Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-06-22 Special LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Tuesday, June 22, 2010 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503 675 3984 Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue 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. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Planning Director Report on Second Look Task Force Report (Public input is scheduled for June 29 and 30 at 6:30 p.m. and July 10 at 10 a.m.) 4. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 30. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 30: Thursday, June 24 7:00 a.m. Saturday, June 26 12:00 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 • Mary Olson, Councilor • Bill Tierney, Councilor LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Wednesday, June 23, 2010 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503 675 3984 Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue 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. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Continued Review of Planning Director Report on Second Look Task Force Report (Public input is scheduled for June 29 and 30 at 6:30 p.m. and July 10 at 10 a.m.) 4. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Friday, June 25 2:30 a.m. Sunday, June 27 4:00 p.m. Monday, June 28 11:00 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 • Mary Olson, Councilor • Bill Tierney, Councilor CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910.2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 • Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL M CIL REPORT503-675-3984 www.ci,oswego,onus TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Denise Frisbee, Director Jonna Papaefthimiou, AICP, Natural Resources Planner Morgan Holen,Assistant Natural Resources Planner Planning and Building Services Department SUBJECT: Second Look Task Force Report on Sensitive Lands Program DATE: June 14, 2010 ACTION This is an informational report; no action is requested at this time. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In autumn 2009,the Director of Planning and Building Services assembled the Second Look Task Force to review the City's Sensitive Lands program. The Second Look Task Force was asked to recommend program improvements within the following framework: • 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. The complete report of the Task Force has been provided to the Council and is summarized in a table included as Attachment 1. A glossary of relevant terms is provided as Attachment 2. This staff report provides a short summary of the existing Sensitive Lands program and explains why the Task Force was assembled. It highlights the Task Force recommendations that, upon Council support, could be implemented in the next 3 months; identifies recommendations that will require refinement at the Planning Department and Commission level and could be implemented in 6-12 months; and identifies those recommendations of the largest scope, which will require additional Council discussion and more Page 2 consideration in the context of budgeting and organizational management. The staff report additionally discusses three that were not within the Task Force charge, but have been the subject of community and Council concern:the impact of Sensitive lands designation on property values, the map update process, and the City's current requirement for restrictive covenants to protect delineated natural resource areas. The Task Force recommendations for code changes that staff has identified as being able to be made promptly would address many of the frustrations for landowners undertaking small landscape or remodeling projects or concerned about their ability to enjoy the buffer areas of their backyards. Because the recommendations for the Task Force are wide-ranging, and the issues before Council even more so, this memo does not provide detailed implementation options for changes other than these immediate fixes. This document is instead intended to provide background for a Council discussion that will guide staff in preparing more detailed implementation steps over the coming months. DISCUSSION Why Are We Here: Program Background and Need for Review and Improvements Origins of the Sensitive Lands Program The City's first environmental zoning overlay was adopted in 1982 as a way to meet State Land Use Goal 5. The original environmental zones, called "Lake Oswego Development Standards 3 and 4," required a 25- foot setback from "essential" streams and wetlands. They did not address tree groves. These first standards were not map-based;the City applied the standards to all water resources at the time a development application was made. Without a map, landowners could not know at the time of purchase what part of their land was buildable. This uncertainty created problems for landowners, so the State directed local governments to map protected resources, in order to provide certainty to landowners. Accordingly,from 1993-94, Lake Oswego conducted field inventories and developed a map of those streams and wetlands which would be subject to application of environmental standards. The City also chose to include significant tree groves in this mapping. Although protection of tree groves was uncommon, Lake Oswego residents had identified large trees as an important characteristic of their community, and something they would like to protect. In 1998, the map was formally adopted, along with updated development standards. This map and standards are the City's current Sensitive Lands program. Public Outreach and Involvement with Original Mapping Efforts When the original Sensitive Lands maps were adopted in 1998,the City followed this process: • It held informational meetings at Lakeridge and Lake Oswego High Schools to provide details about the mapping effort, and invited all potential Sensitive Lands owners to attend (via U.S. mail). • It formally notified all Sensitive Lands owners about the intent to map their property and provided a written form to object to the designation and a deadline to return the form. • it proceeded to map ONLY those properties where the landowner did not contest the designation; these maps were formally reviewed in Planning Commission hearings and then at Council. • Staff worked with landowners who objected to their property's designation to resolve the issue by correcting or refining the map. • When staff and landowner could not resolve the mapping issue, the Planning Commission reviewed the data in a public hearing and recommended a course of action to the City Council on a case-by- Page 3 case basis. Evolution of Protections When the map and rules were adopted in 1998,they represented the City's efforts to lead the region in environmental protection;they relied on aerial photo interpretation for more precise maps, and they created new flexibility with riparian buffer averaging and buffer reduction for highly constrained lots. They created an innovative tree grove overlay to protect upland forest habitats as well as riparian habitat. The City's codes were adopted in advance of Metro's Titles 3 and 13, which created implementing rules for State Land Use Goals 5 and 6, and set the regional requirements for resource protection in land-use rules. Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands rules are no longer the most up-to-date in the region. The City's code has undergone many small "fixes" and modifications, which as a whole have made the code longer and more complex. Lake Oswego has also become increasingly built-out and land prices have risen; as a result,there is a desire for greater flexibility to accommodate development on the constrained lots that remain. Finally, best practices in environmental land-use have evolved since the 1990s; while earlier environmental regulations emphasized rules that compelled landowners to meet clear-cut standards for resource protection, current approaches emphasize a more collaborative approach—one that still sets minimum standards, but allows flexibility in meeting those targets, and creates incentives to surpass them. Community concerns about the program have raised these same issues: complexity, flexibility, and accommodating difficult sites. Community Concerns and Community Values It is fundamental that,to the extent not limited by statutory and constitutional limits, a Development Code should reflect the interests and values of the community as a whole. Lake Oswegans have long valued and sought to protect their shared natural environment. This environmental commitment is reflected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Fairness to individuals is also a guiding value. Task Force members acknowledged that fairness, individual interests and the common good were important considerations in addressing program improvements, but understood that the balancing of such interests and prioritizing of community values are decisions for the elected representatives of the community. Task Force Recommendations Overview of Recommended Revisions The Second Look Task Force met from September 2009 to May of 2010. It reviewed information about environmental land-use planning from the State, Metro, and the City, as well as information about the City's other environmental programs and examples of programs in other local jurisdictions. Overall,the Task Force affirmed the need to maintain riparian buffers and tree grove protections; however, it identified many ways to improve both the Development Code and the City's natural resource programs as a whole. The Task Force recommendations speak for themselves in the Task Force report, and all recommendations are also summarized in the table that follows. Rather than repeating each of these recommendations,this report groups them into immediate code fixes for which good models already exist; medium-term code improvements that could be implemented as part of the City's upcoming Code Update or as a stand-alone project that the Planning Division and Commission could accomplish in the next year; and big-picture changes that would require additional budget and/or organizational adjustments appropriate for future Council consideration. Page 4 immediate Code Fixes The Task Force identified some changes for which other jurisdictions' codes provide good models; these improvements can be implemented in the next 3-4 months, This category of changes includes expanding the uses allowed in the buffer areas and eliminating the review of very small projects, along with providing property owners with additional flexibility and a free process to correct map errors. These changes could go a long way towards alleviating property owners' more common frustrations with the program: 1. Create a no-fee process for landowners to request Sensitive Lands map corrections; adopt an annual map update to fulfill these requests. 2. Eliminate the fee for resource delineation. 3, Clarify language around the 10-foot construction setback. 4. Modify the Development Code to permit outright the uses identified in Metro's Title 3 and 13 Model ordinances as having a de minimus impact on riparian buffers, such as structures that do not require a building permit and site improvements that impact less than200- 500 square feet. 5. Update the City's invasive plant list to include a complete listing of invasive tree species, and exempt invasive trees from tree removal permit requirements. 6. Update definitions to define "ditches" and adopt language that states the City does not intend to regulate ditches. (Although we note that the Task Force also reported that it saw no evidence that the City is regulating ditches.) Recommendations for Staff Refinement and Planning Commission Review This group of recommendations represents broader changes to the Development Code, which require greater refinement by Planning Division staff and review by the Planning Commission, They suggest that the City retain and clarify its development standards for builders who prefer the certainty of conventional development regulations—"clear and objective standards."They also suggest that the City create an opportunity for developers who seek flexibility to have their projects reviewed with optional discretionary standards that would allow the City to modify conventional standards for those projects that demonstrate net environmental benefits. Taken together, these changes are in keeping with evolving practices in environmental regulation. The challenge is that few models exist for these approaches, and these changes would require further study and deliberation before adoption and implementation. Specifically,the recommendations suggest that the City should: • Provide flexibility in the application of resource protections by developing a two-track review system that includes both clear an objective standards such as those in Metro Titles 3 and 13, and a discretionary review process that allows greater flexibility in the application of regulations and encourages approaches that provide a net environmental benefit. • Develop standards for mitigation measures; consider enforcement and monitoring challenges, • Establish a review process to resolve delineations of Sensitive Lands modeled after the City of Portland process (which is simpler than Lake Oswego's process and free when the City and landowner generally agree on delineation). Permit Application and Review The Task Force also made a recommendation to improve the readability of the code with a clear purpose statement, better organization, and less jargon: • Improve the readability of the code by providing a concise statement of purpose, more intuitive organization, and plain language in place of acronyms and jargon. Page 5 Staff notes that the City has undertaken an overall audit of the Community Development Code,the results of which the Council will review in July. This report suggests improvements to the entire code similar to those that the Task Force proposed for the Sensitive Lands chapter, which include adoption of concise purpose statements, more straightforward organization, and plainer language to improve readability . If the Council chooses to proceed with an overall code improvement project, improvements to the language and organization of the Sensitive Lands chapter could logically be addressed in that process. If the Council does not proceed with a general code update, it may direct staff to revise the Sensitive Lands regulations accordingly. Big-Picture Changes The largest category of changes recommended by the Second Look Task Force did not involve specific changes to the Development Code. Instead, the Task Force identified a need for more public education and outreach around local environmental topics, and greater support for voluntary restoration efforts, including restoration of the City's natural areas. Actions they identified included: • Create and budget for programs for the long-term maintenance of publically-owned Sensitive Lands. • Provide support and incentives for restoration and maintenance of privately-owned Sensitive Lands. • Develop and implement a watershed-based approach that holistically addresses streams, riparian vegetation and upland habitat as an integrated natural resource system and links the City's multiple regulatory and voluntary programs. Other specific suggestions that could be grouped under these general recommendations include: Provide Education and Outreach o Conduct periodic information workshops on the Sensitive Lands program; o Develop informational materials for property owners likely to annex to the City in the short- and medium-term to inform them of the City's programs; o Regularly inform the public about water quality in the Lake and provide public education about how the public can help improve it; o Provide public recognition for exemplary resource stewardship; o Better advertise the services that the Planning Division provides to applicants; o Provide ongoing public education about the value of natural resources and why they are being protected; and o Conduct periodic informational mailings; Create Incentives and Provide Support for Restoration Efforts by Property Owners o investigate a program for voluntary stream day lighting; o Provide assistance in securing conservation easements; and o Investigate funding options for restoration, including new utility fees or grants. Build Partnerships o Seek assistance from Watershed Councils to identify gaps in resource protection and to provide education and outreach assistance to property owners; and o Encourage the Lake Corporation to cooperatively engage in a comprehensive and coordinated water-quality effort. Page 6 Current City-Sponsored Education and Outreach Efforts The Planning Division has offered homeowner education workshops through a partnership with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park,tree-care classes through a grant from Northwest Service Academy, and developed annual Hello LO inserts on natural resources in Lake Oswego. This outreach is conducted with minimal funding. Expanding education and outreach to a wider audience and coordinating with the programs of other departments would require a re-allocation of staff resources, some additional budget, and some level of support from other City departments, including Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Maintenance, and Public Affairs. Many of these projects could be led by the Planning Division or could lead to the establishment of a new Environmental Services Division or Department. The Parks and Recreation Department has undertaken a variety of habitat improvement and restoration activities in park natural areas which involve both volunteer and contracted efforts. That department is also currently working on a Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Comprehensive Master Plan update which include policies and priorities for addressing natural area issues. In addition,the City Council has identified as one of its goals for 2010, a plan for long term maintenance of the City's natural areas. Staff intends to present a plan and recommendation later this year. Outstanding Issues of Community Concern Task Force Recommendations Regarding Maps The Task Force did not make recommendations about specific revisions (lands to be added or deleted) to the Sensitive Lands Map. The Task Force recommends that the City continue to use the Habitat Assessment Score (HAS) method for evaluating sites until a better method comes into common use, and that areas outside the City limits be inventoried as City (staff) resources are available. In connection with the Task Force review, staff acknowledges the need to provide better avenues of review for property owners with mapping concerns. Staff Recommendation for the Map Updates Process The City initiated a map update in 2003 to ensure that all of the resources within the City's Urban Services Boundary were inventoried. Field inventory work was done in 2003 and 2007, and it included lands outside the City but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The consultant identified approximately 150 properties within the City and 300 properties outside the City limits that the City should consider adding to the map in the future. As part of state-mandated Periodic Review of the Comprehensive Plan, local governments typically update their natural resource inventories. The City of Lake Oswego has just entered its Periodic Review process, which provides the opportunity for this update. To update the inventory,the City must at a minimum complete an Energy-Social-Economy-Environment (ESEE) analysis for properties inside the City for which it has updated information, and consider making the map changes. (The City is not obliged to amend the map where its analysis indicates that the changes are not justified within the ESEE framework.) To accomplish the mapping updates, the City could follow a.process similar to the original 1998 mapping. That would mean beginning with map changes where the property owner and City agree on the new map, then seeking to resolve contested sites collaboratively with landowners, and after some time, referring remaining sites to the Planning Commission to resolve at a public hearing, with the opportunity to hear testimony from landowners and the public. The City could also consider creating a separate Map Review Commission to alleviate the potential burden on the Planning Commission in connection with its role in Page 7 reviewing individual map changes. Next Steps on Maps The Council does not need to finalize decisions about changes to the Sensitive Lands maps now. The Task Force recommended map changes proceed after"essential" code revisions are in place. When the map update does proceed,the key decisions for Council will be to establish a timeline and a public review process, and to decide whether to inventory natural resources outside the City limits. In the meantime, staff recommends adopting an annual map update process to correct agreed-upon mistakes in response to individual property owners' requests. Property owners could ask for a map review for their property, and upon staff review and concurrence,the map could be corrected or refined each year. This would eliminate many small mapping errors, and provide a better alternative than the current practice which defers all consideration of map changes to the decennial Periodic Review of the Comprehensive Plan, except for those property owners/developers willing to apply (and pay)for Comprehensive Plan amendments (map fixes) on their own. Restrictive Covenants The Sensitive Lands map shows all the streams, wetlands, and tree groves that the City has determined are significant. The zoning map only approximates the resource boundaries. When the site is developed,then the resource map is further refined—the resource is delineated. When a resource is delineated,the City requires the landowner to record a land use restriction on the title that shows the precise boundary and notes the development restrictions, creating a permanent legal record of the delineation. This practice was considered desirable because: • It notified future property owners of the protective overlay on the property; • It prevented the City and the owner from going through the delineation process twice due to poor record-keeping; • In the case of tree groves, it memorialized the 50% protection area, preventing a future homeowner from removing half of the protected trees; and • In the case of streams, it memorialized the location of the stream banks and wetlands at the time of development and guaranteed that the City would not ask for bigger protections in a future development application. The notice of development restriction is required by code for tree groves; it has been required by practice for riparian and wetland areas. Since 2001, approximately 62 residential properties have recorded them. Many local cities require development restrictions be recorded for open space tracts in large developments or other significant natural areas specifically protected as a condition of approval of a development application. Several other jurisdictions (including the cities of Tigard, Oregon City, and Wilsonville) also require that restrictions be recorded on individual residential lots. Some property owners have objected to this practice because: • It represents an additional cost for landowners—requiring the cost of a survey and a small fee for recording. • It raises a concern that property value would be impacted by evidence of a land use restriction. The City could eliminate the requirement to record Sensitive Lands development restrictions. If the City were to remove this requirement, the Planning Division should consider what other system can be put in place to ensure that staff, property owners, and buyers have consistent access to resource delineation Page 8 information. Because a legal description and plat map are required, current Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping programs are not sufficient. The City will need to archive survey maps of this data and make them available to the public. A system like www.portlandmaps.com might be one alternative, but there is a significant cost associated with that approach. Property Values and Sensitive Lands Some citizens have objected to the Sensitive Lands regulations on the basis that they reduce the value of their property. A number of published economic studies have looked at land values in relation to their tree canopy cover and their proximity to water features. Several of these peer-reviewed academic papers focused on the Portland Metro area (e.g., research by Dr. Noelwah Netusil of Reed College and Dr. Joseph Poracsky of Portland State University). These researchers have found that streams, wetlands, and trees generally increase property values, and that this affect is greater when a natural resource area is permanently protected. Published evidence supports the assertion that protecting natural resources increases, rather than reduces, land values in a community. Economics research describes and explains economic relationships—but it is difficult to extrapolate research from one community and one regulatory program to another, even within a region. To provide some City-specific information, and to hopefully allay fears regarding property value reduction,the City engaged an appraiser Rick Walker, to undertake a review of the impact of Sensitive Lands regulations on property values. He brought experience as a planner and professional appraiser experienced in assessing the value of conservation easements. His conclusion is that the marketing time for affected properties may be somewhat longer in some circumstances, but there was "little if any downward pressure on sale price." An executive summary of his report is included as Attachment 3. As the appraiser notes, and real estate experts know, the sales price of a property is ultimately a combination of many factors—acreage, age and appearance of structures, landscaping, site amenities,. neighborhood character, expectations about the housing market, and buyers' preferences. Even an independent property appraisal may not reassure a property owner who feels that he or she lost a sale because of a zoning overlay. And sales that occurred partly because of their proximity to protected natural areas are even more difficult to document. So the fear that the Sensitive Lands zoning overlay reduces property values may continue to be expressed. However, all available evidence is that the Sensitive Lands overlay does not exert appreciable "downward pressure" on sale price. Increased flexibility in the development rules for properties with a high degree of constraint may alleviate remaining concerns about specific properties being unduly encumbered. ALTERNATIVES The Council may direct staff to develop implementation options for any combination of Task Force recommendations. A small group of code changes could be reviewed by the Planning Commission and returned to the Council this year, addressing the pressing desire to create flexibility to permit small projects with minor impacts to resource areas. Other code modifications, making more significant changes, could be available in the coming year. Changes beyond the Development Code could be implemented in the next budget cycle; it would not be too soon to begin developing options and identifying budget needs and resources for their implementation. Page 9 Following the categories used in this report,the Council may: 1. Direct staff to develop the immediate code changes identified in this report (on pages 3-4), submit them to the Planning Commission, and return to the Council with the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Direct staff to develop options for a flexible,two-track application review process, review with the Planning Commission, and return to the Council with a Planning Commission recommendation. 3. Identify and develop programs for increased public outreach and education, incentives for restoration, and collaborative community approaches to natural resource protection. General categories for long-term change could include: a. Support for the newly-forming Oswego Lake Watershed Council and similar collaborative approaches b. Support for increased City education/outreach to the development community c. Support for increased City education/outreach to homeowners In addition to providing direction regarding the Task Force recommendations,the Council may direct Planning staff to defer map updates until the Council has reviewed other Sensitive lands program improvements, or to develop a more detailed plan to proceed with map updates now. Staff seeks Council direction on the current requirement for recording development restrictions. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council refer short-term development code changes proposed by the Task Force to the Planning Commission, with a timeline for the Commission to return specific language and a recommendation for Council adoption. It is requested that the Council provide guidance to staff in prioritizing the other implementation steps suggested above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Task Force Recommendations Summary/Table 2. Staff Clarifications of Task Force Report findings 3. Executive Summary of Property Appraisals 4. Glossary Reviewed by: 1f riiiniiiiirlt J f r t '..- Department r}+'�- F ! ilii. iii Alex D. Mclnt re't ' City Manager Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Prepared by Staff Regarding the 5-28-10"REPORT OF THE SECOND LOOK TASK FORCE TO THE DIRECTOR OFPL4NNiNG&BUILDING SERVICES" June 14,2010 Page Issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area R, Issue Area and Task Forte Recommendations Charge" Category Sections Investment' Timeframe" Staff Comments 9 1. LEADING BY EXAMPLE. 1.iCreate and budget fora city program for the long-term maintenance of Sensitive 1 Parks I Partly related to Parks master planning process. Lands in city1,2,5 11 n/a $$$-$$$$ 3 parks and public open space. Program I i 2.Create,budget for,and implement a program to provide support and incentives for Partly related to Parks master planning process. ._ the long-term maintenance of Sensitive Lands on private property and designated 1,2,3,5 Incentives n/a $$-$$$$ 3 private open space. 3. identify priority restoration needs and target funding to these priorities.both on a 1,2,5 Parks rife Partly related to Parks master planning process. short and long term basis. Program 9 2. DESIGNATING SENSITIVE LANDS. _ 9 A. Process to Designate Sensitive Lands. 101. Use of HAS system to assess resource values. 1.The City should continue using the Habitat Assessment Score(HAS)system for 'Staff can continue to evaluate alternative determining resources to protect. In the longer-term,consider adoption of an Resource resource assessment methodologies periodically oalternative system if one is demonstrated to be more accurate and easier to 1'2 Assessment 50.16 $ nfa and as new information becomes available- !administer. i 10 2. More accurate mapping for the designation of resources and delineation of resource boundaries,e.g.,defining and protecting contiguous tree grove canopy. 1.To provide more specific resource designation,reviewf refine mapped tree grove • Could be done as part of annual map updates. 1,2 Mapping 50.16 $$$ n/a i"green blobs"on an ongoing basis. _ !See discussion in staff report. 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, ( 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $ 1 e.g.heritage trees. I 11 3. Confusion about whether"ditches"and other man-made irrigation and drainage channels are,in some cases,designated as sensitive lands. 1. Include the Oregon Department of State Lands definition of ditches in the City This change could be completed in the next few Development Code and specifically indicate that it is not the City's50.16& p p y' intent to 1-5 Definitions $ 1 'months. regulate such under the Sensitive Lands program. 1 50.02 2. Re-evaluate specific areas where there may be questions about the designation of Likely very few areas require review. iman-made irrigation and drainage channels as Sensitive Lands. 1,2,3,5 Mapping n/a $$ ilia 12 4. Inventorying and mapping properties outside the City's boundary as Sensitive Lands. 1.1Continue the mapping process for sensitive lands outside the City's boundary as i See discussion in staff report. resources are availabie. I 1,2 Mapping Oa $$ n/a 2. Develop informational materials for property owners within areas likely to be r 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 4'S Outreach n/a $ 3 Lof known resources. 1. Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page Iof7 Page issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area R, Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge" Category Sections Investment Timeframe' Staff Comments 12 B. Modifications to sensitive lands map(adding or subtracting resource areas). 13 5. Revising the City's sensitive lands map to reflect all resources designated on Metro's maps as having environmental significance. 1.'Except in response to specific property owner requests that merit changes,the ' This would continue the current practice for map existing map should continue to be utilized without modifications.There are no modifications with improved customer service. specific additions or deletions to the existing Sensitive Lands map recommended at 1,2 Mapping n/a n/a n/a this time. 2.Complete key development code revisions before adding any additional resources 2 Ma in n a n a Key code revisions to be determined by Council; to the inventory and map,including 18 sites. 1 g / /_ see discussion in staff report. 3.In completing future mapping for 1B sites,apply the same methodologies as were See discussion in staff report. used for currently mapped sites(HAS scoring,ESEE analyses and resource 1,2 Mapping n/a $$ n/a protection determinations,with due process notice and hearing required). 13 6. Resources identified through public comment as needing to be inventoried or re-inventoried and designated as sensitive lands. 13 a. Oswego Lake and canals. 1. Encourage the Lake Corporation and City to cooperatively engage in a Formation of the Lake Oswego Watershed comprehensive and coordinated watershed-based approach to water quality. E 1,5 Partnerships n/a $$$ 3 Council is the first step in this approach;also 1 requires Lake Corporation participation. 2. During the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update,assess designation of Oswego [ This would be appropriate as part of the Lake as a Goal S resource and whether land use and zoning regulations should be Comp Plan I Comprehensive Plan update process. applied to development in the Lake to protect its natural resource and other Goal 5 1'z Update n/a $$ 2 P functions. 3.To provide more transparency,regularly inform the public about water quality in Education& the lake and provide public education about how the public can help improve it. S Outreach n/a $$ 3 14 b. Tualatin and Willamette Rivers 1.'Continue to rely upon Willamette River Greenway provisions to protect resource ) This would continue current practice. lands along the Willamette River and existing RP designations to protect resource 1.,2 Regulation 50-15 n/a n/a lands along the Tualatin River. 2.Assess whether resource lands along the Willamette River are adequately This would be appropriate as part of the protected through Greenway provisions or whether they can be better protected 1 Regulation n/a $$ 2 Comprehensive Plan update process. with Sensitive Lands provisions. 15 c. Existing City parks and other areas identified through the public comment process,such as First Addition,Foothills,areas in LORA plan. No recommendations,see Considerations,page 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 7. Gaps in the current inventory and designation of resources in terms of protecting stream systems as connected systems,e.g.headwaters. 1.i Begin the process to develop and implement a watershed-based approach that I1 A watershed approach is most successful if it holistically addresses streams,riparian vegetation and upland habitat as an € . Involves community partners;a Lake Oswego integrated natural resource system and that links the City's multiple regulatory and 1,2,5 Partnerships n/a $$ 3 Watershed Council could support this approach. voluntary programs. j Would also require participation of City staff with 1 L some expertise. Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 2 of 7 Page Issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area R, Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge^ Category Sections Investment' Timeframe' Staff Comments 2. Seek assistance from watershed councils in identifying any gaps in the current This would be appropriate as part of the inventory and designation of stream systems as Sensitive Lands and,as part of ( 1,2 ;Partnerships n/a $ 3 Comprehensive Plan update process. periodic review,develop appropriate approaches to address such. 3.;Investigate a program for voluntary action for daylighting of stream sections that Low cost to develop program;higher have been placed into culverts,paved or otherwise modified,particularly in Voluntary/ costs for implementation. association with major developments. Investigate the feasibility of providing 3'S Incentives 50.16 $-$f$ 3 incentives such as density bonuses to encourage daylighting. 16 3. PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY EN THE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT DESIGNATED RESOURCES. 16 A. Providing flexibility in the application of protection measures. 0.,Maintain existing riparian buffers and tree grove protections through RP and RC See comments on separate elements(below). 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 1 5 Regulation 50.16 n/a n/a permit limited development and uses that do not adversely affect or minimize impacts to resource values. To improve flexibility in applying these standards: 1. Construction Setback -Address confusion about the 10-foot construction setback Construction setback does only apply to required by Section 50.16.070 being a buffer on a buffer. If the intent of the construction;need to clarify code language. setback is for construction purposes,then it should be considered temporary and 1,2,4 Regulation 50.16 $ 1 rescinded following completion of construction. 2. Optional Development Review Processes -Adopt a two-tiered review system that Portland code provides potential model, This allows applicants to apply for development permits using either(1)quantitative, approach will require additional discussion/ clear-and-objective standards(safe harbor approach),or(2)alternative refinement in Planning Commission. discretionary development standards which offer flexibility,but are more likely to ;result in compromise or negotiated approvals. Applicants would need to be 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 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. 3.Safe Harbor Approach -Adopt clear and objective standards modeled after those New criteria will require additional discussion/ 1-5 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 in the Metro Model Ordinances for Titles 3 and 13. refinement in Planning Commission. 4.Safe Harbor Approach -Adopt a definition of"development"and permit outright iCode changes to allow these small projects can the uses identified in Metro's Title 3 Model Ordinance(Exhibit C.p.65)and Title 13 1-5 Regulation 50.16 $ 1 I move ahead of the larger changes above. Model Ordinance(Exhibit E,p.132). r-- 5.Safe Harbor Approach -Adopt a definition of"disturbance area"and a de minimis These small projects can also be permitted ahead standard for disturbance within buffers. Options to consider: of the larger changes that will require more f-As defined in Metro's Title 13 Model Ordinance(Exhibit E,p.133). ;Planning Commission discussion. -Different thresholds for varying levels of development:Less than a certain - disturbance area,e.g.200 sq.ft.--encroachments are permitted outright;Between 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $ 1 200 to 500 sq.ft.-encroachments must be accompanied by commensurate mitigation;More than 500 sq.ft.-- a de minimis encroachment standard would not apply• —Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 3 of 7 Page Issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area R, Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge" Category Sections Investment Timeframe" Staff Comments 6.1Discretionary Review Process -Investigate elements of a discretionary review 'Portland code provides potential model. This 'process as described in the Metro Model Code(Exhibit E,page 145)and utilized by approach will require additional discussion/ other jurisdictions in the region that would be appropriate to Lake Oswego. The refinement in Planning Commission. process should enable a property owner to submit a plan for discretionary review lthat would allow flexibility in the application of regulations while avoiding 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 significant adverse effects to Sensitive Lands resources. The discretionary review process should include standards for avoiding and minimizing environmental !impacts before allowing for mitigation. 7.1Discretionary Review Process -Develop guidelines on the types of mitigation A number of other jurisdictions provide good ;required based on the Metro Model Ordinances and programs used by other 1,2,3 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 models. ljurisdictions in the region. 8.IDiscrefianary Review Process -Create a separate permit type for resource The City already offers a free resource enhancement activities and restoration projects,e.g.tree thinning,in RC and RP 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $$ 2 enhancement permit. The City could better ;zones that is a discretionary review. support and encourage these activities. 9.41Exemptions from Tree Removal Permitting -Update the City's invasive plant list to include a complete listing of invasive tree species;exempt these non-native species 1,2,3,5 Exemptions 5S $ 1 from tree removal permit requirements. 18 8. Applying a Net Environmental Benefit Approach to mitigation of development impacts. 1.(Investigate examples(e.g.Portland and Oregon City)and the mechanics of a net This will require work at the Planning environmental benefit approach that provide a process that would allow a iCommission level to develop guidelines for the property owner to submit a plan for discretionary review that seeks flexibility in 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 -review process. Changes may not simplify the the application of regulations in return for enhanced resource protection and/or code. There are not many models for this type of mitigation that results in a net environmental benefit. review. 2. Include minimum requirements for maintenance standards or ongoing mitigation Monitoring is resource-intensive. programs.Avoid one-time mitigation measures.Consider enforcement and 1,2 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 monitoring challenges. 3. A net environmental benefit approach should be structured to:Identify and clearly These recommendations should be one basis for define the functions performed by resource area(stream,wetland,buffer,upland). developing the net benefit approach of 18(8)(1) (See Appendix B on natural resource functions);Assess the condition of the above. resource.Is it functioning property?Quantify the findings;Quantify the impacts of a proposed land use action.(i.e.impervious area,shade reduction,direct 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50-16 $$ 2 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. 1-5 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 19 C. Providing incentives for resource protection. 1. Investigate the City of Beaverton's resource protection credits program,including ( There are many mitigation bank models types of credit and how mitigation can be quantified for purposes of credits. 5 Incentives n/a 1 $ 2 available. Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 4 of 7 Page issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area Rs Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge^ Category Sections Investment. Timeframe' Staff Comments 2. Provide credit for mitigation undertaken prior to submittal or approval of a land i 2,3,5 Incentives 50.16 $ 2 Documentation challenges are key here. use application. j 3.'Provide resource information to volunteers and property owners for removal of 1,4,5 I Education/ Oa $$ 3 This information exists,but needs greater vegetative invasive species and restoration projects. Outreach 'promotion. 4. Consider providing disposal support to volunteers and property owners in Other types of support may also be helpful;e.g. =conjunction with vegetative invasive species removal. 1,3,5 l Incentives n/a $$ 3 composting on-site is a good disposal method if i proper techniques are taught. 5. Provide assistance to Sensitive Lands property owners in securing conservation I easements. 1,2,3,5 Incentives Na $$ 3 6. Provide public recognition for exemplary resource stewardship,e.g."Habitat 5 Incentives J Oa $ 3 Friendly Excellence"awards. Outreach 7. Consider providing flexibility to property owners certified as Master Naturalists No code change required to allow Master when submitting applications for permits for undertaking resource management Voluntary/ Naturalists to prep applications;however,this projects,e.g.tree thinning,that allows the property owners to avoid the cost of 3'S Incentives ItJa $ n/a certification is not available yet. (OSU is hiring a professional arborists or resource experts. I developing program now.) 8. Foster volunteer service by certified Master Naturalists on Sensitive Lands. ( 1,3,5 Voluntary _ Oa $$ I 3 20 D. Applying reasonable standards to highly constrained lots 20 1. Applying an avoid—minimize-mitigate standard to development of highly constrained lots. 20 2. Applying a reasonable development standard to totally encumbered lots. 1.Given the limited number of properties that are highly or fully constrained,retain ; Requires Planning Commission discussion and the current"largest-house-allowed-on-the-smallest-lot-in-the-zone"standard with j refinement to develop discretionary review 'the option for discretionary review to provide flexibility when It can be I standards that will guide landowners and 'demonstrated that there will be less impact on resource values. Elements of f establish expectations. flexibility to Investigate include:Allow for additional building height to offset 1,2,3,5 Regulation 50.16 $$ 2 buffer restrictions where neighboring properties are not adversely affected;Make I allowances for mitigation such as easements for public access to trails or other features;Provide an exception to the single home limitation when resource f •protection is determined to be better served by more than one dwelling. 2.,Develop a program to purchase totally encumbered lots with significant resource 1,3,5 Incentives n/a $$$$ 3 Major budget item. value. 21 rl. IMPROVING THE PERMITTING PROCESS BY MAKING IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND NAVIGATE AND MORE AFFORDABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AND LANDOWNERS. 1.Explore the feasibility,including costs,of establishing an ombudsman position to Ombudsman position would be valuable in assist property owners and developers in navigating the permitting process and i improving overall Citywide customer service; accessing incentives for resource protection and restoration. 3,5 Outreach n/a $$$$ 3 many good models exist;would likely require new full-time staff. 2. Develop a guidance manual for habitat friendly development practices(per the City 1,3,5 Voluntary n/a $$ 3 _of Beaverton). 3. In responding to the Code Audit project currently underway,consider providing a I This suggestion could improve all Development concise statement of code purpose and effect at the outset of code(per Oregon 4 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 Code chapters;include with overall code audit if City code);providing better organization to the code;and using plain language. that project moves forward. Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 5of7 Page Issue Task Force Program City Code Level of No. Area R, Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge^ Category Sections Investment' Timeframe' Staff Comments 4. Investigate revising Code definitions to be more customer-friendly,e.g.changing RC . RC/RP terminology may be confusing and should and RP overlays to habitat benefit areas,land use regulations to best management be improved. Must also maintain some practices. 4 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 distinction between requirements and optional best practices. 5. Provide customer service training on an ongoing basis to Department staff. 5 Outreach n/a $$ 3 6.At least every five years,offer a free arborist review to property owners with designated tree groves to assist in assessing tree grove health and recommending 1,3,5 Incentives n/a $$$ 3 best practices. 7. Provide periodic site visits to refine mapped tree grove boundaries. Map updates/corrections create uncertainty for 1,3,5 Regulation/ n/a $$ 2 landowners;update could possibly be optional Incentive "opportunities for correction." 8. In lieu of hiring surveyors,encourage the County to allow property owners to use Assuming that the County accepts GPS data in GPS technology to delineate boundaries in RC zones. lieu of survey data,the City could offer GPS 3,4,5 Incentives n/a $ 2 delineation free or for a fee,using staff resources and with added costs. 9. Better advertise the services that the Planning Department provides to development applicants. 4,5 Outreach n/a $$ 3 10. Conduct periodic informational workshops on the Sensitive Lands program tailored Education/j to realtors and developers. 4'S Outreach I Ilia $ 3 11. Investigate establishment of a review process to resolve differences in delineation Portland makes delineation simple and free if of Sensitive Lands that is generally modeled after the City of Portland process. 3,4.5 Regulation 50.16 $$ 2 landowner agrees with City assessment. 12.In acknowledgement of the resource protection benefits that their properties No other Metro-area cities charge for resource provide to the City as a whole,investigate opportunities for fee reductions and delineation;however,eliminating/reducing fees waivers for property owners with designated Sensitive Lands. Examples include: would have budget impacts. Increase utility and utility access fees,e.g.$3/household,and dedicate those 3,5 Incentives n/a $$ 3 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. 22 5. INCREASING PUBLIC AWARENESS BY PROVIDING BENEFICIAL PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS,DEVELOPERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC 1. Provide ongoing public education about the values of stream corridors,riparian :Recommendations propose sufficient outreach areas,tree groves and other natural resources in the City and why they are being Education/ lefforts to occupy a full-time outreach position. protected. Produce a regular series of newspaper and newsletter articles on 1'2'4,5 Outreach Ilia $ 3 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 5 Outreach n/a $$ 3 known and if available. 3.Continue to provide free landscaping for conservation workshops and in-home ! These are currently provided at low cost to the consultations on landscapeimprovements. 1,5 P im Education/ n/a Outreach / $$ 3 City through a partnership with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park. Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 6 of 7 Page -issue_ Task Force Program City Code Level of ,Nio. Area R, Issue Area and Task Force Recommendations Charge^ Category Sections Investment' Timeframe" Staff Comments 4. Continue to provide tree care workshops through the Community Forestry 'Corporation for National Service has cut funding 1Program. Education/ for.AmeriCorps positions In the Metro area;the 1,5 Outreach n/a $ 3 community forestry position is unfunded for the coming year. 5. Identify sustainable sources of funding for public education programs. 1,5 Education n/a $ 3 6.Promote use of disclosure statements for transfers of property to advise new There are no maintenance requirements. owners of the existence of Sensitive Lands and requirements for resource 1 Outreach n/a $ 2 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. 4,5 Outreach n/a $$ 3 23 COMPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS. 23 A. Establishing minimum maintenance requirements to limit the growth of plants identified on the City's noxious weed list. 1. Update the City's Invasive plant list,and include a complete listing of invasive tree 1 Regulation 50.16 $ 1 (Portland recently updated its list and provides a species. good model. 2.Exempt from tree removal permit requirements those trees identified on the invasive plant list. Apply this exemption to all properties within the City(not just 1 Exemptions 55 $ 1 Sensitive Lands). 3. Even though exempt from permit requirements,require property owners to retain City could offer free site visit to verify proof of exemption(photo of invasive trees/written documentation from an exemptions prior to removal or establish a free arborist,landscape architect,forester,or other natural resource professional)for 1 Regulation 50.16 $ 2 exempt"tree permit;if tree not exempt,they'll up to one year following removal. This is intended to protect property owners need to apply for different permit. from uninformed complaints. 4. In consultation with the NRAB,the City should develop a voluntary or incentive Voluntary/ program for removal of ivy and other invasive species from private property. 1,3,5 incentives n/a $$ 2 5. For city-owned properties,the City should develop an aggressive program for 1 5 Parks n/a $$$ 3 removal of ivy and other invasive species that"leads by example". ' Program 6. Include requirements for minimum tree/ivy maintenance in the Tree Code. • 1 Regulation 55 $ 3 Perhaps incentives instead of requirements. 24 B. Prioritizing code enforcement against noxious vegetation. 1. Either as code or City policy,consider prioritizing enforcement actions against This would be a significant change from current noxious vegetation. 1 Regulation code enforcement priorities.City would need to g n/a $$ 2 also prioritize control of noxious vegetation on public property. ^Task Force Charge lists which of the five goals of the Second Look Task Force the recommendation works to achieve: 1-Maintain or improve environmental protection,2-Maintain compliance with Metro&State standards,3-Increase flexibility for landowners,4-Simplify/clarify the code or permit application process, 5-Result.in program that can engender community support "Level of Investment:$=<$1000;$$=$1,000-$10,000;$$$=10,000-$50,000;$$$$=>$50,000 "Timeframe:1-short-term code fixes for which good models already exist(3-4 months), 2-medium-term code improvements that could be implemented as part of the City's upcoming Code Update or as a stand-alone project that the Planning Commission could accomplish in the next year{6-12 months), 3-big-picture changes that would require additional budget and organizational adjustments outside of the Planning Department Second Look Task Force Recommendations Summary Page 7 of 7 Staff Clarifications of Task Force Report Findings Staff offers the following additions or clarifications to specific issues raised in the Task Force report. While these are for the most part minor corrections and clarifications of matters noted in the report, staff offers these observations in case these specific issues become important during subsequent discussion: Designating Sensitive Lands Issue 1 "Considerations" page 9 5. New HAS scores can be adjusted by the Planning Commission based on alternative information submitted. HAS scores are based on field data and scores can only be adjusted if new HAS scores are submitted by landowners and accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Alternatively, the Commission could accept existing HAS scores and assign alternative protections based on the ESEE analysis. Issue 2"Considerations" page 10 10. Providing property owners the opportunity to submit plans for resource stewardship on their land would create flexibility. Property owners can already submit plans for resource stewardship; the Planning Division reviews these as "resource enhancement"projects and issues a permit;it is the only free permit. The City could do more to assist and promote the development of stewardship plans. Issue 3 "Considerations" page 10 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." Section 50.16 does not provide any definitions. The definitions section of the Development Code, LOC 50.02, does not define "ditches,"but does define "creek," "stream," "drainage way,"and "watercourse." Issue 6 b"Considerations"page 13 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. 1 The third site is a private open space tract that belongs to a homeowners'association;it is not developable as a private home site. Providing Flexibility in the Provisions to Protect Designated Resources Issue A"Considerations" page 16 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. There are no permits required to remove invasive plants. Permits are required for tree removal. Issue A"Recommendations" page 16 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). These references to the model codes don't define "development";rather, they provide a list of development activities exempt from review. Issue C"Considerations" page 18 2.Voluntary removal of non-native species without a permit should be recognized as a positive action versus penalized,as is the current case. Voluntary removal of non-native species is generally recognized as a positive action, although the City could do more to recognize and reward this activity. Improving the permitting process by making it easier to understand and navigate and more affordable for developers and landowners "Considerations" page 20 4. In delineating resource boundaries, if there is a disagreement with staffs 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. This comment appears to confuse "designation"and "delineation." if a landowner disagrees with the City's "delineation"—e.g. they disagree about the exact location of a resource, then they can appeal the staff decision to LUBA. (The City does not control fees at LUBA.) This rarely happens. Most resource delineations are straightforward. Even with a map error, if the resource is not actually on their property, landowners can delineate a resource area as zero; if staff supports this finding, the resource map is refined to show the resource is not on their property. . However, if a landowner disagrees with a resource 'designation"—e.g. they believe that the stream, wetland or tree grove on their property is not environmentally significant, then they 2 must apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove it from the inventory. This is reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and the cost is substantial--$8,000. Staff proposes scheduling an annual map update in which property owners could participate at no cost to correct mapping errors agreed to by staff 3 �lY_ 6 r LII11 j�_ 1, 1 y1 RICK WALKER LAND SERVICES,INC.—REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES 1516 NE 37T"AVENUE—SUITE 210 • PORTLAND OREGON 97232 503.333.6655• PHONE• www.rwlandserivice.com• FAX• 503.546.0953 June, 2010 Ms. Denise Frisbee Director of Planning and Building Services City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97U34 RE: SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY IMPACT ANALYSIS Lake Oswego, Oregon Dear Ms. Frisbee: This letter serves as an executive summary attachment to my recently completed Sensitive Lands Overlay Impact Analysis. The analysis is a Real Property Consulting Report which was written in compliance with USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) standards. The findings summarized in this letter cannot be fully understood without examining the complete Sensitive Lands Overlay Impact Analysis Report. The purpose of the consulting assignment is to determine potential impacts associated with the City of Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands Overlay District regulations, primarily by focusing on any indication of substantial diminution in value. This report is intended to be used to assist the City of Lake Oswego for decision making purposes. RWLS, Inc. Ms. Denise Frisbee June, 2010 Director of Planning and Building Services Page 2 The analysis was specifically designed to rely on an unbiased analysis of sales data to determine if there are any identifiable behaviors of the market that are a result of the presence of a Sensitive Land Overlay District. The role of RWLS, Inc. in this analysis was to analyze a sample of those transactions which have occurred since the implementation of the Sensitive Land Overlay District. Properties were selected to represent the homes in Lake Oswego that are subject to different types of land use restrictions that are imposed by the City's Sensitive Land Overlay District. The nine selected properties were forwarded to Portland Residential Appraisals Inc. to be subjected to a USPAP compliant residential appraisal. The Portland Residential Appraisals, Inc. was instructed to assume a hypothetical condition that the properties were not subject to a Sensitive Land Overlay District, as of the date of the property sold. The resulting hypothetical market value conclusion was then compared with the actual sale price of the property to determine if there was any value impact associated with the restrictions of the Sensitive Lands Overlay District. Conclusion of the Market Analysis Based upon my investigation of the hypothetical analysis of sales data to USPAP standards, the relative differences in value due to the impacts associated with the City's Sensitive Land Overlay Districts is not determinable to any level of certainty other than to say it appears that the marketing time for affected properties may be slightly longer, with little if any measurable downward pressure on sale price if appropriately priced and marketed. If any questions arise concerning this report, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, RWLS, INC. Rick Walker, AICP OR State Certified General Appraiser No. C000216 (Expiration Date: June 30, 2011) App 05-10 RWLS, inc. Glossary Delineation: A precise map of the boundaries of a protected natural resource(stream, wetland, or tree grove). A delineation map includes a plat and legal description of the protected resource area and associated buffers. It is usually completed for a single tax lot when that lot is developed. Resource delineation is a ministerial land-use action approved by staff. It occurs after designation. Designation:A process to designate a stream, wetland, or tree grove as a significant environmental resource deserving City protection. A designation usually covers multiple tax lots. The result is an approximate map that is refined during delineation. Resource designation is a comprehensive-plan amendment reviewed by Planning Commission and approved by Council on the basis of a qualifying HAS and ESEE Analysis. ESEE Analysis: An analysis of the energy, social, environmental, and economic(ESEE) impacts of prohibiting, limiting, or allowing a land use that could adversely affect a significant Goal 5 resource. State 5 implementation rules for Goal 5 require cities to do an ESEE analysis for natural resources in their local inventory. The ESEE analysis is the primary basis for deciding to allow, limit,or prohibit development. Goal 5: The State Land Use Goal "to protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces." Oregon Administrative Rules specify a process for implementing Goal 5 (OAR 660- 023). These rules require all local jurisdictions to make an inventory of their Goal 5 resources and perform an ESEE analysis. Metro's Title 13 sets additional rules for applying Goal 5. Goal 6:The State Land Use Goal "To maintain and improve the quality of the air,water and land resources of the state." There are no state administrative rules for implementing Goal 6. Metro's Title 3 sets rules for implementing Goal 6. Habitat Assessment Score(HAS): An assessment tool that evaluates the importance of a natural resource are to wildlife by assigning it a score of 0-100 based on the presence and quality of water,food, and cover,with some additional points for accessibility, rarity,and scenic quality. Many local jurisdictions rely on the HAS to determine which resources are significant. The Lake Oswego code specifies that resources with a HAS of 35 or greater should be considered "significant"and evaluated with the ESEE process. Notice of Development Restrictions: A notice of the development restrictions that apply to a tax lot, which are recorded at the County Recorder's Office and will appear during a title search for that tax lot. Periodic Review: Periodic Review is a substantial evaluation and revision of a local comprehensive plan. Since 1981, state law(ORS 197.633) has called for cities and counties to regularly review their comprehensive plans. Riparian Buffer:An area near a stream or wetland, usually vegetated, which helps shade and partially protect a water resource from the impact of adjacent land uses. Riparian buffers are a common conservation practice aimed at increasing water quality and reducing pollution. Title 3:Metro's implementing rules for State Land Use Goal 6—focus is on maintaining and improving water quality. They were adopted in 1998 and all cities were required to comply by 2000. Title 13: Metro's implementing rules for State Land Use Goal 5—focus is on preserving and improving streamside,wetland and flood area habitat and connectivity as well as special habitats of concern.They were adopted in 2007 and all cities were required to comply by 2009.