Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-07-10 SpecialAsa' oswrcK) CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 10, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council. meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. on July 10, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Johnson, Jordan, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Public Input on Second Look Task Force Report Mayor Hoffman thanked everyone for attending this third listening session relating to the Second Look Task Force report. He reviewed the public process still to come, noting the several public hearings and other many opportunities for citizens to give input. He explained the testimony procedures and time limits. He went over the rules of decorum that would help maintain the City Council Chambers as a forum for civil public discourse and promote an atmosphere that was fair, courteous, and respectful of different points of view. • Jim Labbe, Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland He stated that he was here on behalf of the Audubon Society (with over 500 member households in Lake Oswego) and the Tualatin Riverkeepers. He submitted a four-page memo listing additional specific comments relating to the Task Force recommendations (q.v.). He spoke of their concern at how the City would flesh out the details of changes to provide flexibility (asking how the City defined that) that would reduce unnecessary burdens, and still maintain the protection of natural resources. He commented that the increased reliance on technical review and on the good faith of individuals was a concern to the Society. He mentioned their strong opposition to rolling back any of the existing uplands or riparian protections. He indicated that their paramount concern was that, at the time of a development application submittal, the only thing protecting a resource was what was in the Code. • Judith Werner, 4266 Woodside Circle She read from a prepared statement (q.v.). She stated her strong support of the Task Force recommendations for protecting resources with more backyard flexibility. She argued that self- regulation did not work because self-interest took no thought of others. She indicated that she was a 40 -year Lake Oswego resident who now lived in a condominium on a stream corridor, which natural resource increased the property value of the condominiums. She asked the City to address the existing lake pollution problem. She mentioned the survey that found that 8 out of 10 residents agreed with the continued protection of natural resources. She contended that the community working together to achieve the best quality of life possible for the greatest number of people was in the self-interest of all. Kent Myers, 13580 SW Goodall Road He indicated that he was a 47 -year resident. He argued that the City has gone too far in trampling on the right of private property owners as described in the U.S. Constitution, Fifth and Fourteenth City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 July 10, 2010 Amendments. He expressed his concern that, with people losing money in this current recession and property values plummeting by 40%, the City was now putting `shadows' on properties that made it difficult to sell property at all. He recounted a story from his days at Willamette University when the police identified a thief in his fraternity by the purple fingers that the thief displayed from the dusting that the police had given to several billfolds. He contended that, in many cases, the City was stealing citizens' properties, an accusation that he was comfortable making because he knew the difference between a discussion and a moral transgression.; He indicated that he would look for purple fingers during the Council vote. He commented that he did not think that there was any efficacy in this project. David Beckett, 17738 Kelok Road, Three Rivers Land Conservancy/Columbia Land Trust He stated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 26 year, and owned a half -acre lot with three dozen very large trees. He submitted his comments in writing (q.v.) He argued that the Sensitive Lands program increased property values in Lake Oswego, citing a study done by a Reed College professor. He mentioned the Columbia Land Trust's work with conservation easements and the Backyard Habitat Program. He spoke in support of giving special consideration to those few properties highly constrained by the Sensitive Lands program. • Julie Russell, 1150 Shukart Lane She indicated that she has lived here for 21 years. She described her half -acre plus lot in the planned neighborhood development of Palisades Terrace, which included open space, a woodsy area on a hill, and plenty of wildlife. She indicated that she had no problems with restrictions on the natural back portion of her lot but she saw no sense in designating the entire lot as a tree grove, as her 3400 square foot house and other developed residential elements occupied the front portion of the lot. . She stated that she was not against the City's efforts to protect resources but she was concerned that the City do it correctly. She recalled informing the City10 years ago during the first round that her property designation was wrong because there were no trees around her house. However, the City informed her that it wanted to keep her whole lot as a natural resource inventory item and denied her request, while giving her a copy of LOC 48.17.15, which exempted her from the restrictions on her lot. She asked why the City maintained a tree grove overlay on a private citizen's whole lot when there was no tree grove. She said that she wanted this wrong designation changed but staff told her that there was an $800 fee to file a map correction. When she protested, staff told her to wait a while, as the situation would likely change. She asked if there was a fee or not. She asked why the City had tree grove restrictions in a planned neighborhood development if it allowed exemptions from the restrictions. She indicated that these things did not make sense to her. She argued that the City did not need to regulate everything that people were doing in their backyards in order to maintain the environment and the beauty of Lake Oswego. She asked why private property owners should pay taxes if the City intended to regulate their backyards. She asked the Council to develop a more flexible policy and to make sure that its maps for regulating properties were correct. Adra Barlow, 2 Buckingham Terrace She indicated that she and her husband were 21+ year residents and small business owners. She read from her prepared testimony (q.v.). She described her work as a volunteer. She mentioned that they received no information about possible property restrictions at the time they purchased this home in Westridge. She said that later they learned that the City proposed their entire property, except for where the house sat, as a Sensitive Lands overlay because it sat adjacent to another private property with undeveloped hillside. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 July 10, 2010 She stated that she did not believe that the City should be putting restrictions on any privately owned lands. She held that the restrictions were arbitrary and not applied equitably throughout the City. She expressed her frustration that the Mayor and the Council were not listening to the people, as she expected the City and public servants to listen to the residents. She spoke in support of a voluntary program. Bob Eidson, 14825 Rainbow Lane He reported that he spoke with Metro informally. Metro staff told him that Lake Oswego was the most restrictive community with regard to land use control and sensitive! lands. He cited the staff person's comment that one could not eat a pig all in one bite, that one started with the bacon and ended with ham hocks. He commented that he thought that that pretty well described what was going on here. He expressed his appreciation for the Council listening but asked why there was no feedback to the public that would allow citizens to address any remaining Council concerns. He asked why the City went so far beyond the existing code, as Metro staff told him that there was no justification for doing so. He said that Metro staff told him that it was okay to apply these restrictions solely to public lands. He asked why the confusion between streams, gutters, and trickles. He asked why the City has not conducted a survey of affected properties or of citizens to find out what the actual opinions of the people were. He asked why First Addition and Lake Grove were exempt from the program, as both areas had plenty of trees. He stated his view that there was no justification to selectively call a group out and ignore other groups that fit the same criteria. • Betty Buford, 5 Camelot Court She stated that she was a member of the Audubon Society and trained in the Backyard Habitat Program. She commented that the reason why that program was so successful was that it was voluntary, and not regulatory. She informed the Council that if the members thought that the citizens would go home and shut up after these listening sessions, they would soon realize that this was only the beginning. She mentioned that at least one City Councilor understood the discomfort of having a proposed Sensitive Lands overlay designation on her property because that Councilor told her and her husband of her relief upon finding out that she did not have the designation. • Denny Hageman, 17841 Cardinal Drive He indicated that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 18 years. He mentioned that a voluntary community organization to which he belonged has maintained an aeration system for the past 12 years to protect the water quality in the Blue Heron Canal. He commented that voluntary participation was important in protecting the environment. He stated his agreement with all comments in opposition to this `draconian' legislation, which he characterized as continued government intrusion on private property and property rights. He commented that it was unbelievable how the current regulations as written suggested that the affected property owners did not have the intelligence or responsibility to protect their personal habitat. He discussed the financial risk that the City ran in taking people's properties, citing the U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment. He read a series of notes from the court rulings against government takings and on behalf of the property owner (Notes 204, 209, 223, 226, 229, 245) clarifying various points about takings, just compensation, and inverse condemnation (q.v.). Robert L. Naumann, 18300 Bryant Road He stated that he has lived here 37 years. He read from his prepared testimony (q.v.). He characterized the Sensitive Lands Ordinance as unfair and expensive to property owners who City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 July 10, 2010 wanted to remove trees. He supported the City managing its open spaces. He argued that wildlife fences did not confine children or dogs. He questioned how many people would plant trees once they realized the possibility of the City declaring their property a resource area if they did plant trees. He held that earlier citizen participation would have resulted in less community conflict and higher government credibility. Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court He referenced the'ESEE analysis prepared by Metro in March 2004 that presented potential regulatory prograrn options and tradeoff. He -indicated that Metro prepared this document when people protested its method of protecting property. He contended that Metro's definition of protect meant to reduce or to take away private property rights, and that an ESEE analysis was the process a government used to rationalize its desire to protect land, or to reduce private property rights. He referenced the argument that the Foothills District, while it was a flood plain, should not be protected because it was economically more beneficial to develop it. He reviewed the major headings of the ESEE analysis, which he indicated was available from Metro. He commented that the acquisition options were all high cost options that the City did not have the money for, given that it was spending $1 million down in Foothills. He mentioned restoration activities, restoration grants, habitat education, information resources, tax incentives, technical assistance program, and volunteer activities. Bill Gaar, 16872 Quail Court, Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) Co-chair He presented a letter from the Board, including a list of 22 recommended changes to the Task Force report (q.v.). He indicated that the Board reviewed the Task Force report line -by-line and unanimously supported the report. He explained that their recommended changes focused on flexibility and discretion within the Sensitive Lands overlay. He observed that the Board did have a bias on this issue, given its role as an advocate for Lake Oswego's natural resources. • Elaine M. Burke, 16121 Nola Court She read from her prepared testimony (q.v. ). She stated her support of the City's Sensitive Lands program, the Task Force report, and the Audubon Society/Tualatin Riverkeepers' testimony. She reviewed her degrees in ecology and studies in environmental physiology that gave her an informed perspective for her support of natural resource protections through the overlays. Bonnie Grey, 14855 Twin Fir Road She presented graphics of her one plus -acre property with a creek and trees in the backyard, on which she has lived for over 50 years. She stated that, under the overlays on the map, they could not do anything with their property, nor could they sell it. She described how that the City's efforts to restore the creek in 1997 have turned a desirable property into a very undesirable property by turning a deep creek into a shallow creek that has eroded 10 feet of their property and engulfed trees. She presented photos of the erosion, noting that, under the regulations, they could do nothing about the creek except watch it erode away more and more of their property, while waiting over the past three years for the City to keep its promise to fix the creek. She mentioned the culvert that the City installed on their property going under the street. She said that it was the City's responsibility to maintain the culvert at five feet deep, yet it was at three feet deep and the water spilling over eroded more of their property. She indicated that she did not have confidence that the City would restore the creek to the state it was in when she was younger and was deep enough for fingerling trout and crawdads. She reiterated that she could not sell her property like this. She commented that they had trusted the City with respect to the sanctions put on the property. She mentioned that, when the City fixed the creek and made it worse, it added more trees without asking her permission as the property owner. She asked what they were supposed to do. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 July 10, 2010 • David Streiff, 18355 Lothlorien Way He observed that few people have heard of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance: of those who have, most had an erroneous understanding of what it meant. He commented that it was difficult lo educate everyone, and yet it was critical to make sure that the people understood the ordinance. He mentioned the program's lack of environmental data monitoring water quality and the lack of a fish and wildlife census. He discussed the unfairness aspect of the program. He presented an aerial photo of his property that gave the erroneous impression that his backyard was entirely forested; it did not show the deck, hot tub, and patios: He commented that when one looked at properties from the street, it did not make sense that one property was designated on the map, and the next apparently identical lot was not. He referenced the property owners' comments of the damage to property values caused by the Ordinance. He commented that he would like to see those speaking from an environmental perspective volunteer their properties for overlays. He quoted from John Wood, who said, "If you don't have time to do it right, when do we have time to do it over?" He speculated that anything voted on on July 20 would have to be done over. • Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive She stated that the City has unnecessarily and mistakenly proposed her 25 -year old residential property (developed and undividable) for a Sensitive Lands overlay. She indicated that her overall input was that the Task Force recommendations missed the point. She argued that the Task Force's charge did not address the heart of citizen concerns, and therefore, any comments on tweaking the program were not productive in this contentious situation that needed real solutions. She commented that it was unfortunate that this sensitive lands issue has become so contentious, as they had common ground as Lake Oswego citizens who cared about natural resources and the beauty of the community. She alleged that there has been an effort to paint those with concerns about the program as right wing extremists intent on undoing all environmental regulations, which she described as divisive and unhelpful nonsense. She contended that they needed solutions and an acknowledgment that all citizens in the community had equal rights and equal value, no matter where they lived, what their political views were, or how long they have lived in the community. She spoke of treating each other in a more respectful and neighborly way. She indicated her confidence that there were solutions, but noted that it would take all Council members working together and on behalf of all homeowners to reach them. She argued that until there was a program that made sense to property owners, was fair and equitable, and did not involve politics, privilege, economic development, and zoning trades and games, the issue would not go away. She commented that she has noticed that the momentum and concern has been building over the last year, given a handpicked task force, a rushed vote, 63 recommendations that missed the point, and recruiting the Audubon Society to attack concerned citizens. She emphasized that this was a personal issue with the government trespassing into people's backyards. She urged the community to stop the political nonsense and work together on real solutions that satisfied Metro, protected the community's real natural resources, and insured a fair program that valued all property owners. She commented that one test of this program would be whether the Council members would want the Sensitive Lands program applied to their own personal properties. She argued that when each Council member was not alarmed about having his/her personal property designated as sensitive lands, then perhaps the Council will have developed a program that would garner community respect and support. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 July 10, 2010 • Emma Lee Weibel, 2020 SW Carman Drive She said that she and her husband had a 2.5 -acre lot with the back portion covered in trees, which her husband planted in 1953 and maintained all these years to the point where they were now too large to cut without a permit. She indicated that their maintaining that portion in a largely natural state was the reason the City gave them for requiring it to stay that way. She explained that the overlay, while not on the whole property, was sufficient to ruin the value of the property. She spoke of their need to take care not to invade the overlay with forbidden activities because Big Brother was monitoring to prevent a property owner from invading his/her own land. She mentioned that a tree recently fell on the land and missed a house in the development next to them by inches. She suggested that making people maintain trees in a certain area was not always a great thing. She argued that no one should be required to maintain their land so that the rest of the community could enjoy the view and the wildlife when others were not required to contribute to that maintenance; if the community wanted the land for its benefit, then the community should buy it at market value. She emphasized that they had no plans for developing their land partly because of their 50 -year old business. She contended that the City's proposed action amounted to cruel indifference to the personal needs of the citizens, given this environment in which many elderly people lost significant portions of their retirement savings in the stock market. She stated that it has been demonstrated beyond question that this scheme detracted from the monetary value of the land. She held that sensitive lands increasing the value of the land was not a reasonable argument coming from a condominium owner because the land circumstances were very different for condominiums. She mentioned several other already demonstrated statements, including that not everyone with sensitive lands was being subjected to the harsh regulations, that this action was not necessary to satisfy the State or Metro, and that the City's choice of certain riparian lands over other riparian lands was capricious and unfair (though not without reasons). She described those pushing this reform as shameless in their willingness to go ahead with something that was illogical, not environmentally sound planning, and discriminatory. She commented that the most offensive action was the City's belief that the citizens would be stupid enough not to notice what it was doing if it framed it in the right way. She stated that she has run out of patience and was at a loss for arguments for logic and fairness. She mentioned that environmental effectiveness was not an argument that appeared to get the Council's attention. She said that she knew now that this plan has been long in the making on the part of some Council members, who knew that they could not win their position if they campaigned on this plan. She alleged that even now the City was keeping this plan quiet and notifying only those necessary, leaving those affected and the rest of the community largely unaware of this plan and so shocked upon learning of it that they could scarcely be convinced it was happening. She asked why the Council believed that its actions would be admired by future citizens if the citizens today did not admire or respect this plan. Joel Christensen, 18311 Lothlorien Way He indicated that he has lived on this property for eight years but it has been in the family for forty years. He stated that, over the last 30 years that he has witnessed the property and those surrounding it, he has found nothing to suggest that anybody has done anything but take care of the land in a pristine way. He said that he was personally offended by the suggestion that private property owners were not good stewards of the land. He referenced the comment about studies and the value of homes. He indicated that, while the statement that a tree canopy and natural areas improved the value of homes was accurate, he has read many of those studies and drawn two conclusions from them. First, most studies were done around public land and its impact on private land. Second, the studies noted that there was a threshold where the canopy level was so high that it started to decrease the value. He indicated City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 July 10, 2010 that the optimal percentage was around 45% to 46%. He noted that Lake Oswego's canopy was in the 60% range. He argued that with its current tree ordinances, Lake Oswego far exceeded the optimal canopy coverage already and was at a level where the canopy was detrimental in and of itself. He indicated that none of the studies that he read had any data about any property actually designated as sensitive lands and the designation's impact on value. He referenced the testimony from several individuals over the last year of direct and measurable property devaluation because of the designation. - He stated for the record that he opposed this program. He mentioned the two reasonable options that he saw before the Council. One was to drop this proposal and return to the current ordinances. He commented that he has seen no data indicating that those ordinances were not effective in keeping Lake Oswego at the forefront of conservation, and he has seen no degradation on his property in 40 years. The second option was to apply the Ordinance to every property in Lake Oswego, because that was fair. In that case, it would not matter in a common vote of the whole city whether people were for or against the designations because everyone was treated equally. Dianne Cassidy, 18280 Indian Creek Drive She indicated that she had no sensitive lands on her personal property but the Bryant Woods Neighborhood Association did on its common land. She commented that she had not intended to speak today but was inspired to do so by the many inaccuracies stated by the Audubon Society representatives. She referenced their comments that "without sensitive lands protections, the resource would depend on the good faith of all individuals," "the resource is only protected by what is in the Code," and "self-interest does not work." She argued that all they had in a society was the good faith of individuals because government could not police enough for everyone who would rebel against regulations, whatever they might be. She said that she did not know where this distrust came from to say that without regulation, people would destroy their own properties, an argument that she characterized as insane. She argued that codes protected nothing, people did. She stated that the residents cared better for the Bryant Woods common area than the City did for public lands. She indicated that they have cleared invasive species and replanted native species with no regulations or code forcing them to do so. She commented that she took good care of her backyard because it was in her self-interest to do so. She contended that self-interest was the only thing that worked, citing the beauty of Lake Oswego today as evidence of the effectiveness of self-interest. She held that the worldview suggested by defense of the regulations and belief that the government should be more involved in citizens' lives ignored the truth of human nature. She argued that appealing to self-interest would get the City further in where it wanted to go. She stated that, in the 34 years she has lived here, she has never seen such regulatory overbearance and intrusion into people's lives as this Sensitive Lands overlay, for which she saw no justification. She commented that if the Council sensed disrespect from the public, it came from the City's disrespect of the public. Tom Zinser, 17820 SW Westview Road He mentioned that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 43 years and built a house in the middle of the woods. He indicated that, as a member of the Oregon Small Woodland Association, he was fully aware of how to take care of trees on his 7 -acre lot. He recalled that, at the time he purchased the lot from Herb Kruse, the Palisades neighborhood was under development. He discussed his concerns regarding the City's notification of his property's designation as sensitive lands. He mentioned that he actually threw the little card away without reading it because he did not recognize the new logo and it was small print. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 July 10, 2010 He contended that what staff called `housekeeping' were actually amendments to LOC 50.16. He pointed out that the document has grown from an original 19 pages to 60 to 70 pages. He commented that he has never seen a printed copy of the document, but instead he had to download all the amendments online. He described this as a shame, given the severity of the Code. He noted that, although he has attended most Planning Commission and City Council meetings on this issue, he has never seen anything addressing the larger parcels of land. He asked what he was supposed to do if the City imposed an overlay on his land. He indicated that he had two acres dedicated as a garden and a recreational area and another three acres for his house site from which he has cleared all ivy and blackberries. He said that he has not had time to clear the brush from remainder of his acreage, and it was a fire danger. He commented that the brochures and conversations generally spoke of protecting all the land, and not of protecting a little section in one corner of Lake Oswego. He argued that it did not make sense to pick out 400 or 500 homes when 30,000 people lived in the community. He expressed his regret at having been a tree hugger and a greenhead. Vickie Bednark, 2681 Rivendell Road She asked for disclosure of a list of the 500 Audubon Society member households in Lake Oswego. She mentioned her attendance at the various meetings on this issue and her research into what the rules and regulations meant. She stated that she found it shameful that 40 -year residents had to try to justify their rights and privileges as citizens. She said that she was shocked when the Council (and she voted for many of the members) thought that the citizens voting for them meant that they had the right to go into someone's backyard and take away their rights. She asked the Council members to think about who they were and what they were doing in this situation. She questioned the statement that their intent was to protect sensitive lands when the regulations did not touch major bodies of water in the city. She described what she saw as capricious and unfair selection of one property over another with terrible consequences to those impacted. She suggested that the person who listed her academic accomplishments volunteer to make her property subject to these deed restrictions. She urged the Council members to think about who they were and what they were doing. She described them as the stewards of the city and protectors of the funds that the taxpayers gave them to spend. She applauded the City for the transformation of the downtown into something beautiful, but reiterated that this proposed action was not right. • Art Scevola, 1454 Glenmorrie Drive He said that he has lived here since 1993. He held that the primary issue was the reduction of some citizens' use and enjoyment of property and its value to the exclusion of others, which was a property rights issue. He commented that he had nothing to say about the micromanagement inherent in these recommendations because they did not matter. In referring to the loss of property without compensation, he quoted from Benjamin Franklin: "When you're willing to trade your liberty for security, you will have neither." He encouraged people to read his comments and Shannon Berlant's comments from the June 30 meeting. He commented that Ms. Berlant asked the right questions and that people needed to understand those questions. He mentioned his use of the phrase `wax paper taxpayer,' which referred to a citizen who was just living and acting right but, when heated up, he/she broke. He suggested to the Council that the citizens would take action to prevent the implementation of these recommendations if the Council passed them on July 20. He contended that their petition would succeed because there was a sentiment in the city running 9 to 1 against the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, as demonstrated by the testimony heard today. He commented that the citizens City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 July 10, 2010 had the right and ability to turn this around at the ballot box by voting against those supporting this program. He read a principle practiced by Rotary Club members: "For everything that we say or do, there is a four way test: is it the truth: Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? • Aimee Corso, 18323 Lothlorien Way She indicated that 75% of her Westridge Neighborhood property (28 -year-old single-family home, undividable lot) was proposed for designation. She explained that it had a sloping backyard with an upland tree grove. She asked the Council to hear what the citizens were saying and to take the time needed to resolve this issue in a collective and harmonious way. She mentioned that her profession was public relations. She noted that the City has finally begun to communicate in the last month, citing the postcard that she received as the first thing she has gotten on sensitive lands. She observed that the City should have started its communication efforts a long time ago in order to achieve effective communication with the residents. She advised the Council that, if it passed this program, even with the recommended changes, it would have a big public relations problem on its hands, as this was not what the community wanted. She mentioned that she was a new resident and the target demographic of a young family that the Council wanted to come to Lake Oswego. She stated that they moved here for the schools, the environment, and the opportunities that the city offered. She commented that she represented the young family point of view, as many young families could not be here today. She indicated that she was a staunch environmentalist, yet she wondered whether this was the right thing to do for the environment. If it was, should it be applied to all properties? She said that she could quote her degrees too but any environmentalist would say that applying a sensitive lands program sporadically did not improve the entire ecosystem. She held that her trees were no more valuable than the undesignated trees around the corner. She pointed out that property values followed the same pattern of involvement in one system. If the property value on her land went down because of the tree grove, then that devaluation impacted the property values of undesignated lands in her area. She mentioned that the aerial photograph gave the impression that she had a forest in her backyard instead of a deck and a trampoline. She argued that they could do this in a less stringent way that did not impact property values. She mentioned her sense from the beginning that this has been a 'check the box' activity by the Council. She applauded the creation of the Second Look Task Force, but described the process following its presentation of its conclusions as "rushed" with citizens having only a week during the busiest time of the year for young families to make comments before the Council vote. She asked the Council to take the time to work with the citizens so that these regulations could be enacted to protect the environment and restore the great community that she moved here for. GIPS • Gary Gibiisan, 19 EI Greco He mentioned that he and his wife have lived 25 years on this property now designated as sensitive lands. He commented that, although he had not intended to testify again on this issue, he felt compelled to after hearing some of the earlier testimony. He indicated that three of the five homeowners on his street with designated sensitive lands moved in after 1998 and were unaware of the designation on their property until his wife told them recently. He reported that, now that these neighbors understood what the designation meant, he could predict that none of them would vote for any City Council member voting for any sensitive lands ordinance that did not make the property owner the first consideration. He referenced the Reed College professor's study. He indicated his understanding that the professor concluded that trees added value to properties in North, Northeast, and Southeast City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 July 10, 2010 Portland because these areas did not have many trees. However, adding more trees to the already abundant tree count in Northwest and Southwest Portland devalued the property. He noted that Lake Oswego was more like Southwest Portland than Northeast Portland. He referenced the survey, as he had been one of the 400 respondents. He described the questions as generic and wondered why the response had not been 10 out of 10 wanted to preserve all the natural resources in Lake Oswego. He noted that the survey did not ask the question of whether the citizen wanted to restrict private property ownership. He speculated that 9 out of 10 would not have supported that. He mentioned the credentials brought up earlier. He cited his own credentials as a lawyer, noting his 40 plus years experience in investigation and application of the law. He stated that this was not a matter of zoning, but rather a taking of private property, which was wrong and unfair. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 11:47 a.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 11:58 a.m. • John Hedlund, 240 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, Clackamas County He read from his prepared testimony (q.v.). He described the properties that his family members owned in the Birdshill area for over 50 years. He stated his support for the position of the Lake Oswego Stewards. He agreed that Lake Oswego had an abundance of trees because of the property owners' values and not because of regulations. He agreed that property owner rights were more important than the occasional cutting of trees. He agreed that the ordinance, with regards to tree groves, was a penalty taking from those who have maintained these lands. He asked what was wrong with the way the City did it before the creation of this Ordinance. He encouraged the Council to make the regulations less burdensome, and possibly to abolish them and start over. • Jack Sullivan, 17660 Stafford Road He submitted written comments (q.v.) telling the story of his property and his unsuccessful efforts to annex to the City for 19 years, per the City's requirement that he annex in return for its provision of water to his property in 1988. He commented that the City's request three years ago to annex his property in order to avoid creating an island during the Luscher Farm proposed annexation caused he and his wife some concern regarding the City's reliability. He mentioned their desire to develop their property and annex to the City but they were concerned about retaining access to one of the five possible lots. He commented that they wanted to support the process but they wanted it done right. • " Michael Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road He indicated that three-quarters of his property was encumbered with an RP overlay and buffer zone. He encouraged the Council to avoid the dualism of both the environmentalists and the property rights advocates in looking at the situation as black and white. He described the Council's task as finding the middle ground. He commented that the testimony today indicated the need for education. He mentioned the Urban Forest Institute's statement that Lake Oswego had 44.4% tree canopy, and not the 60% mentioned earlier. He suggested including that fact in the Metro compliance package. He mentioned that he would like to hear what the Mayor and the Councilors learned after these listening sessions so that the citizens could see how much the Council has moved from its starting position in response to citizen concerns. He commented that he knew that there was not much that the City could do with the RP (resource protection - riparian areas) but it could move on the RC (resource conservation — tree groves). He supported the Task Force's concept of watershed - based management. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 July 10, 2010 He referenced the Lake Oswego Stewards' representative's comments that things did not go wrong on private properties. He stated that he knew of four things that went wrong in the last three months. However, since regulations did not stop those actions, a strictly regulatory program was probably not the solution; they needed education in order to do better with the land. He argued that the community could do a much better job on handling the invasive ivy on both public and private properties if it valued the land as significant and unique. He held that that took education and working together. He suggested assembling groups in the different watersheds to discuss how best to handle a watershed management approach. Tom Zinser, jr., 18244 Bella Terra Road He argued that the Council and the Mayor needed to take responsibility for this decision. He indicated that he has spoken with the Mayor and several Councilors and heard comments that this was passed long ago and that they could not change anything. He stated that he did not believe that, and held that the Council could change previous legislation. He gave an example of the sentiment of the City towards the citizens. He cited his father's conversations with Planning Director, who responded to his specific and looking for answers questions with a suggestion that he file a lawsuit. He argued that when the City took someone's property value, it had to compensate for that taking. He commented that it was not paying property taxes in the future, but rather paying the taxes that his father paid over the years to make that seven acres a forest. He mentioned an option of cutting the trees down and using the money from the lumber to pay City fines. He indicated that his father would not buck the system until the Council passed this. He agreed with Ms. Buford and the petition that the City had no idea what would occur in terms of citizen protects if this passed. He mentioned an argument that Councilor Moncrieff gave him, that nothing was changing, as it was all simply housekeeping amendments. • David S. Glass, 17288 Blue Heron He described his property as massively impacted by the Ordinance. He indicated that he had significant concerns because he has revised his earlier assumption that the City would make reasonable accommodations to meet his needs in response to his later impression that the City did not care about an individual citizen. He mentioned his feeling that the City planned to commandeer his backyard. He indicated that he had a lot of big trees on his property, which he has thought well of until last year when two trees fell down with the smaller one almost taking out his house. He said that he no longer trusted the trees, and that he lived in fear of what would happen with each windstorm. He commented that he wanted to take down those trees with risk factors. He mentioned that he needed to install a fence around his backyard because he had two large dogs, but, based on the discussion so far, he doubted that the City would let him do so. He commented that that would make him angry. He expressed his concern that these ordinances, instead of being a reasonable land use proposal, were setting up a land grab. He concurred with those earlier who did not trust that the City would handle this in an equitable fashion. • Dan Vizzini, 13830 Verte Court He pointed out that this was the end of one part of a process and the beginning of another part of the process. He commented that the community needed to understand that whatever decision the Council made on July 20 merely set in motion another public process. He noted that the Task Force recommendations included some things that the Council could implement right away but the policy items would go through a long, dynamic public process that would continue to evolve over time. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Pagel 1 of 18 July 10, 2010 He stated that he supported the Task Force report. He described it as balanced and attempting (within strict confines) to address the issues that the Council wanted addressed. He spoke in support of taking a watershed -based approach. He described the idea of applying the regulations to all properties in the city, including public property, as `right on and fair.' He mentioned looking for the public education process to develop a consensus around strict environmental regulations that went beyond sensitive lands to discuss water management. He expressed concern at the lack of financing in the plan. He commented that if the City wanted every person in the community to be invested in natural resources protection, then they needed to look at broad baz_ad ways of funding it: He mentioned that Lake Oswego had a history of supporting bonding for open spaces. He suggested pursuing market-based solutions, such as the transfer of development rights and credits. He indicated that he had other ideas along those lines that he would be happy to share in the future. He commented that he thought that this could be a community-based solution if the Council began to expand its thinking beyond the Sensitive Lands pieces to look at watersheds and property owners in general. • Deanna Zinser, 17920 Westview Road She mentioned that when she called the Lake Oswego Review to ask if a reporter would attend this meeting, the person who answered the phone said "You betcha." She commented that the attitude that she sensed from the Review and the City was that sensitive lands was an important issue. She stated that she resented what was being done to her husband as a result of this situation. She recalled how he fought the surrounding development and how they sacrificed a great deal to keep their property pristine. She argued that it was ludicrous that the City developed the property all around them, and now wanted their private property. She mentioned her husband's extensive knowledge of the Code. She commented that, with all the notes her husband has kept over the years, he had the documentation to answer any question. She contended that the reason why people wanted to live in Lake Oswego was not because of the rules and regulations but because of people like her husband who have sacrificed to care for the land. She mentioned that he did all the work himself because he enjoyed it but he would not enjoy it if the City wanted his property for a park. She recalled a saying, "If you want the park, you have to buy the park." 3.2 Council Comments Councilor Tierney stated that on July 2 he prepared a 2.5 page outline of his thoughts, which began with what he wanted to see. He mentioned gathering e-mail addresses today from citizens bringing different perspectives. He spoke of taking a comprehensive approach, of which land use regulations were but one component. Other components included involving all citizens and a results orientation with goals and measurements. He advocated for taking a watershed -based approach, which would combine the City's programs together in an effort to improve the watershed. He held that this focus would actually do something to protect the natural resources in the eyes of the community, Metro, and others. He commented that, along with many other people who testified, he did not understand why any particular tree grove was selected. He suggested that a watershed -based approach would enable a `defocus' on upland tree areas not directly linked to the watershed. He described a watershed -based approach as striking the middle ground of where the community wanted to go. It would involve policy -level discussions that, while considering the incorporation of Task Force recommendations, went beyond them. He indicated that the recommendations tweaked the program but missed the underlying concern of the community. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 July 10, 2010 He referenced the testimonies of several individuals who have proven themselves good stewards of the land. He commented that, while he did not know how this would fit into a comprehensive look, he wanted to make sure that the program did not punish these land stewards for not taking advantage of their properties when other people were doing so. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with everything Councilor Tierney said. She indicated that, given that the RC (trees) designation was confusing, she wanted to look at removing it from private properties with no associated water resource. She mentioned including consideration of slopes and the City's current code language protecting steep slopes and the properties beneath treed slopes. She pointed out that the City's current regulations did �-,ot protect the resources in a vacuum but instead protected the community, which included protecting the citizens. She supported retaining the RC designation on all public lands. She suggested looking at increasing the stream buffers on public lands only, as part of doing the best possible job they could in protecting the high quality watershed resource on public properties. She mentioned including already dedicated open space on private properties in this review. She commented that not all resources were equal, which made it difficult to understand why a culvert conveying runoff would have the same protection as a perennial stream. She spoke of associating buffer sizes and regulations with the quality and size of the resource. She pointed out that many of the Task Force recommendations would require financial resources. She spoke of the Council looking at the budget for communications. She argued that the City asking the citizens to participate in voluntary invasive species removal in the parks and along the roadways required a financial investment and the work to communicate, coordinate, train, and educate. She commented that the different Friends groups were a great resource and model for the City's efforts. She spoke to budgeting for the restoration and maintenance of the public spaces. She advocated for individual evaluations of the few properties that were totally encumbered or severely impacted, such as the Zinsers, the Weibels, the Greys, and the Salamies. She agreed with the Task Force recommendations for code changes and the Metro model code definition, which would build flexibility into the City Code immediately. She held that these changes would alleviate many concerns about backyard uses mentioned by the citizens, such as trampolines or a vegetable garden within a buffer. She mentioned that she came to this issue from the perspective that Mrs. Buford alluded to because, before she ran for Council, she received a notice that the City proposed her property for sensitive lands mapping. She pointed out that the City had existing overlays and existing Code (LOC 50.16) with regulations. However, the Council realized quickly that the regulations were too rigid and too nebulous to give property owners confidence and security. She indicated that City staff has been looking at how to improve the Code to make it an incentive and not a burden to citizens. She spoke of changes that would make having a Sensitive Lands overlay not something to be feared but rather something that would enhance the quality of the property. She indicated that, when she received her notification of proposed mapping, she called a staff planner who came out to her property to evaluate it. While the planner's evaluation on the ground found no resource on her property, she could understand the citizens' concerns and questions, as it was difficult to see why one property would have a resource and the neighboring property not have a resource. She spoke of the importance of making the designation criteria understandable to all property owners, and of including a designation appeals process that was easy to use and understandable. She commented that ultimately the Council wanted a code that protected the resources, that the community did not fear, and that the whole community embraced. She argued that they should all want the designation voluntarily if the overlays were not unduly burdensome. She recalled owning property in Milwaukie with overlay restrictions, which she had not found burdensome or hurtful in selling her property. She agreed that it was not a black and white issue. She described the Task City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 July 10, 2010 Force recommendations as going a long way in building flexibility and reasonableness into the existing code. She mentioned the Task Force's suggestions about taking a watershed -based approach and educating the community on the purpose and importance of regulations while encouraging volunteerism at the same time. Mayor Hoffman observed that this public process has been going on since February 2009. He said that he started with the concept that no parcel of land was an island. He commented that the purpose of zoning was to insure that one owner's use of his/her property did not have a significant detrimental impact on another owi,er's use of his/her property; which provided predictability. He described the Task'Force recommendations as `spot on.' He suggested sending the immediate Code fixes, which Ms. Frisbee identified in her June 14, 2010, memo, to the Planning Commission, as Mr. Vizzini suggested. He supported the staff and Task Force recommendations mentioned by Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff for a no fee process. He mentioned that there were also medium-term fixes (the lands entirely designated with an overlay) and long-term fixes (a watershed -based approach and a focus on public lands). He commented that, over the past 18 months, he has consistently viewed this as a Comprehensive Plan issue. He stated that he took responsibility as Mayor to insure the City's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, State statutes, and City Code. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan had 24 pages directing the City to protect tree groves and the wooded character of Lake Oswego. He argued that if the community wanted to change that community value as expressed in the Plan, then it needed to do so in connection with the Comprehensive Plan update. He indicated that they could do it either during the periodic review process or as a post -plan amendment. He mentioned the clear goal posts set out by Metro to regulate riparian lands through mapping and regulations. He noted that the basis of Goal 5 was inventory and developing a program to protect resources. He indicated that he has heard loud and clear that regulation of backyards caused property owners angst and burdened them. He stated that Metro's Title 3 required backyard regulation if there was a creek in the backyard, but it did not require regulation of backyard tree groves. He said that he was comfortable with Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to re-evaluate the inclusion of small, isolated tree groves not connected with riparian areas, as he thought it would help relieve many of the backyard conflict issues. He agreed that they needed to rethink the restrictions on what people could do with their property. He supported the Task Force recommendations to allow structures and uses that did not require building permits, such as garden structures, sheds, and play structures. He agreed that the City needed to be more flexible in response to the people's requests. He held that they could be true to the Comprehensive Plan, allow protection of significant resources, and allow people to enjoy their property. He mentioned also hearing loud and clear the need for a purposeful and consistent outreach and communication program because people were not getting the information. He recalled that when he talked to property owners, he spent some time clearing up urban myths. He agreed with the assessment that this was a public relations issue. He commented that it was also a City resource issue, and that the Council needed a budget discussion about `feet on the ground' evaluating individual properties. He indicated that, when he visited individual properties, he too had wondered why some of them were designated because he saw landscaping but not wildlife habitat. He agreed that they needed to re -look at the isolated tree groves. He agreed that the City needed to make the program more citizen -friendly in not requiring the $800 fee for a redesignation to correct a City mistake. He indicated that he did not think that a voluntary program would work. He said that, as much as he would like to believe that people were good stewards of their property, in natural resources areas, one saw a "trash of the Commons." He held that resources were not protected in a uniform and consistent fashion. He commented that, since the Comprehensive Plan spoke to regulations, any change to an all -volunteer program would have to get by the Comprehensive Plan, Metro, and the State, which he did not see happening. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 July 10, 2010 He agreed with Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff that they needed to address the issue of undeveloped lands that were totally encumbered. He mentioned the Metro model ordinance approach of avoid, minimize, and mitigate, and the Task Force proposal of the net environmental benefit approach. He supported working on a two-tiered process. He agreed that they needed a more readable and accessible code, which he hoped the code audit would help achieve. He mentioned his hope that the Council would send the long-term project ideas, such as a watershed -based approach and doing more invasive species removal, to the apprc,l;, iate Council Advisory Boards to develop the details of the program. He _jmmented that these ,;i;tening sessions have beep very worthwhile. Councilor Jordan recalled that the second mapping of natural resources to expand the currently mapped areas began during her first year on Council. She commented that none of them dreamed that they would be here years later trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. She mentioned that a year and a half ago the Council was looking for flexibility, because there was more than one way to do something. She indicated that that, due to the Task Force and the citizen comments, they were finding other ways to accomplish the desired result in a less onerous way than under the current process. She observed that the current process probably impacted some people more than others in an unfair fashion. She expressed her hope that they could do the minimum changes to the Code in order to comply with the Metro Title 3 requirements just to get that piece done. Then the City would work further with the community to develop a community watershed/RC approach that enhanced the quality of life in Lake Oswego, included the flexibility recommended by the Task Force and the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB), and protected the environment in a fashion consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and community values. She noted that a watershed -based approach would help the Council with budgeting resources in the future. She gave an example of removing the ivy from street medians as part of protecting open spaces from ivy invasion. She discussed the need for education. She spoke of finding a definition of an RC tree grove that suited the watershed -based approach. She mentioned that the seven old growth trees in her front yard met the current definition of a tree grove (three or more trees). She expressed her concern at hearing people say that they did not want to plant a grove of trees that could restrict their use of their property in the future. She clarified that, whether one had a Sensitive Lands overlay or not, a property owner could remove a dangerous tree. She cited the concerns expressed by several citizens about not being able to remove hazardous trees as evidence of the need for more education. She agreed with developing some type of a special circumstance for looking at well-maintained and protected private properties, as this process was creating stress and anxiety for those who cared for the land. She commented that, in the future, they would want to make sure that the large pieces of undeveloped land developed correctly, if the owners wanted to develop them. She suggested taking a net environmental approach that recognized the economic and social benefits of development. She commented that there were places in Lake Oswego where their intent was to discover how to protect what was already established in a way that made sense for people to live. She said that it made sense to her to hold off on any new overlays until the City (working with the citizens) has figured out the best way to go about this. She argued that visually inspecting resources where significant public resource lands abutted private property was extremely important in a watershed -based approach for identifying resources to protect. She agreed with identifying small, significant tree groves with no visual connection to any other tree grove. She reiterated that defining what an RC tree grove and how it affected the entire watershed should help correct identifications. Councilor Hennagin mentioned hearing a common theme from the citizens: fear about the effect of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance on their properties without a full comprehension of the details in City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 July 10, 2010 the Sensitive Lands regulations. He recalled that he had known nothing about the Ordinance when he ran for office four years ago, and had had no plans respecting sensitive lands. He indicated that he had only learned about the Ordinance about a year and a half ago when staff told the Council that Lake Oswego had adopted an Ordinance with less restrictive buffers and riparian areas than Metro required, and that staff had substituted protection of upland tree groves. He commented that he has never understood what the scientific evidence was that supported the claim that upland tree groves played a role in protecting water resources. He pointed out that they all needed to be concerned about protecting their water resource, as this most important resource for humans was becoming less and less available wu Idwide. He spoke of his concern about whether Lake Oswego's original protection of upland tree groves was justifiable. He agreed that a comprehensive watershed -based approach was the most appropriate approach for protecting the water resource, although, at this stage, he was not certain how they would do that. He indicated that he did not understand now the Ordinance restricted the ability of property owners like the Zinsers, the Weibels, or Mr. Glass, to develop if they wanted to develop. He supported looking seriously at the flexibility recommended by the Task Force, including the two -track approach mentioned by Mayor Hoffman. He commented that the City needed to address Cap Hedges' proposal for developing his property in Glenmorrie, given that his proposal seemed to be more environmentally friendly than what the Code allowed. He questioned how the Council could adopt a regulation that affected all citizens equally, given that some lots had no water or tree resources on them. He asked for more explanation on how to address that issue and suggested that referring it to the Planning Commission for further investigation. Councilor Johnson expressed her concern about talking about the City's current program in isolation, and about having any program that did not have community buy -in. She observed that Lake Oswego had many resources (both natural resources and human resources). She commented that the City, in working towards a larger program that went beyond the sensitive lands overlays, could learn from those citizens who have been good stewards of their land for a long time. She spoke of pursuing a watershed -based approach that looked at the environment in terms of the whole community. She pointed out, with respect to Councilor Hennagin's issue of how this affected all citizens equally, that everyone contributed to the watershed because it rained everywhere and the runoff from all properties, whether they had trees or streams on them or not, went into the creeks protected under the overlays. She cited the example of a creek becoming shallower due to the sediment washing in from everyone else's properties. She emphasized the importance of taking a holistic look at the community as one environment and how they would share it. She questioned why some people could put whatever they wanted on their property and thus contribute to the sediment that hurt other people's property. She noted that the owners of the damaged property had to pay towards reconstructing the stream. She agreed that there was an inequity issue. She observed that this involved a much longer process. She suggested using education and a results oriented program with goals and measurements as two methods for garnering the currently lacking but necessary community buy -in. She contended that the Council could not expect buy -in of a program that was vague, unclear, and measureless. She agreed that the program needed to be incentive -based. She commented that protection should not mean 'don't touch,' as people did live in their backyards. She advocated for the City taking an active role in making sure that people understood what it meant to have these resources and how to manage sensitive areas, as many property owners have already done. She agreed that the Council needed to look at the financing issues involved. She spoke to the City educating people with respect to what an acceptable plan would be, so that property owners did not have to spend money and time going back and forth before the City deemed their plan acceptable. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 July 10, 2010 LAKE OSWEGo AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 ` Saturday, July 10, 2010 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 10:00 a.m. 503-675-3984 Council Chambers, 380AAvenue 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 Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Page # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC INPUT 3.1 Public Input on Second Look Task Force Report (3 minutes per person) 4. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: The meeting will be recorded and rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Tuesday, July 13 11 P.M. Saturday, July 17 11 P.M. Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Kristin Johnson, Councilor Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor is Mary Olson, Councilor in Bill Tierney, Councilor CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SENSITIVE LANDS PROGRAM REPORT OF THE SECOND LOOK TASK FORCE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES May 28, 2010 The members of the Second Look Task Force hereby transmit this report to the Director of Planning and Building Services in response to the charge to review the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Community Development Code in the context of its environmental and regulatory purposes and provide recommendations to the Planning Department. In signing our names to these recommendations, we are acknowledging that: ■ The review process was credible; ■ There was an adequate opportunity to raise and discuss issues and concerns; To the best of our ability, we have responded to community concerns that were within the Task Force's purview; Input that we have been provided has been appropriately considered in the development of the report's recommendations; and While we may not each agree with every recommendation, we believe that the report represents the consensus of the group. FIX). .. .l�_�•.a .yAl_ CZ -VI L4W Andy Harris Cap L-7w�--/ Tim Mather Todd Prager i r � r Kbn Sandblast Jim hnson Amin Wahab( (► I_ Greg McMurray Jim Ow ns, Facilitator CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SENSITIVE LANDS PROGRAM REPORT OF THE SECOND LOOK TASK FORCE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES May 28, 2010 A. APPROACH Purpose and Format of This Report This report documents the recommendations of the Second Look Task Force to the Director of Planning and Building Services for revisions to the City of Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands program, as well as the issues, key considerations and supporting documentation that served as the basis for developing these recommendations. These recommendations were developed by the Task Force following a three -phased review process that was initiated in September 2009 and completed in May 2010. This process entailed 17 meetings over the past nine months and the review of numerous background documents, presentations by agency representatives and interest groups, case studies and site visits to representative properties, a public meeting with over 120 persons in attendance, and written input throughout the process. Included in this report are: • A recommended general approach to implementation of the Sensitive Lands program that is intended to respond to community concerns while meeting requirements for resource protection. • A summary of the Task Force process. • The context that guided the development of the Task Force's recommendations. ■ A total of 63 recommended refinements to the program in the following five key issue areas organized around questions and considerations identified through the process: 1. The City leading by example 2. Designating Sensitive Lands 3. Providing flexibility in the provisions to protect designated resources 4. Improving the permitting process by making it easier to understand and navigate and more affordable for developers and landowners 5. Increasing public awareness by providing beneficial public education and outreach to property owners, developers and the general public • Supplemental considerations and recommendations related to noxious vegetation (e.g., ivy) control that relate to all properties in the City, not just Sensitive Lands. ■ Supporting documentation. Task Force Charge The City of Lake Oswego wishes to respond to community concerns about its sensitive lands ordinance by considering recommendations from a Second Look Task Force established by the Planning Director to: Review the Sensitive Lands chapter of the Community Development Code in the context of its environmental and regulatory purposes, and provide recommendations to the Planning Department for changes that: • Maintain or improve the current level of environmental protection; • Maintain compliance with Metro and State standards; • Increase flexibility for property owners; • Simplify or clarify the code or permit application process; and • Result in a Sensitive Lands program that can engender community support. It is important to note that the Task Force was not charged with: ■ Developing specific Code amendments or revisions to the inventory of properties mapped as Sensitive Lands. ■ Specifically responding to questions and issues raised by the Citizens for Stewardship of Lake Oswego Lands, Portland Audubon Society, and other interest groups and individuals, although efforts have been made to address a number of the issues raised in these comments. Key Messages In developing and forwarding these recommendations, the Task Force wishes to reflect the following key messages: ■ Lake Oswego residents value the City's streams, wetlands, tree groves and other natural resources. Protection of riparian areas and significant upland habitat, irrespective of whether or not it is designated as Sensitive Lands, is integral to ensuring a livable community. ■ Natural resources are not evenly distributed in the City and they are dynamic. • Having a resource protection program is not a choice. As further explained below, the City is required to comply with Titles 3 and 13 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. ■ Lake Oswego's resource protection measures are not fundamentally different from those in other jurisdictions in the region. Like these other jurisdictions, the City is attempting to comply with the requirements of Titles 3 and 13 in its own unique way. ■ The City and this Task Force recognize the perceptions that the Sensitive Lands program is inequitably applied and administered, is overly restrictive, and is a burden to a limited number of property owners. The responsiveness of the City to those and other concerns is evidenced by this Second Look process. ■ In developing specific program revisions, the Planning Department should assess other similar programs in the region. Program Revisions 2 To respond to community concerns while meeting State, Metro and City Comprehensive Plan requirements for resource protection, the Task Force recommends that City should refine its Sensitive Lands program to: ■ Employ a combination of regulatory, voluntary and incentive measures; ■ Apply to both public and private lands; ■ Provide more flexibility to property owners than the current program; ■ Consider adopting portions of Metro's model code; and ■ Simplify/clarify code provisions and the permit application process. The City should also consider renaming the Sensitive Lands program and its components to reflect a proactive approach to resource protection and the balance in the above recommendation, e.g. habitat -friendly program. Moving Forward As the City moves forward with defining, protecting and restoring its natural resources, the Task Force believes that it is critical that: ■ The City lead by example, recognizing that "the city" means all citizens, not just the Planning Department and City Council. ■ Adequate funding be dedicated to resource protection and restoration, as well as associated public education and incentives. ■ A watershed -based approach be employed to holistically address streams, riparian vegetation and upland habitat as an integrated natural resource system and that links the City's multiple regulatory and voluntary programs. ■ Recognizing that the City is largely built out, flexibility be provided in the review of and application of code provisions to development within areas designated as sensitive lands. ■ Clearer, more user-friendly code provisions be developed. ■ Efforts to improve the City's customer service should be continually reinforced and supported. ■ Recognizing that Sensitive Lands are designated on less than 10% of the single family residential lots within the City, stewardship incentives be developed for Sensitive Lands property owners, including fee waivers. ■ Ongoing public education and outreach be provided about the values of the City's natural resources and the process/implications of their designation as sensitive lands. B. PROCESS Task Force Composition and Functioning The Second Look Task Force was appointed and a neutral facilitator contracted by the Director of Planning and Building Services in September 2009. Initially, seven members were appointed; the group's membership was expanded to nine following the first meeting in order to include additional Sensitive Lands property owners. All members are Lake Oswego residents. Task Force Membership Amin Wahab i Watershed manager and past member, Sustainability Advisory Board Andy Harris Principal, Harris Stream Services Cap Hedges Neighborhood association board member, sensitive lands owner Gregory McMurray Environmental consultant and marine scientist, sensitive lands owner Jim Johnson Land use planner and Planning Commission Member Ken Sandblast President, Planning Resources Inc. Nancy Gronowski Park planner and Natural Resources Advisory Board Member Tim Mather Builder and sensitive lands owner ¢ Todd Prager Arborist and planner Facilitator Jim Owens jPartner, Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC Ellie Fiore Senior Planner, Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC City Staff Support Donna Morgan Natural Resources Planner !I Natural Resources Planner (on maternitv leave for portion) The Task Force conducted its deliberations on an informal consensus basis. Of note to its functioning: ■ Procedural ground rules were adopted to ensure an open, respectful process. • Declarations of potential conflicts of interest were made at the beginning of each meeting. ■ While non-members attended all 17 Task Force meetings as observers, public comment was not solicited at these meetings in order to focus the discussions among group members. Rather, public involvement was provided through: o A well -attended public roundtable sponsored by the City Council at the kickoff of the process. o A "Public Check-in" open house attended by over 120 persons. o Written public comment was accepted throughout the process. (See Supporting Documentation) o All Task Force materials were available on the Department's web site throughout process. Three -Phased Process The Task Force's recommendations were developed through a three -phased process. Information Collection (September 2009 -January 2010) ■ Collection and presentation of background information on Statewide Planning Goals, Titles 3 and 13 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, City code, and other relevant materials. ■ Review of City regulatory and investment programs whose primary purpose is to improve local environmental quality. 4 ■ Overview of Title 13 program approaches in other jurisdictions in the region. ■ Presentations by City staff and consultants on the Clean Streams Plan, City water quality programs, and the Habitat Assessment Scoring (HAS) process. ■ Two presentations by Metro staff to provide an overview of Tiles 3 and 13 requirements and to respond to questions regarding compliance options. ■ Presentation by Citizens for Stewardship of Lake Oswego Lands. ■ Presentation by Clean Water Services staff on the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 program and Healthy Streams Plan. ■ Solicitation of information from Lake Oswego Corporation on management of water quality in Oswego Lake. 2. Organization and Vetting of Issues (January -February 2010) ■ Site visits to four properties with development constraints attributable to Sensitive Lands regulations and identification of issues that these sites raise. ■ Identification of key questions organized by issue area. ■ Conduct of a February 4 "Public Check-in" Open House designed to share the issues identified to date by the Work Group, identify any additional issues that the Working Group should consider, and identify how the issues identified can best be addressed. A modified World Cafe style open house format was used to obtain input on six topics, with questions on each. Task Force members solicited input on questions at each station; an exit questionnaire was also provided as an additional input opportunity. (See Supporting Documentation for a Summary Report). ■ Assessment of issues to focus on based on the input received. 3. Development of Recommendations (March 2010 -May 2010) ■ Identification of questions and considerations for developing recommendations by issue area. ■ Development of draft recommendations. ■ One-on-one interviews with Task Force members to identify outstanding issues and concerns. ■ Consensus agreement on draft recommendations. ■ Circulation of a final draft report for Task Force review/concurrence and preparation of this final report. C. CONTEXT The overall policy context for the City's Sensitive Lands program is illustrated in the diagram below and includes the Statewide Planning Goals (most notably Goal 5), Titles 3 and 13 from Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regulations to implement state, regional and local policy for the protection of sensitive natural resources in Lake Oswego are contained primarily in Section 50.16 of the Development Code. Based on review of this regulatory context and input from Metro and City staff, the Task Force identified the following as sideboards to its recommendations: 1. The City is in substantial compliance with Metro Title 3, though it has not received formal approval of its Title 3 compliance package. The City received an extension on the submittal of its Title 13 program in 2009 to enable the City, through the Second Look Task Force, to review and revise its sensitive lands program. 2. Title 3 does not prohibit development. Development is allowed even if the property is entirely within the resource area as long as the property owner follows the avoid, minimize, mitigate approach. This appears to be an area where the City could provide some flexibility in allowed uses. 3. It is not possible to have an entirely voluntary program and meet Metro requirements. Title 3's water quality program in particular has riparian area buffer requirements that could not be replaced by a voluntary program. 4. The City also could not comply with Title 3 by regulating only public property, as resource lands within the City are split approximately evenly between public and private lands. 5. All Title 13 programs in the region are based on regulation of riparian areas. All address a combination of public and private lands. 6. Although other City programs are relied upon in part to protect the City's sensitive resources, none of them are designed to specifically address tree groves, upland habitat and riparian habitat. These other programs in themselves would not achieve Titles 3/13 compliance. 7. The City's Sensitive Lands program is a map -based standard that prohibits or restricts development and uses within areas delineated as Sensitive Lands. In Resource Protection (RP) Districts, a 30-40 foot buffer is applied around delineated resources (wetlands and stream corridors). In Resource Conservation (RC) Districts, vegetation removal and development is limited to a maximum of 50% of delineated tree groves. Under current standards, 50% of the area under the tree canopy must be preserved as a natural area. 8. Through its Comprehensive plan, the City has determined that tree protection is a priority. The City's tree code has been in place since the 1970s. The Tree Code addresses one tree at a time; the Sensitive Lands Code addresses tree groves. 9. A breakdown of the distribution of Sensitive Lands is provided in Appendix A; a map of Sensitive lands is included in that report. Key data from that report includes: ■ Approximately 15% (950 acres) of land within the City is mapped as Sensitive Lands. ■ Mapped Sensitive Lands are relatively evenly split between public lands (54%) and private lands (46%). • The 438 acres of private properties with mapped Sensitive Lands represent 6.8% of the total land in the City. I u W Q n D CD 3 o 3 nm 3 CD ID a :3 CD 7 0 7 V O 7 N p O N d 7 D (D �+ o� o 7 N __� (� ? Qi N D o o CD c w f CD d O N n oma m N 7N m ^► N m (D < Ca 00 � d � (2 CD 7 (D N O H °i N ; ; c CD #= N CD �. m 0 m y = c C (D m O O dN� iu V D) 7 N T � N < :3 CD4. G O 7 N N y O. oo.= y�yCD ct, D'o 3 3 7 N -0 N " 7 -11 3 F 3 n m v CCD Z a T) CD CDN U) G7 �. d � �o 5D (n D CD r7C3 v a) n Q SD Cn 0 CD 7 0 CD 91) 0 m X rF O 0 0 Q r- 0 0 T� 0 0 O no r O < o<CD a ID � � a o CD CDCD ((D n N N m CD m � BN 0 r = m N � � ( Q m Q � �CD __ O CD N n (1J p .• O 00 N CL (D (A r ° N a °o =3 D CD CD a D (D v Q 00 N O CD (C CL N u W Q n D CD 3 o 3 nm 3 CD ID a :3 CD 7 0 7 V O 7 N p O N d 7 D (D �+ o� o 7 N __� (� ? Qi N D o o CD c w f CD d O N n oma m N 7N m ^► N m (D < Ca 00 � d � (2 CD 7 (D N O H °i N ; ; c CD #= N CD �. m 0 m y = c C (D m O O dN� iu V D) 7 N T � N < :3 CD4. G O 7 N N y O. oo.= y�yCD ct, D'o 3 3 7 N -0 N " 7 -11 3 F 3 n m v CCD Z a T) CD CDN U) G7 �. d � �o 5D (n D CD r7C3 v a) n Q SD Cn 0 CD 7 0 CD 91) 0 m X rF O 0 0 Q r- 0 0 T� 0 0 D. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations were developed by the Task Force in five key issue areas, which were in turn organized around questions about the Sensitive Lands program identified through the group's deliberations and public input. Several of the key issue areas have a number of sub -issues. For example, there are seven sub -issues under the topic of Designating Sensitive Lands. Considerations leading to the group's recommendations are identified for each issue. In total, the Task Force developed 63 recommendations for refinements to the existing Sensitive Lands program generally intended to provide more flexibility to property owners, simplify/clarify code provisions and the permit application process, and increase public awareness. 1. LEADING BY EXAMPLE Considerations 1. The City should lead by example in the maintenance and restoration of City -owned lands. 2. Greater resource protection measures should be applied to public lands. 3. A plan is needed for active management of the City's urban forest, including tree planting on public lands and rights-of-way. 4. English ivy runs rampant in many Lake Oswego tree groves, including on both private property (e.g., the north side of South Shore Drive) and in public parks. The City should invest in a serious program to address control and removal of invasive species on public lands. 5. There is currently limited City funding for natural resource education, incentives, and management. Funding these types of activities will improve natural resource quality, especially if programs are targeted towards Sensitive Lands. Recommendations 1. Create and budget for a city program for the long-term maintenance of Sensitive Lands in city parks and public open space. 2. Create, budget for, and implement a program to provide support and incentives for the long-term maintenance of Sensitive Lands on private property and designated private open space. 3. Identify priority restoration needs and target funding to these priorities, both on a short and long-term basis. 2. DESIGNATING SENSITIVE LANDS A. PROCESS TO DESIGNATE SENSITIVE LANDS Questions Addressed • Should the City continue using the Habitat Assessment Score (HAS) system for determining resources to protect? If not, what is a preferred approach? Can the HAS system be modified to provide more flexibility? Is more accurate mapping needed for the designation of resources and delineation of resource boundaries, e.g., defining and protecting contiguous tree grove canopy? Does the current system erroneously designate "ditches" and other man-made irrigation and drainage channels as sensitive lands? Should properties outside the City's boundary be inventoried and mapped as sensitive lands? Issue 1: Use of HAS system to assess resource values. Considerations 1. HAS (Habitat Assessment Scoring) is the most commonly used approach by jurisdictions in the region to inventory significant natural resources. HAS ratings determine whether a property is considered significant. For properties that are determined to be significant, the City must conduct an ESEE (environment, economic, social and energy consequences) analysis, through which the City chooses to protect or not protect identified resources. The HAS rating by itself does not determine designation as sensitive lands. 2. HAS scoring is not property -specific; it is resource -specific. The HAS is intentionally applied to biological systems such as tree groves and stream segments, not to individual tax lots, in order to assess the significance of the resource rather than a portion of a resource on a tax lot. Because elements of the HAS score relate to the size and connectivity of a resource, scoring properties tax lot by tax lot would not be accurate. 3. It is likely that there will be little difference in terms of resources designated under alternative approaches. The primary complaint heard is that HAS system does not address water quality or other natural functions performed by resources. 4. Metro uses remote sensing (data from aerial flyovers) and computer programs to prepare their natural resource inventories rather than a HAS system. The City's GIS mapping generally provides better site-specific data than Metro's remote sensing mapping. 5. HAS scores can be adjusted by the Planning Commission based upon alternative information submitted. Recommendations The City should continue using the Habitat Assessment Score (HAS) system for determining resources to protect. In the longer term, consider adoption of an alternative system if one is demonstrated to be more accurate and easier to administer. Issue 2: More accurate mapping for the designation of resources and delineation of resource boundaries, e.g., defining and protecting contiguous tree grove canopy. Considerations 1. Designation and delineation are separate processes and this often causes confusion. The designation process precedes delineation; delineation is only concerned with resource boundaries. C9 2. The current mapping and Sensitive Lands program protect resources at the property lot level rather than as resource units. Resource boundaries are designated property by property and not as intact units. Delineation is done within property lines/tax lots. 3. Approximate edges of resource areas (boundaries) are defined on maps. The general nature of these mapped boundaries can lead to confusion on the specific on - the -ground location of resources. 4. The application process requires a delineation when development (including tree removal) is proposed within a mapped resource or buffer. Property owners may request a resource delineation by City staff. 5. For stream corridors, the City relies on a visual standard defined by change in slope. A buffer and construction setback is added to this area. Currently, the buffer areas are not mapped though the City generally expects a landowner to protect the buffer. The most recent code update requires mapping buffers, although the implementation of this code has been delayed pending results of the Second Look process. 6. A field meets and bounds survey would better define boundaries but is cost prohibitive to conduct for the whole city. Field surveys are required as part of a development application. 7. The City's mapped tree groves are not well-defined -- the Task Force referred to them as the "green blobs on the map." To better define these areas would entail surveys and delineation. 8. RC district delineation involves survey of the drip -lines of contiguous tree groves. Native and non-native trees are included in the delineation as long as they are contiguous. 9. To more accurately define sensitive lands, the City could exempt non-native trees that may be contiguous to sensitive tree groves. 10. Providing property owners the opportunity to submit plans for resource stewardship on their land would create flexibility. Recommendations 1. To provide more specific resource designation, review/refine mapped tree grove "green blobs" on an ongoing basis. 2. In delineating tree groves as Sensitive Lands, exclude non-native trees in cases where they do not contribute to the resource value of the tree stands, e.g. non-native species on the edge of native tree stands, or do not have value on their own, e.g. heritage trees. Issue 3: Confusion about whether "ditches" and other man-made irrigation and drainage channels are, in some cases, designated as sensitive lands. Considerations 1. There is general confusion about this issue and what is being referred to, in part because the City code has no definition of ditches; Section 50.16 only defines "drainage way." 2. Based upon definitions of ditch used by Clean Water Services and the Oregon Department of State Lands, the City is not protecting ditches or other man-made drainage channels. 3. Goal 5 excludes any man-made irrigation and drainage channels from resource protection requirements. 10 4. Staff is not aware of any man-made irrigation or drainage channels that are regulated under the Sensitive Lands code. These features would generally not achieve a qualifying HAS score. Some natural stream channels that have been straightened or that accept some piped runoff are regulated; these could be mistaken for "man- made" channels. 5. In developing a watershed -based approach to resource management, ditches and channels should be viewed from a functional perspective, e.g. slowing down water and improving water quality. 6. The City can lead by example in upgrading/improving ditches under its ownership. Recommendations 1. Include the Oregon Department of State Lands definition of ditches in the City Development Code and specifically indicate that it is not the City's intent to regulate such under the Sensitive Lands program. 2. Re-evaluate specific areas where there may be questions about the designation of man-made irrigation and drainage channels as Sensitive Lands. Issue 4: Inventorying and mapping properties outside the City's boundary as Sensitive Lands. Considerations 1. The City has no jurisdiction outside its boundaries, but needs to collect information on natural resources within its urban services boundary. 2. While there is no need to adopt an inventory for areas outside of City limits for purposes of Title 3/13 compliance, there is value in advising property owners of potential resources that will be subject to the Sensitive Lands program upon annexation. Mechanisms to inform and educate property owners should be explored. Recommendations 1. Continue the mapping process for sensitive lands outside the City's boundary as resources are available. 2. Develop informational materials for property owners within areas likely to be annexed within short and medium-term timeframes to inform them of the City's Sensitive Lands program and to advise them of its annexation policy regarding loss of known resources. B. MODIFICATIONS TO SENSITIVE LANDS MAP (ADDING OR SUBTRACTING RESOURCE AREAS) Questions Addressed ■ Should the City's sensitive lands map be revised to reflect all resources designated on Metro's maps as having environmental significance? • Are there resources that the City should inventory or re -inventory and designate as sensitive lands? Examples include: a) Oswego Lake and canals; b) Tualatin and Willamette rivers; c) First Addition, Foothills, areas in LORA plan; and d) City parks such as Foothills and Millennium. • Are there gaps in the current inventory and designation of resources in terms of protecting stream systems as connected systems, e.g. headwaters? Issue 5: Revising the City's sensitive lands map to reflect all resources designated on Metro's maps as having environmental significance Considerations 1. The City's Sensitive Lands map depicts known resources, not simply delineated resources. 2. The City has been advised that its Sensitive Lands map is in substantial compliance with Metro's Title 3 Water Quality Map. While there are some differences based primarily on different data sources, the City's map is also expected to be in substantial compliance with Metro's Title 13 map. 3. Approximately 150 1 B sites have been identified as potential significant resource areas based on remote -sensing but have had no on -the ground (HAS scoring) or ESEE (environmental, economic, social and energy consequences) analyses. 4. Mapping of resources in all jurisdictions is an ongoing process, as land use is not static. The inventory and mapping of sensitive lands should be continually updated to reflect changing conditions and new information. Resources may need to be added or deleted from the maps. Generally and where feasible given staffing resource constraints, such updating will occur as part of a Comprehensive Plan update (with standard due process and public notice). Recommendations 1. Except in response to specific property owner requests that merit changes, the existing map should continue to be utilized without modifications. There are no specific additions or deletions to the existing Sensitive Lands map recommended at this time. 2. Complete key development code revisions before adding any additional resources to the inventory and map, including 1 B sites. 3. In completing future mapping for 1 B sites, apply the same methodologies as were used for currently mapped sites (HAS scoring, ESEE analyses and resource protection determinations, with due process notice and hearing required.). Issue 6: Resources identified through public comment as needing to be inventoried or re -inventoried and designated as sensitive lands a) Oswego Lake and canals Considerations 1. Oswego Lake has not been designated by Metro as a significant resource; this is true for other large water bodies in the Metro region such as Columbia Slough and Blue Lake. 2. Metro staff stated that from the Title 3 vantage point, Oswego Lake's primary function is that of flood storage and flood control; the Title 3 and 13 focus is on streams and water courses that drain into the lake. 12 2. Development on the lake (water body) is not currently considered to be a "land use" action. 3. The Sensitive Lands protection program is a land use program and thus not the appropriate or best vehicle to address Oswego Lake water quality issues. 4. Comprehensive Plan policies recommend considering Oswego Lake eligible for protection as sensitive lands and require development within and adjacent to Oswego Lake to protect natural and scenic resources. 5. It remains unclear to the Task Force how jurisdiction is distributed and exercised among the City, Lake Corporation and state regulatory agencies over the water quality of the Lake and development in the Lake (cut, fill, boat docks, boat houses, building foundations, sewer lines, bridges, etc.). 6. While Metro does not require protection of Oswego Lake as part of the City's Title 13 compliance package, Lake Oswego has a history of going above and beyond the "minimum requirements" and that is what makes the community such a great place to live. Recommendations 1. Encourage the Lake Corporation and City to cooperatively engage in a comprehensive and coordinated watershed -based approach to water quality. 2. During the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, assess designation of Oswego Lake as a Goal 5 resource and whether land use and zoning regulations should be applied to development in the Lake to protect its natural resource and other Goal 5 functions. 3. To provide more transparency, regularly inform the public about water quality in the lake and provide public education about how the public can help improve it. b) Tualatin and Willamette Rivers Considerations 1. Resource lands along the Willamette River are adequately protected though Statewide Planning Goal 15 and local greenway restrictions. Greenway Overlay Standards limit development within 150' of the 50 -year flood elevation along the river and generally prohibit new residential development. 2. Resource protection measures along the Tualatin River fall within the jurisdictions adjacent to the river. There are five properties along the Tualatin River east of Oswego Canal which have RP designations. Three are in the City, while two are still in the County. Of the three properties in the City, two are City parks (set aside as part of River Run I and II planned developments) and one is a private home site. Recommendations 1. Continue to rely upon Willamette River Greenway provisions to protect resource lands along the Willamette River and existing RP designations to protect resource lands along the Tualatin River. 2. Assess whether resource lands along the Willamette River are adequately protected through Greenway provisions or whether they can be better protected with Sensitive Lands provisions. 13 c) Existing City parks and other areas identified through the public comment process, such as First Addition, Foothills, areas in LORA plan. C;nnsirlPratinns 1. Existing City parks are either designated as Sensitive Lands or do not qualify as such due to the nature of their development, e.g. landscaping, impervious surfaces and recreational facilities. The City owns about 400 acres of natural park areas. 2. Not all City -owned areas qualify for designation as sensitive lands. 3. In developing new parks and open spaces, it is standard operating procedure to consider how best to balance recreational needs with resource protection and designation.. Issue 7: Gaps in the current inventory and designation of resources in terms of protecting stream systems as connected systems, e.g. headwaters. Considerations 1. Small streams, wetlands, and headwater swales are all integral to a properly functioning riparian system. Headwater swales (upstream of defined stream channels) and upland buffers provide water quality and runoff attenuation functions. Protection of headwater functions would have a measurable positive impact on riparian (stream) systems. 2. In Title 3, intermittent streams that drained less than 50 acres are not identified as secondary protected water features. One of the main differences between Title 3 and Title 13 is that while Title 13 provides protection to intermittent streams, Title 3 does not. Title 13 does not include a drained acreage limitation. 3. While there were assertions of such in public comments, there is no specific evidence of intermittent streams and roadside ditches being inappropriately mapped as Sensitive Lands. 4. While no specific gaps in stream systems have been identified as part of this review process, opportunities to daylight sections of streams that have been placed into culverts, paved or otherwise modified should be explored through voluntary actions or through land use incentives, e.g. density bonuses. Recommendations 1. Begin the process to develop and implement a watershed -based approach that holistically addresses streams, riparian vegetation and upland habitat as an integrated natural resource system and that links the City's multiple regulatory and voluntary programs. 2. Seek assistance from watershed councils in identifying any gaps in the current inventory and designation of stream systems as Sensitive Lands and, as part of periodic review, develop appropriate approaches to address such. 3. Investigate a program for voluntary action for daylighting of stream sections that have been placed into culverts, paved or otherwise modified, particularly in association with major developments. Investigate the feasibility of providing incentives such as density bonuses to encourage daylighting. 14 3. PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY IN THE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT DESIGNATED RESOURCES Questions Addressed ■ How can resource and buffer boundaries be better defined? • Should a two-tiered development review system offering a combination of clear and objective and discretionary standards be pursued? • Should the City consider adopting a net environmental benefit approach to development? If so, what factors should the City consider in determining net environmental benefit and corresponding allowances for property owners? ■ What role should mitigation play in providing flexibility to modify or expand existing homes? What types of mitigation should be considered? ■ What incentives should be provided for voluntary resource protection measures such as ivy removal? • Should credit be given for mitigation undertaken prior to submittal or approval of a land use application? A. PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY IN THE APPLICATION OF PROTECTION MEASURES Considerations 1. Public input indicates that more flexibility is desired in terms of fences, play structures, patios, lights, building height, gardening (particularly at the edges of upland tree groves), and very minor development and benign activities (de minimis). 2. Other Metro area cities provide flexibility for property owners by allowing impact areas of a certain size and not regulating all uses or actions within those areas. 3. Title 13 does not require buffers; Title 3 does. Buffer requirements are based on the scientific literature. These were reviewed and approved through a public process. 4. The City's riparian buffers are smaller than those in Metro's Model Code and those in most other jurisdictions in the region, however, its regulations for those buffers are generally more stringent and complicated. 5. It is unclear to the Task Force how buffer averaging is calculated. & The City has adequate mapping to apply a tiered buffer system. With a tiered system, there may be a need to apply larger buffers to larger water bodies in order to ensure a positive net environmental effect. 7. Retroactively applying larger buffers could trigger Measure 49 claims. Effects (e.g., reduction on property values) could be claimed with either larger or smaller buffers. 8. Trees are the backbone of the City's natural resources regardless of whether they are located in sensitive lands. They help manage stormwater quality and quantity, prevent erosion, provide bird and wildlife habitat, improve air quality, and are a scenic resource. 9. The Planning department indicates that it expects that the vast majority (75%+) of permit applications for Sensitive Lands will be for remodels or additions 10. More flexibility could be provided with tree groves than with riparian areas. De minimis encroachments into the outer portion of tree grove canopy would not be expected to adversely impact the health of trees. 11. Metro Model Code provisions provide examples of flexible provisions that could be tailored to Lake Oswego's situation. 15 12. The City of Portland's conservation protections have some upland protection. That program may be the most comparable to Lake Oswego's. Other cities have focused on a combination of riparian area protections and some tree protections. 13. In urban environments, a more active role is required in forest management activities to reduce overstocking of trees, reduce fire risk, manage pests and diseases, increase light for understory, assist with forest succession, etc. 14. Some of the attendees at the February 4 Open House expressed frustration that they are unable to implement forest restoration plans which would require large-scale thinning. . 15. The process and cost of applying for tree removal permits for forest thinning operations and for removal of invasive plants are barriers to natural resource stewardship. Recommendation Maintain existing riparian buffers and tree grove protections through RP and RC overlay districts that establish stream, wetland and riparian area buffers and limit vegetation removal and development to 50% of significant tree groves. At the same time, provide flexibility in the application of resource protection standards to permit limited development and uses that do not adversely affect or minimize impacts to resource values. To improve flexibility in applying these standards: Construction Setback 1. Address confusion about the 10 -foot construction setback required by Section 50.16.070 being a buffer on a buffer. If the intent of the setback is for construction purposes, then it should be considered temporary and rescinded following completion of construction. Optional Development Review Processes 2. Adopt a two-tiered review system that allows applicants to apply for development permits using either (1) quantitative, clear -and -objective standards (safe harbor approach), or (2) alternative discretionary development standards which offer flexibility, but are more likely to result in compromise or negotiated approvals. Applicants would need to be advised that the discretionary review process could be more expensive than a safe harbor approach and would need to be conducted within an avoid, minimize, mitigate hierarchy as a review standard. Safe Harbor Approach 3. Adopt clear and objective standards modeled after those in the Metro Model Ordinances for Titles 3 and 13. 4. Adopt a definition of "development" and permit outright the uses identified in Metro's Title 3 Model Ordinance (Exhibit C, p.65) and Title 13 Model Ordinance (Exhibit E, p. 132). 5. Adopt a definition of "disturbance area" and a de minimis standard for disturbance within buffers. Options to consider: • As defined in Metro's Title 13 Model Ordinance (Exhibit E, p. 133). • Different thresholds for varying levels of development: o Less than a certain disturbance area, e.g. 200 sq.ft. -- encroachments are permitted outright 0 o Between 200 to 500 sq. ft. - encroachments must be accompanied by commensurate mitigation o More than 500 sq ft -- a de mininis encroachment standard would not apply Discretionary Review Process 6. Investigate elements of a discretionary review process as described in the Metro Model Code (Exhibit E, page 145) and utilized by other jurisdictions in the region that would be appropriate to Lake Oswego. The process should enable a property owner to submit a plan for discretionary review that would allow flexibility in the application of regulations while avoiding significant adverse effects to Sensitive Lands resources. The discretionary review process should include standards for avoiding and minimizing environmental impacts before allowing for mitigation. 7. Develop guidelines on the types of mitigation required based on the Metro Model Ordinances and programs used by other jurisdictions in the region. 8. Create a separate permit type for resource enhancement activities and restoration projects, e.g. tree thinning, in RC and RP zones that is a discretionary review Exemptions from Tree Removal Permitting 9. Update the City's invasive plant list to include a complete listing of invasive tree species; exempt these non-native species from tree removal permit requirements. B. APPLYING A NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT APPROACH TO MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Considerations 1. A net environmental benefit approach would allow greater flexibility for landowners. Such an approach will involve subjective judgments and the exercise of discretion by staff and negotiations between staff and property owners. The factors for determining net environmental benefit will need to be defined (see tree grove standards in Section 50.16 as an example). 2. Applicants should be required to demonstrate that a range of alternatives has been considered. 3. Applicants would need to understand that a net environmental benefit review process could entail greater costs than a safe harbor approach due to costs for resource expert analyses and the level of staff review and consequent fees. 4. When mitigation is proposed in such a process, mitigation plans, rather than voluntary mitigation, should be required. One-time mitigation efforts do not work very well and do not provide net environmental benefits. 5. Landowners can feel penalized for restoration work because it can lead to higher HAS scores. Landowners can also feel penalized for restoration work conducted prior to submitting a development application because they do not get "credit" for that work in the context of the current development review process. These efforts could be acknowledged in the net environmental benefit review process. 17 Recommendations 1. Investigate examples (e.g. Portland and Oregon City) and the mechanics of a net environmental benefit approach that provide a process that would allow a property owner to submit a plan for discretionary review that seeks flexibility in the application of regulations in return for enhanced resource protection and/or mitigation that results in a net environmental benefit. 2. Include minimum requirements for maintenance standards or ongoing mitigation programs. Avoid one-time mitigation measures. Consider enforcement and monitoring challenges. 3. A net environmental benefit approach should be structured to: • Identify and clearly define the functions performed by resource area (stream, wetland, buffer, upland). (See Appendix B on natural resource functions) • Assess the condition of the resource. Is it functioning properly? Quantify the findings. • Quantify the impacts of a proposed land use action. (i.e. impervious area, shade reduction, direct hydrologic connections, etc.) ■ Identify measures that would avoid or minimize these impacts. • Identify the mitigation measure that could be taken to enhance the resource. • Ensure that the net result is a more properly functioning resource. 4. Tailor Metro model code mitigation provisions to Lake Oswego, ensuring that they are readily understandable and easily administered. C. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION Considerations 1. Currently, there are no incentives or available for restoration activities or removal of invasive species from Sensitive Lands properties. 2. Voluntary removal of non-native species without a permit should be recognized as a positive action versus penalized, as is the current case. 3. OSU is launching a new Oregon Master Naturalist Program to teach citizens about a broad range of natural processes and resource management techniques in exchange for volunteer service. Recommendations 1. Investigate the City of Beaverton's resource protection credits program, including types of credit and how mitigation can be quantified for purposes of credits. 2. Provide credit for mitigation undertaken prior to submittal or approval of a land use application, 3. Provide resource information to volunteers and property owners for removal of vegetative invasive species and restoration projects. 4. Consider providing disposal support to volunteers and property owners in conjunction with vegetative invasive species removal 5. Provide assistance to Sensitive Lands property owners in securing conservation easements. 6. Provide public recognition for exemplary resource stewardship, e.g. "Habitat Friendly Excellence" awards. 18 7. Consider providing flexibility to property owners certified as Master Naturalists when submitting applications for permits for undertaking resource management projects, e.g. tree thinning, that allows the property owners to avoid the cost of hiring a professional arborists or resource experts. 8. Foster volunteer service by certified Master Naturalists on Sensitive Lands. D. APPLYING REASONABLE STANDARDS TO HIGHLY CONSTRAINED LOTS Issue 1: Applying an avoid—minimize-mitigate standard to development of highly constrained lots. Issue 2: Applying a reasonable development standard to totally encumbered lots. Considerations 1. There are an estimated 143 highly constrained lots (more than 50% of the lot is subject to development restrictions) and 50-75 totally encumbered lots out of a total of approximately 15,000 lots single family lots within the City (of which approximately 1,500 are designated as Sensitive Lands). 2. The current "largest -house -allowed -on -the -smallest -lot -in -the -zone" standard is considered by some to be arbitrary and may have no relationship to the protection of resources. 3. A function -based (net -benefit) standard would allow a more thoughtful consideration of site design, mitigation of impacts with the use of low impact development methods, and mitigation through site-specific enhancement approaches. 4. Other cities provide for discretionary review with clear criteria. For example, the City of West Linn provides for a maximum disturbance area of 5,000 square feet on totally encumbered lots that allows the landowner to allocate space between structures, decks, driveways, dwelling units, etc. Oregon City allows up to 2,500 square feet of disturbance on larger residential lots and up to 25% of lot area for small residential lots and non-residential lots. Recommendations 1. Given the limited number of properties that are highly or fully constrained, retain the current "largest -house -allowed -on -the -smallest -lot -in -the -zone" standard with the option for discretionary review to provide flexibility when it can be demonstrated that there will be less impact on resource values. Elements of flexibility to investigate include: • Allow for additional building height to offset buffer restrictions where neighboring properties are not adversely affected. ■ Make allowances for mitigation such as easements for public access to trails or other features. ■ Provide an exception to the single home limitation when resource protection is determined to be better served by more than one dwelling. 2. Develop a program to purchase totally encumbered lots with significant resource value. 19 4. IMPROVING THE PERMITTING PROCESS BY MAKING IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND NAVIGATE AND MORE AFFORDABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AND LANDOWNERS Questions Addressed ■ How can the City make the process easier to understand and navigate for developers and landowners? ■ How can the permit application process be simplified? ■ Are adjustments to the existing appeal process needed? ■ How can the cost of the process be reduced? Considerations 1. There is a negative perception voiced by some citizens that not all property owners receive fair and equitable treatment from the Planning Department when addressing Sensitive Lands issues. 2. Lake Oswego is asserted to be a very difficult jurisdiction to work with an inordinately expensive development review process. However, every city in the region is accused by its citizens of being arbitrary, inflexible and non-responsive. For example, it has long been asserted by the development community that Portland is the most difficult jurisdiction in the region to work with. As a fee -financed program, the City's development review costs have not been shown to be out of line with others in the region. 3. The City is currently conducting a comprehensive audit of its community development code with the longer term goal of producing a development code that is easier to understand and simpler to navigate. 4. In delineating resource boundaries, if there is a disagreement with staff's delineation, a property owner must apply for a code amendment to remove or modify the Sensitive Lands designation ($8,000 application fee) or delay development until the next update of the City's Sensitive Lands map. 5. The Planning Commission operates as a citizen review (appeals) board. Recommendations 1. Explore the feasibility, including costs, of establishing an ombudsman position to assist property owners and developers in navigating the permitting process and accessing incentives for resource protection and restoration. 2. Develop a guidance manual for habitat friendly development practices (per the City of Beaverton). 3. In responding to the Code Audit project currently underway, consider providing a concise statement of code purpose and effect at the outset of code (per Oregon City code); providing better organization to the code; and using plain language. 4. Investigate revising Code definitions to be more customer -friendly, e.g. changing RC and RP overlays to habitat benefit areas, land use regulations to best management practices. 5. Provide customer service training on an ongoing basis to Department staff. 6. At least every five years, offer a free arborist review to property owners with designated tree groves to assist in assessing tree grove health and recommending best practices. 20 7. Provide periodic site visits to refine mapped tree grove boundaries. 8. In lieu of hiring surveyors, encourage the County to property owners to use GPS technology to delineate boundaries in RC zones. 9. Better advertise the services that the Planning Department provides to development applicants. 10. Conduct periodic informational workshops on the Sensitive Lands program tailored to realtors and developers. 11. Investigate establishment of a review process to resolve differences in delineation of Sensitive Lands that is generally modeled after the City of Portland process. 12. In acknowledgement of the resource protection benefits that their properties provide to the City as a whole, investigate opportunities for fee reductions and waivers for property owners with designated Sensitive Lands. Examples include: • Increase utility and utility access fees, e.g. $3/household, and dedicate those savings to public outreach and resource restoration projects. ■ Waive fees for resource delineation. ■ Reduce costs of pre -applications and applications. • Reimbursement of appeal fees for successful appeals of delineations. 5. INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS BY PROVIDING BENEFICIAL PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS, DEVELOPERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC uestions Addressed What types of public education are recommended? What type of property owner education and outreach would be beneficial? Should the City promote use of disclosure statements for transfers of property to advise new owners of the existence of sensitive lands and requirements for resource protection and maintenance? Considerations 1. Public education efforts need to address a broader range of resource issues than Sensitive Lands regulations as they are only one component of the City's land use and natural resource programs. 2. The City currently offers a variety of public education opportunities, including Landscaping for Conservation workshops, Community Forestry classes, and has partnered with the Friends of Tryon Creek in offering backyard nature friendly audits. 3. When a property owner chooses to develop property with a mapped tree grove (RC), he or she must designate 50% for protection. The Code requires that the property owner record a "Notice of Development Restriction" with the County so that prospective purchasers can be made aware of which portion of the tree grove is selected for protection. By practice, the City has also required recording of RP zone boundaries when viewed as important information for property owners, particularly in anticipation of the transfer of property. Although not required by Metro for Title 3 or 13 compliance, several cities in the region, e.g. Tigard, Wilsonville, Oregon City, have similar disclosure requirements. Since 2003, this requirement has been applied to 62 properties. 21 Recommendations 1. Provide ongoing public education about the values of stream corridors, riparian areas, tree groves and other natural resources in the City and why they are being protected. Produce a regular series of newspaper and newsletter articles on habitat friendly practices. 2. Conduct periodic informational mailings to all Sensitive Lands property owners. Include information on the package of services offered by the City, including information on tax relief that may be available for conserving natural resources, if known and if available. 3. Continue to provide free landscaping for conservation workshops and in- home consultations on landscape improvements. 4. Continue to provide tree care workshops through the Community Forestry Program. 5. Identify sustainable sources of funding for public education programs. 6. Promote use of disclosure statements for transfers of property to advise new owners of the existence of Sensitive Lands and requirements for resource protection and maintenance. 7. Conduct targeted mailings to new property owners to advise them of potential Sensitive Lands restrictions and services offered by the City. COMPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS During the Task Force process, considerations and recommendations related to noxious vegetation (e.g., ivy) control were identified. These relate to all properties in the City, not just Sensitive Lands, and are attached as complementary recommendations. A. Establishing minimum maintenance requirements to limit the growth of plants identified on the City's noxious weed list Considerations 1. English ivy runs rampant in many Lake Oswego tree groves, including both on private property (e.g., the north side of South Shore Drive) and in public parks. Lake Oswego is reported to have much more of an ivy problem than other communities in the region. 2. Over time, invasive plants and ivy specifically can eliminate trees and tree groves in the following ways: • Limit air circulation, increasing tree susceptibility to disease. • Increase load and wind sail effect on mature trees and can result in branch and whole tree failure. ■ As ivy reaches the crown of trees, it set seeds which are eaten by birds and spread to new areas. Ivy leaves in tree crowns outcompete host tree leaves, which leads to tree decline and death. When the forest floor is covered with ivy, tree seedlings are suppressed. Therefore when mature tree canopy fails due to ivy, tree grove regeneration is suppressed. Based on these factors, allowing a tree or tree grove to decline or die by choosing not to limit vining invasive or ivy growth could be considered comparable to actively 22 removing trees or tree groves. Alternatively, it could be seen as expanding a non- conforming landscape situation. 3. Lake Oswego's State of the Urban Forest Report (2009) contained a detailed inventory of the City's street trees (trees in the public right-of-way), and found that the greatest threat to the heath of the street trees was English ivy. This vining invasive was found on over 35% of street trees. This problem is likely as or more prevalent on private property trees. 4. Tree removal permits are required for tree removal whether or not they are in an RC or RP district. Requiring tree removal permits for invasive plants is a barrier to natural resource stewardship. 5. There should be minimum maintenance requirements to limit the growth of vining plants identified on the City's noxious weed list into the canopies of protected trees. This language could rest in the Tree Code and thus apply to all of Lake Oswego's trees (regardless of whether the trees happen to be in a tree grove or stream buffer). Recommendations 1. Update the City's invasive plant list, and include a complete listing of invasive tree species. 2. Exempt from tree removal permit requirements those trees identified on the invasive plant list. Apply this exemption to all properties within the City (not just Sensitive Lands). 3. Even though exempt from permit requirements, require property owners to retain proof of exemption (photo of invasive trees/written documentation from an arborist, landscape architect, forester, or other natural resource professional) for up to one year following removal. This is intended to protect property owners from uninformed complaints. 4. In consultation with NPAB, the City should develop a voluntary or incentive program for removal of ivy and other invasive species from private property. 5. For city -owned properties, the City should develop an aggressive program for removal of ivy and other invasive species that "leads by example". 6. Include requirements for minimum tree/ivy maintenance in the Tree Code. B. Prioritizing code enforcement against noxious vegetation Considerations 1. Prioritization of enforcement of existing code provisions is needed, as it is practically impossible to enforce the code's prohibition against all noxious vegetation. This prioritization would clearly demonstrate that the community is committed to protecting its community forests (whether or not in sensitive lands) from noxious vegetation. It would also show that this type of vegetation control is more important than not mowing lawns and letting grass grow over 10 inches (which is a good thing in many cases for wildlife). Recommendations Either as code or City policy, consider prioritizing enforcement actions against noxious vegetation. 23 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION To be assembled by the Planning Department and include: ■ Appendix A: Sensitive Lands Data Summary (April 2008) ■ Appendix B: Sensitive Land Functions prepared Andrew Harris (November 2009), ■ Task Force meeting summaries ■ Staff reports provided to the Task Force ■ Metro and Lake Oswego Corporation responses to Task Force questions ■ Presentation materials, e.g. PowerPoint presentation to the Task Force by Citizens for Stewardship of Land Oswego Lands ■ Open house summary ■ Public comments received 24 Sensitive Land Thoughts July 2, 2010 Bill Tierney ➢ What I want to see? o Comprehensive approach o Land Use is but one component o Involves all citizens o Results oriented with goals and measurements ➢ Key elements of Comprehensive Approach o Surface water o Sensitive Lands o Eliminate phosphate based products o Tree Code o Previous and New Purchases of Open Space o Leading by example o Watershed Approach o Habitat Friendly Building Code ➢ Watershed Approach o Everything is focused on watershed o City institutionalize concept by reorganizing ■ All Activities that impact watershed except planning grouped together • Surface water • Street Maintenance • Park and Open Space Maintenance o City's mission to improve watershed ■ Specific projects • Example Springbrook Creek Restoration • Example eliminate culverts forcing water into stream ■ Day to day activities ■ Targets with measurable results • Education o Establish partnerships ■ Lake Corp ■ Watershed Council o Funding ■ Existing budgets ■ Natural Resource Protection versus Streets • Do we have the right balance? • Reduce street fund increase surface water • Shift GF money ■ Increase surface water fee o How does this help with Metro Compliance ■ Clean Water (Washington County) Model ■ Real stuff or regulation? ➢ Lead by Example Recommendations o Invasive species removal "no brainer" o Council has ability to implement now ➢ Regulation o Necessary to protect from bad actor and meet Metro Compliance o Need to "friendly up" both the Code language and Staff's implementation o Voluntary Agreements on less sensitive lands in lieu of code o Designating SL, adding subtracting ■ Classify by importance of resource; not one size fits all ■ Periodic updates at best ■ Re-evaluate any land per request, engage in dialog and bend a little ■ Bring ESEE analysis more to front, define economic and social ■ Increase the HAS score to determine SL ■ Have equitable appeals process • Create new entity with expertise and balanced with people who can objectively assess property o Planning and Council do not have expertise • Too much of burden on homeowner currently, shift to middle ground • Battling experts are costly and appear to end up with City winning • Some evidence of Can't fight City Hall, one should be able to when all parties have open mind ■ Use watershed approach to remove tangential uplands not directly linked or of less significance ■ Do not include 1B lands unless fit within watershed approach with high HAS score o Don't spend money to inventory outside city ■ Unintended consequences such a denuding land ■ Provide Metro maps to increase awareness ■ Spend money to do something real within city o Partner with Lake Corp ■ They have a keen self-interest in protecting Lake ■ Recommendations on Lake, Canal and Willamette are paternal • lam not convinced we can do abetter "comprehensive" job than others o Flexibility ■ Generally agree with all ■ Habitat friendly fences still in? ■ Re -write code so one can read it for comprehension ■ Staff personally visit each highly constrained lot and engage in conversations with property owners o Permitting Generally agree with most Apply principles inherent in recommendations to all development activity • Really ask, how may I help you? o Public Awareness ■ Generally OK with most ■ Make sure it is an effort to help people make the resources better and not a marketing effort to put a nice shine on SL o Minimum maintenance ■ Once we walk the talk, then consider. ➢ Issues not addressed by SLTF, but are out there o People with large tracts that have been good stewards need to be get full value from their land Judith Werner 4266 Woodside Circle Lake Oswego, Or 97035 Testimony concerning the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and the recommendations of the Second Look Task Force. For: The City Council 7/10/10 My name is Judith Werner and I am a resident of Lake Oswego and a native Oregonian. I strongly support the Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Goal 6 for air, land, and water quality. I also strongly support the recommendations of the Second Look Task Force which has sought to use protective measures of our natural resources, while also providing some backyard flexibility. My biggest environmental concern has always been water quality — for streams, rivers, lakes and oceans. Regulations must exist if we, as human beings, are to exist. Self regulation does not work because self interest seems to preclude any thought of others. We are part of something bigger than our individual selves; it is called community: the community of Lake Oswego, the United States and the world community. I have lived in this particular community for about 40 years. I chose to live here because of its beauty — the lake, the river, the trees and the amount of green space (which has dwindled greatly, I might add). I did not choose to live in a Tigard or a Beaverton. I now reside within a condominium association which contains sensitive land. It lies alongside the stream which feeds the main canal to the lake and it also contains a wetland. As Landscape Chair for a few years, I called the city out to make sure of what we could, or could not, legally do. The city asked if we could, would we remove as much invasive species such as blackberries, ivy, poison oak, etc. as possible. (This is a fairly large property.) We were already getting permits to cut down any trees, and we were not using any fertilizers or weed killers along the stream. I did not find the city a problem. It was all common sense. In fact, our area is con- sidered desirable PRECISELY because of the natural resources of the property — the Riparian corridor, the wetland, and the many trees. These features INCREASE our property value; they DO NOT diminish it. It is a known fact that the environmental health of the upland environments is vital to the environmental health of our Riparian corridors. We cannot have run-off from uplands such as pesticides, phosphates and sediment from erosion. Cont. Pg. 2 Pg. 2 J. Werner Testimony — SOL — 7/10/10 I also feel that we have a major lake pollution problem and in quoting some who speak of fairness, I would hope that the city would feel that it is incumbent upon them to address this extremely important issue as soon as possible. In a letter to the Review this week it was stated that "' We the People"' have had it with this nonsense." The writer makes it sound as though all people residing in Lake Oswego think that the Sensitive Lands Ordinance is "nonsense". The writer should note in the survey of residents in this same issue that: "Eight of ten agree Lake Oswego should continue to protect natural resources on all lands within the city." As part of a community, I believe that we must work for the best quality of living possible for the greatest number of people. We certainly cannot achieve this with polluted streams, rivers and lakes. This IS the self-interest of all. Thank you. Cc: City Recorder Page 1 of 2 Tom L From: 'Tom L" <zland@clear.net> To:<CouncilDistribubon@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: <mforbes@lakeoswegoreview_com> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11.24 AM Subject: Sensitive Lands Dear Lake Oswego City Council members JUL 9 2010 I am a 43 -year resident of Lake Oswego. CIT'I'oFLAKE OSWEGO Over the years, I've been a regular attendee at Lake Oswego City Council and Planning Commission meetings. I recently attended both meetings of the City Council when the Second Look Task Force presented its recommendations on the sensitive lands issue. In the words of the Second Look Committee's facilitator, Jim Owens, "This is very complicated material." Therefore, I am questioning the Council's time -line in rushing to its decision on the sensitive lands issue. In such a short time, there is a question as to whether an informed, sound and meaningful decision can be made. There are many aspects of this issue that haven't even been mentioned at the meetings, such as development of large tracts of land related to the Lake Oswego City Code overlay of code 50.16 & "housekeeping," i.e. ammendments. I am deeply concerned about the number of citizens who are unaware of this issue. The slick, 5X7 piece sent to "postal customer" resembled just another piece of junk mail and was promptly tossed without reading in most cases. If the council wished for true transparency, all citizens should be notified with a letter in an envelope. As far as "citizen input" is concerned, there needs to be a dialogue, not just a citizen statement followed by a smile and "thank you." "Citizen input" public meetings should include questions and answers given at the open meeting - not merely "staff will have to get back to you on that." 7/9/2010 Page 2 of 2 The council is dealing with the lives of your citizens, and we are depending on our elected representatives - mayor and city councilors - to eliminate the inequities of the sensitive lands overlay. This is a serious issue that calls for thoughtful perusal and consideration. Thank you for your time. Tom Zinser 7/9/2010 She questioned why they would spend millions of dollars on projects in a watershed -based approach if they did not have clear goals and a way to measure success. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that a results -oriented program with goals and measures was vital. She added that a clear connection to protecting water quality was also necessary for buy -in. She noted that making a clear connection between what the City asked people to do in their backyards and the benefits to the environment was also important. She suggested asking this question at each of the steps: did this get the community closer to a program that would work? She observed that clearly the current program did -:not work. She mentioned asking ofher questions at each step, such as did this get the City closer to community buy -in, and did it get the City closer to looking at the environment as a whole ecosystem and not as patches of sensitive lands. She suggested looking at sensitive lands as part of all their programs, such as the tree code. She discussed having a goal of building into the Code the maximum amount of flexibility possible while still protecting resources and achieving clear goals. She spoke of identifying what things were truly important to protect. She observed that unless people understood why having a picnic table in their backyard would be detrimental, the City would not achieve community buy -in. Councilor Olson commented that she was heartened to hear that her fellow Councilors have arrived at some of the conclusions that she came to a year and a half ago. She referenced the Mayor's comments regarding zoning. She pointed out that zoning affected everyone within the zone, but the Sensitive Lands Ordinance was different because it did not affect everyone the same way. She agreed with the Mayor that the citizens worked long and hard to put the community values into the Comprehensive Plan, although she doubted that their intent had been to develop such a restrictive code to implement those values and to go into people's backyards. She indicated that she agreed with most of Councilor Tierney's comments. She suggested using his outline as a jumping off point. She commented that she thought they needed to not limit themselves to reviewing the Task Force recommendations point by point but to look at the City policies and approach overall in deciding what they would regulate, how, and why. She agreed with looking at individual hardship cases, such as Cap Hedges, Carolyne Jones, the Zinsers, and the Weibels. She remarked that she did not know how they would do it, as it was resource intensive, but morally, she thought they needed to do it. She observed that she would like to go further than most of her fellow Councilors. She suggested an amnesty program for everyone designated in the first mapping to allow requests for reviews without fee. She mentioned that staff has already made field visits and removed designations. She discussed removing the requirement that the City record land use restrictions with the County. She noted that Metro did not require it, and the City required it only for tree groves, and not for water resources. She mentioned the stated purpose of providing notification to future buyers; however, since few properties have been delineated to the point of being recorded with the County, the requirement did not fulfill its purpose. She commented that there were ways to notify potential buyers when necessary, including educating the realtor community. She referenced a statement in Ms. Papaefthimiou's January 2009 memo, which suggested that the City could comply entirely with Metro's requirements with its existing Code and regulations. She asked that the Council look at using its current regulations to comply with Metro as opposed to offering upland tree groves as a tradeoff. She commented that the City Code, its Comprehensive Plan, and Metro's codes used the word `significant' a lot. She suggested that the City might have lost direction by not staying with the concept of `significant resources.' She mentioned another element that the City has lost sight of, the fact that Lake Oswego was a residential -platted urban municipality within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She pointed out that the State land use laws established the concept of an UGB to encourage development, infill, density, and urbanization within that boundary. She referenced Metro's statement that, after 2006, upland tree groves would be regulated as they were brought inside the UGB. She commented that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18 July 10, 2010 the reason that did not make sense to the people was that telling people that they could not develop those areas conflicted with the idea of concentrating development inside the UGB Mayor Hoffman noted that the next Council meeting on this issue was scheduled for July 20. He asked the Council to think about scheduling an additional meeting, in case the July 20 meeting alone was not enough time. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 1:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON August 3,2010 , n 1 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 July 10, 2010 71101!0 o�soaety' fr ded iO1`j To: Mayor Hoffman and City Council TUALA I N T11iRIVIRKEEPERI From: Jim Labbe on behalf of Audubon Society of Portland and Tualatin Riverkeepers. Cc: Denise Frisbee RE: Additional Audubon and TRK Comments on Second Look Task Force Recommendations. These comments are in addition to those submitted on 6/29/101 and reference specific comments in the report prepared by the Second Look Task Force .2 1. Leading by Example Recommendations, page 8 We support these recommendations. However we wish to emphasize that increasing investments in restoration and enhancement proiects prioritized within the watershed can not and should not substitute for and should not substitute for regulatory safeguards to protect the habitat and watersafeguards to protect the habitat and water resource areas that are in the best condition. Prioritization of investments is important and the Portland Watershed Plan is a good example that took over 10 years to develop. Such long-term planning is essential to leverage state and federal dollars. However the City should be able to make some initial investments in high priority and high profile public natural areas and greenspaces based on existing plans and professional judgments immediately. The existing and future city council needs to remain committed to sustained funding. 2. Designating Sensitive Lands Pages 8-14 1 http://audubonportland.org/issues/metro/audubon-and-tualatin-riverkeepers-testimony-to-lake-oswego-city- council/at_download/file Z http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Planning_Projects/PP09- 0011_Sensitive_Lands_0utreach/Second_Look_Task_Force/Second_Look Task_Force_Report_06-01-10_Fina1.pdf Issue 1. page 9 relating to HAS System. We support the recommendation to continue use of HAS system to determine resources to protect. Continued use of HAS assures consistency with previous sensitive lands designations. To better address water quality and other natural resource functions, the Council should increase stream and wetland buffers, especially for streams, wetlands and lakeshores not located in the SLO (See below and our 6/29/10 comments). Issue 2, page 9-10 relating to accurate designation and delineation of resource boundaries. We support recommendations. However, we are concerned that the minimum stream and wetland "buffers" are not adequate especially for riparian corridors located outside the SLO. The city should revise minimum riparian protections to at least 50 feet where streams are not located in a sensitive lands overlay. This is consistent with the minimum, science -based standards under Title 3 and Title 13. Issue 3, pages 10-11.relating to 'ditches.' We support this recommendation. However it is critical that intermittent streams or streams that may have been modified or channelized in the past to not get treated as 'ditches.' Moreover, even man-made ditches with streamflow can impact downstream water quality and therefore water quality issues may occur in ditches that require measures to address stormwater run-off to ditches. Issue 4, page 11 relating to inventorying lands outside City boundary. We support these recommendations. Lake Oswego has been a leader in the region in developing policies that link the opportunities for landowners to receive city services via annexations to the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. This is smart and effective public policy that should be maintained. Natural resources out side city boundary impact those within the city. Some of these resources are contiguous and/or may be headwaters. It is important for the city to know where those resources are located. Where funds and staffing are available, property owners should be made aware of the resource values and their responsibilities especially as they seek annexation. Issue 5, page 12 relating to revising sensitive lands map. We support these recommendations but the City needs to complete inventory work to ensure a fair and comprehensive program. Issue 6a, page 12-13 relating to Oswego Lake and canals. We support these recommendations but the City of Lake Oswego may need to extend riparian protections to some shoreline areas to protect water resource and wildlife habitat. Issue 6b, pages 12-14 relating to Tualatin and Willamette Rivers. We agree that the City needs to evaluate the efficacy of the greenway code. A key question: How does the greenway code compare to the protections to mapped Habitat Conservation Areas provided by the Title 13 model ordinance? We are unsure whether Willamette River Greenway provisions are uniformly applied on LO lands along the Willamette. Protection of the Willamette and Tualatin rivers includes the management of stormwater that is discharged directly into these rivers and their tributaries. The City should better integrate surface water management with land use protection as part of the watershed approach. The minimum Title 13 riparian protection of 50 feet is needed along all tributaries of these water quality limited water bodies. Issue 7 page 14-15 relating to gaps in current inventory and designation for stream systems. We are concerned that a serious gap in the current inventory includes some streams corridors located outside the SLO that are not adequately protected. Protection of riparian transition areas should apply to all streams and wetlands. The city should revise minimum riparian buffers to at least 50 feet where streams are not located in a sensitive lands overlay. This is consistent with the minimum, science -based standards under Title 3 and Title 13. 3. Providing Flexibility in the provisions to protect designated resources Pages 15-19 Issue A & B. Providing Flexibility & Net Environmental Benefit, page 15-18. Construction setback should be clarified but maintained. Natural resources functions and values are put in jeopardy by lights, domestic animals, and human recreation impacts when development encroaches to the edge of the resource boundary and no yard space is provided. The construction setback from the resource boundary provides yard space where voluntary homeowner actions, like Audubon's Backyard certification program, are applicable. We support the two-tiered approach allowing "clear and objective" and "discretionary development review" based on a functional approach and net environmental benefit. However, the latter must include adequately trained staff and criteria for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts that result in outcomes that genuinely result in 'net environmental improvement for any mitigation. The process should include adequate opportunities for neighbors, individuals and organizations to submit comments and information necessary to meet discretionary review criteria. We recommend providing ongoing natural resource technical training for staff. The goal of "net environmental benefit" should be clarified to mean "net ecological benefit." Environmental improvements meant to address ecological impacts to local ecosystems should be related to ecological functions and values. Issue C, Providing Incentives for Resource Protection, pages 18-19. We support the recommendations. In addition we should support the City of Lake Oswego in pursuing property tax reductions for habitat conservation that are enabled under state law. Issue D, Highly Constrained Sites Providing, page 19. We support the recommendations. 4. Improving permitting processes, pages 20-21. We support the recommendations but are concerned about the cost of some recommendations and whether this will take funds away from investments in natural resource stewardship. Protection and enhancement of natural resources is a higher priority than reducing natural resource permitting costs for developers. 5. Increasing Public Awareness, pages 21-22. We support the recommendations. Our written and spoken testimony should highlight the Portland Audubon's plans to expand our Backyard Habitat Certification Program to Lake Oswego. Complementary Recommendations relating to noxious weeds, pages 22-23. We support these recommendations. SENSITIVE LANDS PROGRAM TESTIMONY 7-10-2010 Name: David Beckett Credentials: Board President of Three Rivers Land Conservancy — which is now combined with Columbia Land Trust Residence: 26 years in L.O. My Sensitive Land Program Status: I have a 1/2 acre lot with about three dozen large trees, so L.O. tree ordinances affect me directly. Summary Statement: a) The SLP greatly increases property values in Lake Oswego; b) The SLTF recommendations should be implemented to increase accommodation of those few who family estate is "taken' away; by the ordinance; c) SLP contributes to a beautiful environment in which we love to live. ................................................................................. I. The SLPrg eatly increases property values. The added value to L.O. property values is well over $250,000,000. How do we know this? A professor at Reed College has spent over 12 years doing thorough statistical analysis of the effect of "open space" on the value of property in Multnomah County. The Reed College studies rigorously demonstrate increased value of homes within a quarter mile of natural open space is well over $17,000 each. IL Columbia Land Trust works with private property owners who voluntarily place a conservation easement on a portion of their property. They treasure nature in the backyard so much that they want to assure that grandchildren or a future owner does not pave it over, so to speak. That is a voluntary program and is ideal, but it does not come close to accomplishing what the SLP accomplishes. II1. Columbia Land Trust joined with Portland Audubon to create the Backyard Habitat program. Why? Audubon has already testified here in this room to the tremendous benefit to wildlife that occurs. Hundreds of families have already received training and then followed up to remove invasive plant and plant native vegetation to further enhance the natural habitat in their backyards. Hundreds more are on a waiting list. IV. BUT those few homes that are "highly constrained" by the SLP deserve special consideration. Second Look estimates less than 1% of L.O. homes are highly constrained. Those owners are disproportionately represented in these hearings. Because the value of their family estates may in some instance be greatly reduced, they have good reason to be fearful and angry. It is not right for the community to simply "take away" a persons estate for the greater good of others. SLTF has recommended ways to relieve that stress. The SL recommendations are crucial. The SLP is eight years old — not new. Those highly constrained residents are still there because their homes are typically in very beautiful settings where they love to live. V. And that final phrase is important to these hearings. Lake Oswego is abundant with beautiful settings where we love to live. The SLP simply protects that value. Jul. 10, 2010 To: Mayor and City Councilors of Lake Oswego My name is Adra Barlow. I want to thank the Mayor and City Councilors for allowing the time for residents to voice their opinions about the existing and proposed Sensitive Lands ordinance. I reside with my husband and 2 children at 2 Buckingham Terrace in the Westridge neighborhood of Lake Oswego. My husband and I have been residents and small business owners in this City for over 21 years. I have been active in civic, community and school volunteer activities including; serving on the Gap design committee when Boones Ferry Road was widened, the beginning of the business district formation for Lake Grove businesses, initiating an exhibit for the display of local elementary school children's artwork in Mercantile Plaza during the Lake Oswego festival of the Arts, countless hours of volunteer time with my children's schools, and a Board member for the Westridge Neighborhood Association for the past 6 years. We have raised our two children in 3 neighborhoods within this lovely City and have always been proud and grateful for the quality of life we have been able to enjoy here. We moved into our current house in August of 1999 in the well established neighborhood of Westridge. Our house was built in the early 1980's and the entire neighborhood was built out during the 1970's to the 1990's. When we purchased this home there we were not provided any information about possible restrictions to our property, as this lot was not included in any Sensitive Lands area at that time. We were notified by a letter from the City a few years later about an effort to create an inventory map of natural resources throughout the community. That was the last communication WE received from the City about anything involving our personal and privately owned resident and land. We have learned in the past few years that a proposed addition to the SOL map included our property. Everything other than where our house sits, including the entire back yard and both side yards down to the street. The reason we were added, as explained to me by Jana P. and Hamid, was because we back up to another private residence with a few acres of undeveloped hillside. The City stated that an existing "tree canopy" needed to be preserved and all adjacent property was recommended to be included in the SOL restrictions. These are my specific concerns: 1. I do not believe the City should be conditioning any privately owned land to restrictions in an effort to preserve natural resources. We own this house and land and never expected when we purchased it that our local government would have the right to place restrictions above and beyond the existing codes including building codes, planning and zoning codes, and the local tree ordinance. 2. These restrictions appear arbitrary not applied equitably for properties throughout the City. It is not that I believe the best solution would be for the City to condition ALL properties; I know that if ALL properties adjacent to any tree canopy, body of water, minor stream or other natural resource was conditioned, there would be an even larger outcry from local residents. 3. I am most frustrated about the derision created by the Mayor and the City. You are not listening to us. I even voted you into office and am astounded at the way you have not listened to the people of the Community for the past several years regarding this issue. As a long term resident, business owner and community volunteer, I expect the City and public servants to listen to the people who reside here and support this community. 4. I believe the City should let people maintain and use their property within current codes and ordinances and through a volunteer system or extra conditioning IF the property owner consents. Thank you. The sensitive lands ordinance is grossly unfair. People who planted trees 20 years or more ago now find their property declared sensitive lands. If they escaped that one, every time they want to thin, replace a tree, or remove a blown down tree, they likely have to spend $100 - $200 for an arborist's report and $12 for the city's permit, in addition to hiring someone to do the work. The neighbors enjoy the trees but pay none of these costs, yet have the audacity to tell the tree owners how to take care of their trees. I am glad that the city may consider managing their "open space." The cost of planting should not be great; industrial forests budget about $500 per acre. However, the cost of ongoing ivy eradication, thinning, and construction of "wildlife fences" may well be beyond the City's capacity to budget for unless we use commercially accepted agricultural practices which I doubt the City will adopt. In the past there has been little planting of native trees on city property. Maybe the City is as scared of the tree code as some of our citizens are. Wildlife fences are appropriate for range land, but the fences generally in use in Lake Oswego can for the most part be burrowed under, or climbed, jumped, or flown over by any wild animals. The only animal that benefits from a wildlife fence is the beaver, who is now able to travel freely from one area to another. Also, wildlife fences do nothing to confine small children or dogs. Once people realize their property may be declared a resource area if they plant 3 trees, especially if a neighbor plants a tree or two near theirs, I wonder how many people will plant trees. I think most of the voters for the sensitive land requirements were totally unaware of what they were passing. Certainly they did not realize that this prevented land owners from removing ivy and blackberries. I feel that minimum setback from rivers, creeks, lakes, etc. should be at least 50' except for boat docks. I do not think that we should allow construction or removal of trees and vegetation closer than loggers and ranchers are allowed. Across the U.S., setbacks seem to be set by politics. Many of your citizens question the non-inclusion of the lake and the First Addition as sensitive lands RP overlay. The lake serving as flood control is a stretch unless it is drained before the flood season. In the past, to me it has been a warming pond to warm up the Willamette. It also serves as a settling pond to provide clear water to the river. Other issues which should be considered in conjunction with sensitive lands are solar access and fire prevention. The City might be better off limiting the tree canopy. Hello L.O. and the Lake Oswego Review are not doing a satisfactory job of investigative reporting or keeping the public informed of the city's planned �,vd m laws and regulations. Earlier citizen participation would result in less community conflict and a higher credibility rating for the City ouncil in the community. U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons Amendment Text I Annotations No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Regulatory Takings .--While it is established that government may take private property, with compensation, to promote the public interest, the Court in 1922 established as a general principle that "if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." 20-4 If only a portion of a tract is taken, the owner's compensation includes any element of value arising out of the relation of the part taken to the entire tract. 209 The Fifth Amendment requires compensation for the taking of "property,". 223 Another exception to the general rule occurs with a partial taking, in which the government takes less than the entire parcel of land and leaves the owner with a portion of what he had before; in such a case compensation includes any diminished value of the remaining portion ("severance damages") as well as the value of the taken portion. 226 The estimate of just compensation is not required to be made by a jury but may be made by a judge or entrusted to a commission or other body. 229 Where regulatory action limits activity on the property or otherwise deprives it of value, whether there has been a taking in the Fifth Amendment sense becomes critical. The term "inverse condemnation" came to be used to refer to such cases where the government has not instituted formal condemnation proceedings, but instead the property owner has sued for just compensation, claiming that governmental action or regulation has "taken" his property. 245 My name is Elaine Burke. I am a homeowner in Lake Oswego, residing at 16121 Nola Court. I support the City of Lake Oswego's Environmentally Sensitive Lands Program and the report conclusions of the Second Look Task Force. I also support the testimony that Portland Audubon and Tualatin Riverkeeper's representatives have given. I give my support to this Program, the conclusions of the Task Force, Audubon, and Riverkeeper's from an informed perspective. have a Bachelor's degree in Ecology from Cornell University, a Master's degree in Ecology from the University of California at Irvine, and pursued additional studies in Ecology at Harvard. The focus of my studies at these institutions was Environmental Physiology, which investigates the interaction of the physical natural environment on the function of living organisms. I then worked as an Environmental Consultant, and did field work to prepare environmental impact statements, including ground water monitoring, lake water monitoring, wetland mapping, and species inventory. I went on to Medical school, and have been a practicing physician in the Portland area since 1988. From this informed perspective and as a property owner, I support the protection of streams, wetlands, and tree groves through Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands Overlays. June 30, 2010 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman Lake Oswego City Council Members boall 380 AAvenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 NATURAL Dear Mayor Hoffman and Council Members: RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD The Natural Resource Advisory Board's mission is to "review trends in air, water, and land quality within the Urban Service boundary of 4101 Kruse Way the Comprehensive Plan, and to assist in the development and Lake Oswego, OR 97034 implementation of plans and policies to protect, restore and enhance the environmental quality within [Lake Oswego]." As such, NRAB 503-635-0290 has been interested in the Sensitive Lands Overlay "("SLO") and www.ci.oswego.or.us educating its members about it and the proposed changes since early 2009. As part of that education, NRAB member Nancy Gronowski and I met early on with citizens opposed to both the original SLO and the changes that are being proposed. As a group, NRAB invited stakeholders to speak to the Board during its monthly meetings and participated in a public forum presented by the Second Look Task Force. Finally, Nancy Gronowski was a member of the Second Look Task Force. Ms. Gronowski continually updated NRAB on the Task Force's progress and concerns. When Council appointed the Second Look Task Force in 2009, NRAB unanimously agreed to take a back seat to the Task Force deliberations. While NRAB generally supported the SLO concept, it wanted additional information prior to taking a position for or against the proposed revisions. At its June 16, 2010 meeting, NRAB reviewed, discussed and voted on the May 28, 2010 Report of the Second Look Task Force to the Director of Planning & Building Services ("SLTF Report"). NRAB members reviewed the SLTF Report prior to the meeting and systematically went through each consideration and recommendation and collectively discussed issues raised by each member. Attached is the list of those issues. At the conclusion of the meeting, NRAB voted unanimously to endorse the SLTF Report as modified by the changes, which strengthen and clarify the recommendations of the Report. William Gaar, Co -Chair ■ Douglas Rich, Co -Chair Kara Warner ■ Denise Dailey ■ Stephanie Wagner ■ Nancy Gronowski Samantha Silbert, Student Member ■ Mary Olson, Council Liaison NRAB requests that Council review NRAB's suggested changes, incorporate them into the SLTF Report and accept the Task Force recommendations. NRAB believes that the proposed revisions provide more flexibility to property owners, create more transparency and certainty in the Sensitive Lands Program designation for affected property owners while improving the protection and enhancement of Lake Oswego's natural resources. NRAB's role is to be a steward for, and advocate of Lake Oswego's natural resources. At the same time, NRAB is mindful of the tension that inevitably exists between property rights and environmental regulations geared towards protecting natural resources found on an individual's property. NRAB believes that the SLTF Report as modified by NRAB's suggestions finds the appropriate balance to alleviate some of that tension. NRAB congratulates and supports council for listening to community concerns and responding to those concerns by appointing the SLTF. We urge you to adopt the SLTF Report, with the NRAB suggestions. Respec lly Sub fitted, William Gaar NRAB Co -Chair ATTACH: Notes regarding Second Look Task Force Report Discussion William Gaar, Co -Chair ■ Douglas Rich, Co -Chair Kara Warner ■ Denise Dailey ■ Stephanie Wagner ■ Nancy Gronowski Samantha Silbert, Student Member ■ Mary Olson, Council Liaison Natural Resources Advisory Board June 16, 2010 Notes regarding Second Look Task Force Report Discussion The Board voted unanimously to support the recommendations of the Second Look Task Force with the suggested changes noted discussed and agreed upon at the meeting, and documented below. Overall, the NRAB is very supportive of the recommendations and feels that the recommendations are responsive to the concerns of Lake Oswego residents. NRAB members were especially pleased to see the recommendations titled "leading by example"; this is in alignment with what the NRAB has been working on for years. Specific comments: Page 10, Recommendation 2: "In delineating tree groves as Sensitive Lands, exclude non-native trees in cases where they do not contribute to the resource value of the tree stands, e.g. non-native species on the edge of native tree stands, or do not have value on their own, e.g. heritage trees." Rewrite for clarity; confusion regarding example of trees having "value on their own. " Page 11, Recommendation 1: "Include the Oregon Department of State Lands definition of ditches in the City Development Code and specifically indicate that it is not the City's intent to regulate such under the Sensitive Lands program." Please circulate a copy of the ODSL definition of ditches. Page 11, Recommendation 2: "Develop informational materials for property owners within areas likely to be annexed within short and medium-term timeframes to inform them of the City's Sensitive Lands program and to advise them of its annexation policy regarding loss of known resources." Clarify language; cite code section when referencing "annexation policy. " Page 12, Recommendation 2: "Complete key development code revisions before adding any additional resources to the inventory and map, including 16 sites." NRAB members strongly agree with this approach. Page 13, Recommendations 1 and 2: "1.Continue to rely upon Willamette River Greenway provisions to protect resource lands along the Willamette River and existing RP designations to protect resource lands along the Tualatin River. 2. Assess whether resource lands along the Willamette River are adequately protected through Greenway provisions or whether they can be better protected with Sensitive Lands provisions." Merge two recommendations into one, otherwise statements seem contradictory. Page 14, Item C: Needs to state "No Recommendations" because it seems odd that this is the only section with no recommendations, just considerations. Alternatively, a recommendation could be included stating something along the lines of "Continue current standard operating procedures" or "Take steps to ensure that standard operating procedures are used or Include standard operating procedures in the new Parks Master Plan." Page 14, Recommendation 1: "Begin the process to develop and implement a watershed -based approach that holistically addresses streams, riparian vegetation and upland habitat as an integrated natural resource system and that links the City's multiple regulatory and voluntary programs." Strengthen this recommendation by omitting "Begin the process" and starting with "Develop and implement...." Page 14, Recommendation 3: "Investigate a program for voluntary action for daylighting of stream sections that have been placed into culverts, paved or otherwise modified, particularly in association with Page 2 of 2 S LTF-ATTACH-J u ne2010. d oc major developments. Investigate the feasibility of providing incentives such as density bonuses to encourage daylighting." Need to define daylighting. Page 16, Recommendation 2: NRAB is supportive of two-tiered review system—provides needed flexibility. Page 16, Recommendation 4: "Adopt a definition of "development" and permit outright the uses identified in Metro's Title 3 Model Ordinance (Exhibit C, p.65) and Title 13 Model Ordinance (Exhibit E, p. 132)." Not clear what uses are permitted outright—include the Metro list for clarity. Education and outreach is essential if certain uses will be permitted outright, incentives for habitat friendly development practices, etc. Page 17, Recommendation 6: "Investigate elements of a discretionary review process as described in the Metro Model Code (Exhibit E, page 145) and utilized by other jurisdictions in the region that would be appropriate to Lake Oswego..." Change "Investigate elements..." to "Develop the elements ...... Also, what is Exhibit E, pg 145? Provide a copy. Page 18, Recommendation 1: "Investigate examples (e.g. Portland and Oregon City) and the mechanics of a net environmental benefit approach...." Omit "Investigate..." and change to "Develop the mechanics..." Page 18, Recommendation 2: "Include minimum requirements for maintenance standards or ongoing mitigation programs. Avoid one-time mitigation measures. Consider enforcement and monitoring challenges." Group supports avoiding one-time mitigation measures; could require "Mitigation and Monitoring Plans. " Page 19, Recommendation 7: "Consider providing flexibility to property owners certified as Master Naturalists when submitting applications for permits for undertaking resource management projects, e.g. tree thinning, that allows the property owners to avoid the cost of hiring a professional arborists or resource experts." Omit "Consider" and change to "Provide flexibility to...'—if people can demonstrate that they are qualified, they should not be required to hire an expert; also, change "certified as Master Naturalists" to "any qualified person" and include a list of qualifications. Page 19, Recommendation 2: "Develop a program to purchase totally encumbered lots with significant resource value." Strong support for this recommendation. Page 20, Recommendation 1: "Explore the feasibility, including costs, of establishing an ombudsman position to assist property owners and developers in navigating the permitting process and accessing incentives for resource protection and restoration." Fund maintenance for natural areas before hiring an ombudsman. Page 20, Recommendation 3: "In responding to the Code Audit project currently underway, consider providing a concise statement of code purpose and effect at the outset of code (per Oregon City code); providing better organization to the code; and using plain language." Be more direct by beginning the recommendation with "Provide a concise statement of code purpose...." Page 21, Recommendation 12: First bullet, "Increase utility and utility access fees, e.g. $3/household, and dedicate those savings to public outreach and resource restoration projects." This is not a fee reduction and does not seem like an appropriate recommendation for this item—consider relocating to another section. Last bullet, "Reimbursement of appeal fees for successful appeals of delineations." Confusion regarding whether the last word ought to be designation rather than delineation. Page 23, Recommendation 4: Change "NPAB" to "NRAB, " or better yet, spell it out, "Natural Resources Advisory Board. " From: John Hedlund <johnhedlund@earthlink.neb Subject: Sensitive Lands Ordinance Date: July 10, 2010 9:57:37 AM PDT To: Mayor Hoffman and Lake Oswego City Council Gentlemen: My name is John Hedlund. I reside at 240 S.W. Birdshill Road, Portland, Oregon 97219. My wife and I have property (3/1/3 acres) on four lots in Birdshill where we have lived since 1977. Most of the property is scheduled for tree overlay. My brother Bill and I have acreage (4.3 acres) on Atwater Road which my parents purchased in 1940 and where I grew up which is already overlayed with a creek and tree groves and and is scheduled for an expansion of the tree grove overlay. I have lived in this area for well over 60 years now. I have been generally supportive of the positions and work of the L.O. Stewards who have been critical of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance, the work of the Second Look Committee and their inadequate recommendations. Many irregularities, flaws, manipulations, and unfair aspects of the creation and application of the ordinance have been uncovered. I will not further review them here. I would like to make the point that The Lake Oswego area has an abundance of trees as a result of the collective values and decisions of individual property owners over the years NOT the result of any ordinances. In fact, the too stiff tree ordinance has clearly discouraged the planting of trees and the spectre of the sensitive lands overlay on unincorporated lands has, in some cases, encouraged the cutting of trees. I believe the rights of individual private property owners is more important than the occasional person who might cut some trees that somebody might think is inappropriate. Trees do grow back. And in some cases, if habitat for such as coyotes were disturbed, that might be a good thing. This ordinance in general, in particular in regard to tree groves, is an unfair taking and penalty to those who may have conscientiously maintained their land over the years as my parents did. If there are lands that are that important to the public good, the public as represented by the City, should buy these lands. Does this ordinance affect property values? Yes. In our case, we have had an interest in developing out Atwater Road property which as an R7.5 overlay zoning, and have spoken to a number of developers. Nearly all, particularly in the more current environment have shied away for a number of reasons not the least of which is the time and trouble it would take to wade through the undue complications of this ordinance as well as their past experiences with difficulties of development staff process. My father, William Hedlund, an attorney, former legislator and a lobbyist for 40 years in the Oregon legislature used to always say: "What is wrong with the way we are doing it now" when considering a new piece of legislation. As a result, in past days, fewer bills were introduced and deemed necessary. What is wrong with the way we did it before the creation of this ordinance? I believe the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Ordinance is largeiy unnecessary particularly regarding trees. There is merit to managing and protecting the waterflows and water quality particularly of real streams and lakes, including Lake Oswego, not jus`. small drainage ditches. At a minimum the ordinance should be relaxed, liberalized, and sensibly more flexible. A clear majority are against this ordinance despite the 'suspect' poll results reported in the Review yesterday. If this ordinance were understood as it is now when created, it might be considerably different. It is clear now that this ordinance as it stands is not a requirement for Metro compliance. In fact, the tree code itself might largely suffice. You didn't create this ordinance but you have the power and, hopefully, the wisdom to make it less burdensome, more flexible, and less inequitable or abolish it and start over. Thank you. John H. Hedlund The City Council welcomes you to the meeting. Please use the space below if you have questions you would like raised before the Council. Feel free to use additional sheets if necessary. When completed, simply hand to the City Recorder or mail or drop-off your form addressed to the City of Lake Oswego, P.O. Box 369, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego OR 97034. Questions are also welcome at Council@ci.osweQo.or.us. U0_4A,&, J4 0 a A 1� allz,6� ti- a4�14� t4t, kD z loo 0 - OL) Q/ C.8 y� CyQ/y • � � l � Lt Please��vidyour cor.�act informa ion in the space bellow if yea ..ouid like a response. (Optional) J0,4.16 ya Yh JLr V -d LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 r Uk- C4, /, C-Cx- 6 0 2