which is to say they would still probably be permitted, but they would have to go through the application process. The Public Works Department would prefer that new utilities also be exempt from review under the sensitive lands code as long as they commit to restoring the area that was impacted by utility construction. Public Works Director, Guy Graham and Metro supported the recommendation. The Public Works memo was on page 47 of the packet. David Powell, City Attorney stated proposed language was on pages 48 and 49, and in addition to suggesting this would apply to new utility development, it also changed the criteria. D1 stated, "The disturbed portion of the resource district is restored according to City Code," whereas page 7 of the Planning Commission recommendation simply said, "The disturbed portion of the resource district is restored." If Council wanted to go with something like the language recommended by Public Works, he suggested having Staff bring back a refinement about what was meant by "City Code". Many different restoration and mitigation provisions were in Chapter 50.16 that could apply there. Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that this was not part of Council's original charge to Staff but it seemed like a opportune time to discuss utilities in resource areas. Mayor Hoffman suggested that Public Works, Metro and the City Attorney could determine what was appropriate. Councilor Vizzini stated the only difference in the language of the Public Works memo regarded new utility lines; repair and replacement of existing was in both. Mr. Powell stated it was still in the public right-of-way or in the existing easement; no new easements were being created. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 November 9, 2010 Councilor Olson believed it was worth Council's time to explore the issue. The Planning Commission thrashed this issue around for a long time. Before the next meeting, it might be helpful for Council to get those Planning Commission minutes. She found the last paragraph of the first page of the November 9, 2010 letter from Tim O'Brien's memo very helpful. Metro believed the Planning Commission recommendation was consistent with Title 13 and they agreed with it, which was good enough for her. Guy Graham, Public Works Director confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that they asked that this be expanded for new projects because Public Works likes to have all public utilities in the public right- of-way wherever possible. Because of topography and other things, it often made sense to put them in areas that were outside the public right-of-way to facilitate the use of gravity for pump systems, etc. If there was an opportunity to put it in an area that might be environmentally sensitive, they would want to restore it and take opportunities to actually enhance the area where those utility lines would go. It would be a de minimis impact but might also improve the area where possible. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified these were de minimis exceptions. Obviously, the City could still put utilities in resource areas at this time, and often did, but Public Works had to apply to the Planning Department and move through the typical process. True, Planning did not usually reject Public Works applications to build essential utilities, so this would take them out of that process. She confirmed for Councilor Jordan that it could be a new utility line project, but it still had to be in an existing easement. Councilor Olson noted it was only talking about new projects such as the water project. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified that it was not condemning land and creating new easements. Councilor Olson stated they could be creating new easements with the water project. Councilor Jordan pointed out they would need to go through a process. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that any utility new line, improvement or repair that was in an existing easement or an existing right-of-way was considered to be de minimis as long as the impacted area was restored afterwards. As written that applied to all utilities, not just public utilities. Mayor Hoffman called for a ten minute break at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Hoffman moved to table the utility line discussion and have it brought back after Staff talked amongst themselves. Councilor Jordan seconded. Councilor Hennagin asked why Council could not accept the Planning Commission recommendation. The motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors, Olson, Moncrieff, Jordan, and Vizzini voting 'aye'. Councilor Hennagin voted 'no' [5-1]. [No voice vote taken; more consensus in nature] Ms. Papaefthimiou stated the Second Look Task Force and the Planning Commission agreed that the Department of State Land definition of "ditch" would be useful for the City to incorporate into its Code. The definition basically said if it was manmade, then it was a ditch. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Tierney that there were two definitions of ditches, the simple definition was if it is manmade, it is a ditch, and if it is a creek, then it is not a ditch. Most ditches are not jurisdictional and therefore not regulated in the City of Lake Oswego. However, at least one manmade ditch, the Oswego Canal, was regulated, but a portion of it was considered sensitive lands. In addition to adding the simple definition of ditch to the City Code, Staff proposed incorporating a reference to the Department of State Land's definition of non -jurisdictional ditches which are ditches that do not have habitat value. She did not believe that any of those were currently covered by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance nor should they ever be added in the future. As the definition shows, ditches basically do not accomplish the purposes of the Sensitive Lands City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 November 9, 2010 Ordinance. They do not contribute much to water quality or provide wildlife habitat. The intention was that non -jurisdictional ditches would never be placed in the RP district and to Staff's knowledge there were no non -jurisdictional ditches in the RP district currently. Mr. Powell stated he did not like the language either. On page 15 below the box, the existing Code said, "the following resources may be placed within the RP district," so that was apparently the type of verbiage used in that section of the Code. An RP district defines resource protection for water based resources. He noted if the whole Code were being changed, they were placing the district over the resource rather than placing the resource in the district. Ms. Papaefthimiou agreed. Mayor Hoffman summarized that Councilor Tierney was suggesting that the language on page 15 be changed or made clear so that the ditches matched the stream corridors. Councilor Vizzini agreed with Mr. Powell. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Olson she did not have the Code in front of her to check if there was a definition for the term "environmentally significant" as written in Section 50.16.020. It could be inferred that resources that have a qualifying habitat score were significant, which was but it was not defined there. Mr. Powell stated that first statement was almost more of a purpose statement. It talked about protecting the environmentally significant stream corridors and wetlands, and then, before that language was added, it stated, "which were placed." This was the original structure of the Code. It also talked about the HAS ranking, which qualifies them to come in. Councilor Olson noted this was an example of making the Code more complex instead of simpler. Councilor Hennagin was willing to accept the ditch definition as the widely accepted terminology. Ms. Papaefthimiou stated the definition was useful because it was exactly copied from the Department of State Lands. If the City could not figure out whether or not something was a ditch, they could ask them. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that Lake Oswego had other ditches besides the canal, but she was not aware of any others that were considered sensitive lands. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Hennagin that in the scenario of a landowner digging a channel to direct runoff into a stream, although it could be significant in terms of water quality and erosion, it was not regulated by the sensitive lands code unless it had already been identified as an environmentally significant resource. Mayor Hoffman asked if there was agreement among a majority of the Council that this was acceptable and responsive to Council's resolution back in July. Commission Olson was not sure. Ms. Papaefthimiou continued that the terms RP District, District Buffer and Construction Setback were used frequently in the Code, but were not that useful. The major problem was that they result in a setback on a buffer on a district. The proposal was to call a resource what it is, for example, a stream or a wetland, then the protected area would be adjacent to it, and both the resource and area together would be referred to as the RP District, which is one unit. The RP District would only have a construction setback to protect the RP District when things were constructed. That setback would go away when the construction was done. No additional restrictions would apply. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified for Councilor Olson that tree groves did not have a buffer, but a construction setback. For water resources that were just on one property and the protected riparian area was on the adjacent property. The intent was if the resource or the RP District is on the property, it must be mapped on that property. In cases where it was not mapped on that property, the City needed to correct the map or not regulate on that property. The City was committed to the map published that people were notified about. The Council would be talking about maps in the future so the topic of mapping buffer -only properties could be discussed. In reference to the last paragraph on Page 8 of Council packet, she clarified that Class 2 Water Resources have a 25 -foot City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 November 9, 2010 buffer and Class 1 Water Resources have a 30 -foot buffer, which was spelled out clearly in the Code. Ms. Papaefthimiou concluded the review of changes by noting the deletion of Prohibitions on Pesticide and Herbicide Use, which was not a land use matter, and the housekeeping changes of renumbering. Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Olson that the construction setback buffer was still in, but it was clarified as temporary and associated just with a construction process so it went away once construction was completed. It had been confusing before. Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Councilor Jordan that there was a definition of stream, but she was not sure if there was a definition of perennial stream. Mr. Powell stated that under "stream, perennial," the Code stated, "a stream or part of a stream that flows continuously above ground during years of average or near average rainfall as a result of groundwater discharge or surface runoff." Ms. Frisbee reviewed and clarified the changes agreed on by Council regarding the five new exceptions as listed in the packet starting on page 6. Staff needed to clarify that Item 1 regarding routine maintenance and repair, and Item 2 regarding the alteration, expansion or replacement of an existing primary dwelling unit, are permitted. Mayor Hoffman clarified that the Code did say "footprint" on the bottom of page 12, so Councilor Olson's prior concern was addressed. For Item 3, Council asked Staff to return with an explanation of the review process if someone wanted to do an exempt structure that was more than 200 square feet. The lighting was eliminated, but Council wanted Staff to reaffirm they were being consistent about lighting between resource areas and non -resource areas. Ms. Papaefthimiou clarified the definition of the top of stream did not fit under the de minimis exemptions. Planning Staff was aware that they needed to come up with a more clear and objective definition. She replied to Mayor Hoffman that top of bank was in the Code as a graphic definition, but was defined with a picture. Ms. Frisbee continued with Item 4, stating that fences were exempt and allowed except they should not be in the wetland or creek and Mr. Powell would help with language to address the wet feet. Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Olson that Staff needed to address the ordinary high water mark. Ms. Papaefthimiou stated the ordinary high water mark was talking about fences, and that was resolved by saying that the fences should not go across the water at the high or low point. Councilor Olson stated that on some properties it was astounding how limiting that was. Ms. Frisbee concluded that Item 5 Utility Line Exemption was tabled, and that the definitions were as proposed. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that Staff would return with an ordinance to be adopted at the public hearing scheduled for December 13. Councilor Olson commented it was okay as far as it went, but she did not think it went far enough 3.3 Invasive Tree Species to Exempt from Tree Removal Requirements Morgan Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner presented the Staff report regarding the twelve invasive tree species recommended for exemption from the City's tree removal permit requirements. She had presented a draft of the Staff report at the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) meeting on October 20 and NRAB intended to make a motion supporting the recommendations at the November 17 meeting. The public hearing is scheduled for December 13. Ms. Holen responded to Councilor Moncrieff that it was assumed that the City's standard mitigation size of 2 -inch caliper for deciduous trees and 6 -feet tall for evergreens would be used for tree replacement, but flexibility could be added. She supported planting bare root seedlings, especially in natural areas because they adapt better. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 November 9, 2010 Ms. Holen explained to Councilor Tierney that leaving the invasive tree or taking it out and leaving the ground bare were both detrimental in different ways. If the goal was to encourage the removal of the invasive trees, she agreed a more flexible mitigation might be appropriate to provide incentive. She did not have data to verify the number and location of these trees, but the State of the Urban Forest Report, which was included in the packet, discussed the percentage of certain trees. For example, many Norway Maples were located in City right-of-ways, and right-of-way replacement is always required so this regarded those next to streams. Ms. Frisbee clarified for Mayor Hoffman that these were not requirements to remove trees. If a tree was removed in a right-of-way, a replacement tree was required. Councilor Vizzini stated it was almost as if they were taking away a regulatory burden of having to get a permit to remove a tree on one hand and then adding a regulatory requirement of having to plant on the other hand. He would like to see a solution that made it easy for people to get trees in the ground. He suggested the City partner with local nurseries to provide bare root stock at a discount by buying in volume, or use a portion of Luscher Farm to grow nursery stock to be made available to property owners trying to replace trees. Portland's Leave Edge Program uses sewer right-of-way to grow nursery stock for the City of Portland's re -vegetation program. Ms. Frisbee clarified that they were just suggesting that replacement be required in certain areas. Education and outreach would be an important aspect of the plan. Having the City Arborist consult with property owners about replanting streamside and providing education materials and perhaps discounts to local nurseries would all be meaningful. Mayor Hoffman agreed that requiring tree replacement could discourage people from removing invasive trees. Councilor Vizzini said the replacement requirement would hinder the removal of invasive trees in certain areas. He was particularly concerned about loss of soils, erosion and the storm water management impacts of losing trees in the described areas. Ms. Holen responded that Staff would discuss the concerns raised and come up with possible solutions. She noted a big question was whether it was solely the property owner's responsibility to verify and document an invasive tree species, or should the City have a process for verifying and documenting that the tree is indeed an invasive species. Rather than issuing a permit, perhaps a free verification letter to avoid disputes or conflicts, especially between neighbors. Staff recommended that the City develop an exempt invasive tree form for applicants to fill out with certain attached photographs and send to the City. Staff could also make courtesy call to see the tree and the materials could be given to Staff. The documentation would be kept on file. The property owner would receive a verification letter from the City with information about planting the right tree in the right spot, and about tree removal, stump sprouting, etc. Councilor Tierney reiterated that the goal was to easily allow invasive species to be removed, and now the process was not much different than the process to obtain a tree cutting permit. Adding additional steps decreases one's motivation. Currently, code enforcement was based upon complaints and he believed that would satisfy this situation as well. Mayor Hoffman suggested the easiest thing might be to have a purple ribbon tied around trees that someone identified as invasive for the City or a City contractor to come out and verify. Such a process could not be that complicated. Upon inspection, the City would confirm that the tree was invasive and that the property owner must replace the tree. Councilor Moncrieff interpreted that a permit was not needed to cut down an invasive tree, but if there was a concern that Code Enforcement could be called, a photo might want to be taken of the tree to prove the tree was invasive. If there was a question about the species, the City could be called to verify. Ms. Holen stated she wanted to keep it as simple as possible but knew how contentious trees could be in the city and sought guidance from Council. She suggested implementing the program for a while without a verification process to see if there were problems and possibly adjust it later. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 November 9, 2010 Mayor Hoffman wanted the City to make a decision on the tree prior to removal. Ms. Holen stated she tried to make it easy on people by providing an online form to which digital pictures could be attached and submitted. The planners could then review the information and send the verification letter right back. Councilor Vizzini stated professional tree removal companies could verify tree species. If trees were small enough to be removed by individuals, most would be smaller than the minimum size for a tree permit. Educating the professional community would help insure that trees were not being removed that required a permit. He agreed the process needed to be as painless as possible. There needed to be a way to insure that something was replanted in the required areas, and that reporting needed to be simplified as well. Ms. Holen responded to Councilor Hennagin that alder was not on the list because it was native. Invasive species were defined as being non-native, not those that overtake other vegetation. Councilor Jordan noted that whether or not the trees were invasive, it would take a while to replant and grow trees to replace the tree canopy. Having a property owner remove three large Norway Maples would change the feel of the neighborhood and spark neighborhood complaints. Tree size was an issue because invasive or not, larger trees provide shade and privacy. Mayor Hoffman noted that proposed changes 1 through 5 on page 56 of the Council packet respond to Resolution 10-51A. Ms. Frisbee clarified that number 6 was just something on their radar screen at some point. Councilor Olson stated in reference to number 6 that she had replaced her sidewalk about three times because of six giant sweetgum trees. They were beautiful but very destructive of infrastructure. She encouraged the pursuit of permitting the removal of trees in right-of-ways causing infrastructure damage. Ms. Holen responded to Councilor Tierney and Mayor Hoffman that work on the tree removal process and mitigation would continue and more alternatives provided. She agreed to return before December 13 for a check in on that issue. The goal was to make the process easier and simpler without substituting one regulation for the other. Councilor Olson liked the suggestion of having a trial period for a very simple process without a required permit and trust people to mitigate. Ms. Holen confirmed that the photographic manual would be online as well. Councilor Jordan added that working with local nurseries to educate the public and help them identify invasive species would be helpful as well. Councilor Vizzini reiterated that working with the local tree professionals to insure they were aware of the change in policy would be worth the effort. Councilor Tierney stated that because they were going to be considering the fee schedule on November 30, he wanted to continue the discussion about the capital expenditures. He asked that Staff be prepared to discuss two issues. One was if the City did not have the capacity to spend the annual street maintenance, including water and sewer, that the street maintenance fee be adjusted appropriately so there was an alignment of what the City had the capacity to do. He wanted to look back a few years to review what was spent last year, projected for this year, and ensure that the revenues from doubling rates over a three-year period matched up. The second matter regarded whether a consistent plan existed, if projects needed this funding; presently there was an inconsistency. Robyn Christie, City Recorder distributed and discussed with Council the proposed new tentative meeting schedule and reviewed possible adjustments to accommodate various agenda items. Councilor Olson suggested having all City Council meetings televised. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 November 9, 2010 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON March 17 2011 Jack . Ho4n, or City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 November 9, 2010