Loading...
02/06/2012 - Minutes CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 6,2012 CALL TO ORDER President Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ROLL CALL Present: President Walsh Vice President Anderson Commissioner Doherty Commissioner Muldoon Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Shavey Alt. Commissioner Armstrong Alt. Commissioner Miller Absent: Commissioner Fitzgerald; Commissioner Ryan; Commissioner Schmidt Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Development Director; Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Tom McGuire, Principal Planner; Todd Prager, Associate Planner/Arborist; Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner; Darren Wyss, Senior Planner;John Floyd, Associate Planner; Shelley LaBarre, Sr. Administrative Specialist Also Present: Councilor Woodard, Council Liaison to the Planning Commission; Councilor Henderson, and Councilor Buehner CONSIDER MINUTES January 9 Meeting Minutes: President Walsh asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the January 9 minutes; there being none, Walsh declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: URBAN FORESTRY CODE REVISION PROJECT: CPA2011-00004/DCA2011-00002 REQUEST: To implement the city's Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Urban Forestry Master Plan, the City of Tigard is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the "Significant Tree Groves" Map and Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Amendments to Chapters 18.115, 18.120, 18.310, 18.330, 18.350, 18.360, 18.370 18.390, 18.530, 18.610, 18.620, 18.630 18.640, 18.715,18.745, 18.775, 18.790, and 18.798. In addition, in support of the Title 18 amendments, I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612 -PH-UFCR-Briefing-Ih-laas Rut ie,-\TPC\[inures 2.6-12.duc Page 1 of 8 amendments are proposed to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapters 1.16, 6.01, 6.02, 7.40, 8.02 thru 8.20, 9.06, and 9.08. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: Citywide. President Walsh opened the hearing by advising everyone present of the scope of the Planning Commission. He said the scope of the commission for this particular topic would deal with two aspects: the Urban Forestry standards for development (canopy cover), and tree grove preservation. This hearing would not deal with tree permit requirements or hazard trees. Since those two aspects are revisions to the Municipal Code, they would be dealt with at a public hearing before the City Council [in April]. The Planning Commission only has jurisdiction over the Development Code. He informed those present that staff was available out in the hall to speak with them if they had questions or concerns regarding the issues the commission was not dealing with at this time. A small portion of the audience went out to speak with staff. President Walsh noted the likely outcome of the hearing would be that it would be continued to March 5. Susan Hartnett, Assistant Community Development Director, introduced the various staff present and explained why they were there. She explained that she was present to answer procedural and big picture policy questions and invited the commission to feel free to ask her those kinds of questions. STAFF REPORT Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner, went over the staff report (the staff report is available to the public one week before the hearing.) QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS President Walsh commended staff for the quality of the materials that had been provided to the commissioners to prepare for the hearing. One of the commissioners asked whether they would be getting more information on canopy cover, as he had some questions regarding that topic. Susan Hartnett answered that, yes, they would. She said that, in fact, the reason they're recommending that the hearing be continued to a later time is so staff will have time to get back to them with answers to various questions like that which undoubtedly would come up. There were some questions about issues that AIDS Forestry and Engineering had brought up. Staff will come back to the next meeting with some of those issues/answers. Gary Pagenstecher mentioned that, for the record, and as required by state law, the entire Urban Forestry Code Revision project record is available and accessible electronically at this hearing should questions with regard to that record come up during the hearing. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2412 Packets\026612-P14-UFCR-Briefing-Dplaws Reeicw\TPC Alinures 2-6-12 dor Page 2 of 8 CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) TESTIMONY John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard - commented on the process of arriving at the set of guiding principles that are contained in Volume I of the Planning Commissioners material. He said he appreciated the process and how staff handled it. He noted the guiding principles were a product of the entire group. He said they represent a consensus of the Citizen Advisory Committee. He noted the committee was time limited; they used the full time, and the consultant was very organized in how the group worked through each meeting. They had time limits as to how long they could speak. He said the guiding principles were not guiding on them, as a CAC, but they were intended to guide going forward. The CAC didn't have them to start with — they came to fruition at the end. He said everyone signed them. President Walsh said he wanted to go on record that he was a member of the CAC, as well as Commissioner Schmidt. He reiterated that the guiding principles were a product— a culmination of the outcomes — and they, the CAC members, were all asked to sign them - which they did. Marissa Daniels, Associate Planner, read comments on behalf of Morgan Holen, 5300 Parkview Drive #1053, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (Exhibit A) —Marissa noted that Ms. Holen was an active member of the CAC and is an ISA Certified Arborist as well as an ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor - and a business owner. Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th, Tualatin, OR 97062, HBA Representative, spoke about how pleased he was with the process and the outcome of the CAC. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR Troy Mears 11680 SW 13th Place, Tigard, OR 97223 He said he represents the Parks and Rec Advisory Board for the City of Tigard and also himself, as a local landscape architect. He was there to show support for the revisions to the current code. He believes staff and all involved, did a great job revising a former code that he believes was very difficult to adhere to — for all parties — developers and city members. John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 He said he has great respect for the project, but has some issues and believes some changes should be made. He said, while the CAC came to a consensus, he disagrees with a number of points. He said nobody relies on just tree canopy. He believes a minimum level of tree preservation should be included in the code. He provided written comments (Exhibit B). He noted that this has been a long time in coming and he doesn't want to be misunderstood— he's in favor of it and believes it should go forward; however, he believes some changes should be made. I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612 -PH-UFCR- Briefing-l yi ws Rc.ica\TPC iNlinurec 2-6-12.dot Page 3 of 8 TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION Rob Ruedy, 14185 SW 100th Avenue, Tigard, 97224 Mr. Ruedy was surprised to not see anything in the Cityscape [the city newsletter] February issue related to this hearing. He believes hearing notices should be included in the Cityscape. He believes there's no common sense — a voluntary mitigation is useless. He brought forward some "are these being addressed— and if not,why not?" questions which he would provide to staff for answers. [John Floyd will receive the comments for staff.] Mr. Ruedy said he would appreciate a 2 week extension of holding the record open because of the delay of the draft coming out. It would give people a chance to absorb the 60 pages. He believes it's important to allow people to have opportunity to comment. President Walsh said they would take that into consideration at the end of the meeting. TESTIMONY NEITHER FOR, NOR AGAINST Cleon Cox 13580 SW Ash Ave. Tigard, OR Mr. Cox said, "If you had enough people voicing their opposition to the staff's position, would you ever actually take that into consideration and reverse your position? In 27 years I've never seen that happen, and it bothers me!" Commissioner Doherty answered, "Yes, this has definitely happened. It doesn't happen every time, but yes, we do go to staff and have them change things when we believe it's warranted." Brian Lewis, 12828 SW Walnut Street. Tigard, OR 97223 He said he supported John Frewing's comments —particularly the comments regarding the ratio of counting canopy to tree count. He believes some consideration should be made there. He also agrees that everything should be included in the Cityscape — even if just one sentence. He's sure that could easily be done, and he would appreciate it. Fanny Bookout, 9775 SW Commercial, Tigard, OR 97223 Ms. Bookout had signed up to speak; however, she was a "no show" when called forward. Ken Gertz, 19200 SW 46th, Tualatin, OR 97062 Mr. Gertz, representing the Home Builders' Association (HBA), gave a brief presentation and submitted written comments (Exhibit C). Eric Schultheis, 11180 SW Fonner Street, Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Schultheis, a twelve year resident—has a property with many trees. He wants enough flexibility built into the code so people don't get stuck between "a rock and a hard place" e.g., the Fonner Woods Development that went in next door to him had many trees. They removed most of them but left a few here and there. One that had been left has fallen already. The trees put in to mitigate those that were taken out are mostly dying because he believes the wrong trees were planted in the wrong places. Question by President Walsh: Have you had a chance to review the grove protection portion of the proposed code? "Very briefly, yes."Any feedback?'Well, we always have limbs falling but it looks like I can take a tree out if it looks like it's going to be a problem for the safety of my family or 1:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612 -PH-UFCR- Briefing-Bylaws Rei ICV\TPC\Iinurc-2-6.12.doc Page 4 of 8 my home— so that's good. I commend you for that. Don't make it impossible to keep a safe home. Thank you." Richard Bergen, 12305 SW Summer Street, Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Bergen had signed up to speak; however, he was a "no show" when called. No other people had signed up to speak. President Walsh asked if there was anyone else present who would like to speak: OTHER TESTIMONY Dennis Wilson, 12540 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Wilson stated that he's against anything that would inhibit the development of his property. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING— 7 Minute Break PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED President Walsh stated that before the break he'd meant to "Close Testimony" but mistakenly had closed the hearing; thus, he reopened the hearing at this time. DELIBERATIONS Susan Hartnett said staff would like to know if something came up during the hearing thus far that the commissioners believe they'd like to know more about... concerns... questions... etc. She said staff was interested in the commissioners'ideas and feedback, so they can focus on those things when they get back to them at a later time. Some of the comments, concerns, and/or questions: • Addressing adjacent property lines —particularly hazardous trees • A limit on the level of tree preservation • Averaging out the canopy on lots • Information on Cityscape —people may not know they can sign up to get notifications • Tree canopy of 40% seems a bit arbitrary • Has there been a study as to how much daylight people need to exist? People should be a consideration—not just wildlife. People need Vitamin D to exist. • A balance of canopy versus tree preservation • Sometimes people need to cut down trees for various reasons —maybe a dog, or a play structure —it happens and it's perfectly legal on their property. • We're trying to incentivize people to plant the right kinds of trees • To what extent were some of the issues covered that have been brought up thus far? I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR- Briefing-Bylaws Ro+icw\TPC\linutes 2-6-12.doc Page 5 of 8 • I'm struck with 40% tree canopy - that may be too much. I like the idea of the number of trees versus the actual percentage. I think it's interesting to think of going with the count as opposed to percentage. • Protecting large tree groves on private property could possibly lower the value of that person's property. It could make it less attractive to build on. • It would be good if staff could bring some examples of the tree canopy just like Ken Gertz did. It would be good to see examples of how the canopy can be met. • I would like to hear more about the types of species that are desirable. Project Manager Todd Prager said he wanted to point something out to the commissioners. The 40% goal number came up earlier and he believes it may have been a mistake to frame it in those words. They've been trying to move away from saying, "This code requires 40% canopy per development" because it's a somewhat inaccurate way of thinking about it. He noted they're really talking more about a range of canopy with development which can range from as low as 13% canopy; based on the way the calculations are done because there's credit for existing trees and street trees. He encouraged the commissioners to look at the peer review results - in Volume 2, beginning on page 467 --where they would get a sense of what the outcomes were on the canopy. "Unfortunately," he said, "we've not been able to shake the 40% message, but I want to mention that because it's something that can be misunderstood." He asked that they think about the canopy requirement in this different light. Susan Hartnett spoke about the requests that had been made to hold the record open longer than the one week staff had suggested. The thought was to move to keep the record open for two weeks. Ms. Hartnett noted if they kept it open for the two weeks, it would remain open until Friday, February 17, at 5:00 p.m. Those who would want to provide additional information would need to meet that time criteria. They would provide it to Doreen Laughlin, the Planning Commission Secretary, or to Todd Prager, the Project Manager. President Walsh summed up the process, "The next meeting on the 5th of March will be more of a workshop—kind of backwards - but it has to be done under the rules of the public hearing for input to the staff; however, we will not be open to public testimony. At the end of that, we will provide additional feedback just as we are now. From that we'll come back to a final hearing where we will only entertain and take testimony on the amendments. We'll close testimony, deliberate and, hopefully, will have a package that is satisfactory." MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE CERTAIN The following motion was made by Commissioner Muldoon, and seconded by Commissioner Shavey: "I move that we keep the record open until Friday, February 17, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. — all materials to arrive in written or electronic form by that time. I also move to continue this hearing to a date certain - March 5, 2012." The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED L•\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\D20612 -PH-UFCR- Briefing-113 la:s Rirn"\TPC[muter 2-6-12.doc Page 6 of 8 BRIEFING— FINAL BYLAWS REVIEW Susan Hartnett gave a brief review of what had happened up to this time with regard to the revision of the bylaws. She said, "Back in November the first iteration was given to you which was very confusing due to text being in various colors, underlined text, and text that was in `strike-through.' It was complicated, and feedback was given by the commission at that time. The revisions were put into a `clean copy' where staff could read it in its form, and then the realization came that it needed to be done yet another time. The result was an iteration that took into account changes that tried to make for internal consistencies. Because they were putting together multiple documents, the end result was duplication of some things and some parts of one thing in one section and other parts of the same thing in a different section, so the objective was to bring that all together. Some of the changes included meeting the newly required AP style guides the city adopted last year; in addition, the issue of`alternates'was newly addressed." Ms. Hartnett reminded the commissioners that in November, 2011 at the Planning Commission workshop on this topic, she'd advised them that, not only would they be revising the bylaws, but they would be recommending that council amend Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 2.08, so that what should be in the bylaws is in the bylaws, and what should be in the code is in the code. The changes to TMC 2.08 have not changed at all since November, so the commissioners don't need to revisit that unless they've changed their minds since their last look at this. She assumed they're still good with it. What changed was what was shown in strike-through/underline on the bylaws. This is scheduled to go to council on March 27. At that point, the expectation would be that council would adopt the recommended bylaws and would also make the amendments to Municipal Code 2.08. Discussion followed and issues included: • the portion in the bylaws referring to alternates and terms; • whether the AP standards are correct; and • the portion referring to providing an annual "report" to council. The concern was that perhaps a written report was expected and, if not, whether it can be changed to say "verbal report." It was decided to add the following sentence after the word "report": "This may take the form of an annual joint meeting." The rest of the text would remain the same. President Walsh asked the commissioners if they had any comments to forward to council regarding the TMC recommendation; there were none. MOTION The following motion was made by Commissioner Doherty: "I move that we propose to council that we accept the bylaws and the Municipal Code as printed and presented to us tonight with the changes that we talked about." Commissioner Muldoon seconded the motion and added to the motion, "and proofed to meet the [AP] style." 1:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UFCR- Briefing- 11c-MN,'\TPC Minutes 2-G-12.do: Page 7 of 8 The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS (taken out of order) Susan Hartnett provided the commission with a flyer (Exhibit D) from Metro on Climate Smart Scenarios Project which was in response to new state legislation that was initially adopted in 2007 and further refined in 2009. It has to do with greenhouse gas reduction targets for the state. Metro has been working on the response to those state requirements as a consolidated Metropolitan area response. There is a proposed joint meeting between the Beaverton and Tigard City Councils to which both the Beaverton and Tigard Planning Commissions are being invited. It will be a joint presentation by Metro Councilors Kathryn Harrington and Carl Hosticka on this topic. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,April 10. It will be at Beaverton City Hall. Details will be provided at a later date. OTHER BUSINESS —There was some discussion as to how and when comments should be distributed to the commissioners. ADJOURNMENT President Walsh adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m. c� , i ),,v„— rte:___`_ Doreen Laughlin,Planning Com sion Secretary • l 47 . - ATTEP' -sident Dae Walsh I:\LRPLN\Planning Commission\2012 Packets\020612-PH-UPCR- Briefing-Bylaws Rc-iea-\TPC 91inure 2-6-12doc Page 8 of 8 Morgan E. Haien 5300 Parkview Drive #1053 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 February 6, 2012 City of Tigard Planning Commission 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you as a member of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and apologize that I am unable to attend your meeting this evening to provide my testimony to you in person. Nevertheless, I will provide this written testimony for your consideration. I work as a consulting arborist in Tigard and throughout the Portland Metropolitan Region, and am familiar with tree codes in many different jurisdictions. I served on the City of Tigard Urban Forestry Management Plan CAC in 2009 and was excited to have the opportunity to help implement the Plan by serving on the Urban Forestry Code Revisions CAC. The CAC consisted of a diverse group of individuals including arborists like myself and other tree service providers, representatives from the development community and Metropolitan Homebuilders, citizens at-large and citizens concerned with environmental protections and tree preservation. Between June 2010 and September 2011, the CAC met regularly in an attempt to consolidate, simplify, and update Tigard's urban forestry regulations. Recommendations include: A. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection standards in the Community Development Code; B. Amendments to consolidate and update tree management and protection regulations in the Tigard Municipal Code, including the identification and abatement of hazard trees; C. Development of a Tree Grove Protection Program; D. Clarification and programming of tree removal mitigation funds; and E. A design and maintenance manual for trees. These recommendations are intended to implement the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the goals and sub-goals of the Urban Forestry Master Plan,while also maintaining consistency with State and Regional Policies and Standards, as well as Council direction and community preferences based on surveys, open houses, and public comments. My primary objective in providing this testimony to you is to communicate the consensus view of the CAC. Members of the CAC represent diverse perspectives and agreement was not reached on every single detail. However, the diverse perspectives made for interesting discussions and helped to facilitate informed choices regarding broader urban and community forestry values. The result is a set of Guiding Principles (see City of Tigard Urban Forestry Code City of Tigard—Planning Commission February 6,2012 Page 2 Revisions, Volume 1, pages 15-21)that represent the primary elements that CAC members agreed to. We recognize that the code language is likely to change as the process moves forward, but recommend that the Guiding Principles be preserved. In addition, please refer to the December 29, 2011, memorandum from Marissa Daniels (Associate Planner, City of Tigard) to the Planning Commission regarding Urban Forestry Code Revisions Volumes. Attachments 2, items I-V provide a concise and accurate summary of the main issues raised and discussed by the CAC. Item V in particular documents a number of details that the CAC did not reach complete consensus on; hashing out such details to an end went beyond our scope of work. For example, the CAC reached consensus in recommending standards for development that include required effective canopy cover targets and that the targets ought to be tiered percentages based on zone. However, not all members of the CAC agreed on what the required canopy cover percentages should be.The draft code revisions describe targets agreed on by the majority of CAC members, but the actual percentages recommended were not unanimous. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to commend staff and JLA Public Involvement for all of their time and effort on this project. Staff and the contracted facilitator did an outstanding job of keeping the CAC organized and on-task. Staff was remarkably responsive to questions and requests for additional information, and the facilitator moved the meetings along while allowing multiple opportunities to discuss particular issues and making sure that everyone provided input on each issue. I have been on a number of boards and committees around the area over the last eight years and was pleasantly surprised by how much we were able to cover and accomplish with so many diverse interests and contentious issues on the table. It was my pleasure to participate on this committee! I have said it before, but the City really has done a great job of responding to citizen input, and the draft code represents a balance of the various viewpoints heard throughout the process. I support amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the "Significant Tree Groves" Map and to amend the Tigard Development Code (Title 18) Chapters in line with the Guiding Principles agreed to by the CAC. Thank you for your time and diligent efforts to improve the City's urban forestry regulations for the benefit of this and future generations. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, -m1)7. f Morgan E. Holen Tigard Urban Forest Code Revisions Citizen Advisory Committee, Member ISA Certified Arborist(PN-6145A) ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor(No.449) Morgan Holen &Associates, LLC, Owner 2/6/2012 Commission President Walsh and other members of the Planning Commission: First of all, I want to express my greatest respect for the Tigard staff and CAC members who have worked on this Urban Forestry Code Revision Project. They have, in most cases, carefully listened to a variety of points I have made, perhaps not fully or well, and have tried to respond. I have given some thought to how to persuade you this evening that some significant changes, some rethinking, should take place before you pass this staff recommendation on to city council. Of course the best way would be to have you experience the impact of the changes yourself -- not feasible tonight. A second course is to ask you whether you are looking for evidence-based changes or simply any theory that staff proposes. With malice toward none, I offer you my shot at evidence demanding change. I presume that each of you have taken the time to read and apply the comments which I have recently made since the time that the CAC completed its work; if not, I would be glad to try answering questions or respond to your independent observations on the proposed changes. I will not repeat those comments,except to augment them and instead focus on material which has developed in the past couple months. Finally, as introductory matters, my notes this evening are limited to material for the Tigard Code, Chapter 18. I understand that this is your scope of action. However, to the extent that the public notice for this hearing also addresses other sections of the Tigard Code and administrative rules, I ask (protest or appeal) for the required hearing on material changes proposed for them as well. Reliance on mature tree canopy cover. I have previously noted how the CAC, when queried about whether 'a base level of preservation' should be the basis for code revision favored such approach by a 5-3 vote rather than allowing removal of all trees with appropriate mitigation. Tonight, I would simply point to other similar evidence that Tigard citizens want some base level of tree preservation in the code: A) In the 2008 Urban Forest Survey (Vol III, page 285), when people were asked what could be done to improve the tree situation in Tigard, with an open ended response requested, some 28 out of 210 total responses made reference to tree preservation. In this same survey (see p297), citizens by a 2:1 margin expressed interest in regulations to preserve trees. B) In Tigard's Comp Plan (Vol III, page 330), Policy 1 of Goal 2.2 calls for the 'preservation' of trees in the city by appropriate regulations. Goal 2.3 calls for development that 'minimizes the loss of existing trees' and Policies 1, 2 and 6 under that goal speak of 'minimize (ing) the reduction of existing tree cover', giving 'priority to the protection of existing trees' and actions to 'preserve existing trees'. C) The UFMP itself, in its implementation matrix (Vol III, page 254) calls at Goal 1.1b to 'Modify code to focus less on mitigation and more on preservation of long-lived evergreen and broad-leaf deciduous tree species. . .' In recent materials, I would note that ODFW makes the same point as I promote -- that removal of existing trees now for projected canopy some significant time in the future removes 'habitat that is not replaced by young 'mitigation' plantings' and that the preferred white oak natives of Tigard take 100-200 years to mature. (Staff report, Page 50). Canopy cover is needed now as well as decades or centuries in the future. I pointed out in earlier comments how City of Portland chose not to rely so heavily on forecast tree canopy cover during a recent code review and update there. Now, Tigard's own 'peer review' consultant makes the same point -- referring to 'the cutting edge and unprecedented nature of the proposed code' (Vol 11, page 481). The staff report touts the 'peer review' as proof that the proposed code changes are 'workable' and it may be so, but the peer review looked at feasibility from the developer's viewpoint. I looked up AKS Forestry and Engineering at its website to see if they had any experience at environmental assessment -- searching for the words 'canopy cover' and 'environmental values' and the answer came back for both terms "Your search yielded no results". I suggest that an additional peer review be conducted by an organization sensitive and experienced in urban forestry environmental assessment as used in land development situations (ODFW choice or 1000 Friends of Oregon consultants, or ??). So what amendments do I request to implement these matters? a) TDC 18.790 should be augmented to include clear and objective 'approval criteria', which require that the urban forestry plan shall comply with the requirements of the UFM and that compliance with the UFM be included as a Condition of Approval for each subject permit. b) TDC 18.790 should be augmented to require as an 'approval criterion' that 1) for any development with more than 10 existing healthy trees > 6 inch DBH per 10,000 sq ft of development impact area, 33 percent of such existing trees shall be preserved and 2) for any development with up to 10 existing healthy trees > 6 inch DBH per 10,000 sq ft of development impact area, 50 percent of such existing trees shall be preserved. Such approval criterion should be waived only in the case that the required tree retention increases site development costs by more than 30 percent, and then only to the extent necessary to limit site development costs to that increase. Sincere - 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 gkjfrewing@g . .com Todd Prager, Planning Commission Dear Sirs, These are my comments on the January update of the tree code: 18.360.090 The wording "where possible" is vague, and will open the tree plan to appeal. It needs to be clear and objective. It should also be worded to allow for full development of the site to the sites full development potential which would be in keeping with Metro goals 18.530.050 2.a I don't think requiring 3" street trees is an advantage to tree canopy. Lar,dscapers will tell you that a 2" tree will catch up with a 3" tree in one year, and a 3" tree is hazier to establish. Just leave them 2". 18:790.030 B The minimum 20% tree requirement is a bad idea. The way I read this is if I were to meet my requirements for canopy coverage through preservation or planting on the overall site, I will still have to pay a fee for any lot that is under 20% canopy. This idea is counter productive to the intent of the preservation of trees under the UFM. There are a lot of people that do not want trees on there lots. It is an incentive to me to be able to save or plant on my other lots in order to provide some lots with no trees. Why should I save trees if I am still going to have to pay in the end? The cost of saving may not be worth the effort if that is the case. 18.790.030 B Canopy Averaging. Allow for averaging the tree canopy over the entire site as the CAC discussed. One community may have a Buffer, a tract, 12,000 Sq Ft lots and 6,000 Sq Ft lots all in one development, and the builder should have the ability to average the canopy over the entire site as needed. Both existing trees and planted trees. This would have several benefits. It could allow for planting of a grove of trees, as in the back lots at Edgewood East, where there• is room for them, and would also for better dispersal of trees when trees are saved and double canopy is calculated on those lots. If each lot has a minimum requirement, you are also imposing an effective Maximum requirement when it comes to existing trees. I may save 3 trees on one lot that would be the canopy along with the street trees for 3 lots, yet, I cannot as it is currently, spread that canopy over the other lots. So I would have to ask myself, why I am saving more than the one tree needed to satisfy mitigation for that single lot. This is an oversight that should be corrected for this program to be successful. 18.790.030 C you skipped C and went directly to D. 18.790.050 C.3 Adjustment to Sidewalks. Include allowing putting sidewalks in easements with reduced front setbacks for preservation and planting in this section for clarity. 18.790.070 A & B is confusing or not correct. We believe what you are allowing is a staff decision with no fees. In A it says processed with a type I except 13. which says "activities shall be exempt from type 1. What does that really mean? Is it a type 2 or 3 or just over the counter flat out allowed? Confusing and ambiguous. 18.790.0702.b Payment of fee in lieu was what was approved by the CAC and should absolutely be allowed. It is part of the flexible tree plan fundamentals. Section 6-1.A.6. Change tree list to trees not listed in the native tree list for clarity. Section 6-2.D.3 does not match Page 387 10-21 tree Canopy Site Plan Requirements: Shouldn't they be the same? Page 386 Section 10-2 Tree Canopy Site plan requirements: More general delineation of tre s to be planted On detached residential lots, I believe it is a waste staffs and my engineers time to locate every planted tree with the development tree plan, because on every development I have ever done, the trees get moved around depending on the home plan, final grading, sight lines to other homes etc, It is a cost that would be redundant and under a flexible tree code, would be redundant and unnecessary. It could be dealt with the building permit plot plan just like I have always done. It appears your Technical Advisors at AKS agree with us as per their comments on page 6 of their Pier Review report. Section 10 Part 2 Street Trees: Medium size street trees need to be allowed in a standard planter strip. Part 2 K.6 would preclude medium size street trees in a standard planter. It would reduce the desired canopy over the streets and make it very hard to meet canopy requirements. Page 393 3.6 Typo - you have an extra" ; and" at the end of the sentence. Section 10 Part 3 N These numbers are way too high. At the CAC, staff hit this abruptly and we did not have an opportunity to present evidence that would show these numbers were unreasonable. I was asked to prepare a presentation for the next meeting, (Power Point) which I did, but was then asked not to present it when the time came to keep the schedule. The canopy requirement should be such as to allow for increasing trees across other lots so as to provide some lots with no trees. As forests have meadows, so we should have shade free lawns. Add: Section 10 part 3.M.l.a Problematic terrain. Subtract from the overall Development site and each lot and tract, the areas of any problematic terrain, wetlands, water quality areas, rock outcrop areas, steep slope areas, walkways, private drives and flags of flag lots, soil conditions and other situations where the planting of trees would not be viable as represented by the project Arborist. Page 395 Section 10 Part 3 N 40% Tree Canopy The entire HBA and I truly believe that 40% is way too high a number for canopy coverage. This is a serious problem for us. Considering that the majority of developable land has no trees, we have performed studies that show the 40% target as too aggressive to be met on site without mitigation. We think a more reasonable number would be 25-30% for R4.5 and above and 20% on R-7 and No requirement other than street trees for smaller than R7 lots, because the street trees are the only option. (See attached drawings.) I would be happy to present my Power Point with personal comments to the Planning Commission if necessary. Single Family lots smaller than R-4..5 should be exempt as the majority of the tree canopy will come from required street trees, as there is little room for planting trees in people's yards. Due to demand for family homes on low maintenance lots, and the influx of A.D.U. and Casitas for extended family members we are currently building 3400 Sq Ft homes on 4500 Sq Ft lots which is within the allowable use of the property and is a preferred by Metro. The homes are all the way to the setback lines with virtually no yards. By the time we build a deck or patio, there is no room for appreciable trees in the back or side yards especially with the required buffer distanced from the trees to buildings required by Section 10-2.L . It is only reasonable to exempt small lots and save a lot of trouble and unnecessary expense. And just think what it will be like as we build mole and more single level home that the current demographics are starting to require. You should consider having a different canopy requirement for one story homes. It appears your Technical Advisors at AKS agree with us as per their comments on page 6 and 7 of their Pier Review report. Let me also point out, that under the new code with our proposed canopy requirements, we developers will be planting many more trees than ever before. Section 10 Part 4 A.1 & 2 Mitigation Fees This is a really high fee you are asking for. I was unable to find the price of a tree on the PNC- ISA web site so I assumed the $174.00 referenced in the commentary on Page 218. A 7500 Square Foot Lot would equate to 50.847 trees. 50.847 X $174.00 = $8,847.46. With a number like this, you can expect it to causing hard feelings between the citizens and the City and that the home owners will plant the trees and remove them at their convenience. That is just plain foolish. One of the flaws in the math is the use of 59 Sq. Ft. If I were going to plant a tree, I would get credit for a tree of 706 Sq. Ft. So why are we not using that number, which would be 4.25 trees. 4.25 X $174.00 = $739.50. This is consistent with Lake Oswego and other jurisdictions. That seems a more reasonable number to use to charge someone to not plant trees on their own lot. I cannot stress enough the distress this calculation is causing among the development community. This is viewed as a back door way to legally replace the current tree fund with what we feel is an SDC. This is a serious problem for us. Appendix 9 page 4-5 UFP — Supplemental Arborist Report Examples Template We are confused by the term in the headings (w/ cond and pres.> 2). Please clarify. Appendix 9 page 4-5 UFP -- Supplemental Arborist Report Examples Template Remove 20% coverage for each lot. Thank you for your consideration Ken Gertz HBA Representative Existing Example 1 30 • 20 . . „1„,,,,,,ip ,izr_ ,, , . ..., .. 0- ;11' iiiii„...--.-•.. ,- , ',Z,'A ,' . 'may '` - ' ' • ir ., T �. pr. , ;,;.'�'? .. , .alb" ,r" ` ......„ '�., r: 44. .fir � , qtr {� ., �� ` _ '" �' key • fir `J .. fir,\ .11c11,11; r I lit It ' .. ••,. LF i .� 'F.+, j.441010 . .4 � a - .. gip,, a4II- - ' r .. . ti lit° _L_ _. 19200�SW d�it Ave, Tuafatin,.dR 97062 (11 — - ,Q, 11111 vi 011? I ./..? k . 0 i - 1 .°. --- \ -i ''...: / .. l y f : rr l �••• , ,,, ` ••' • • 4:,:". lik'Newl, .‘"'" A. a ; 2097 Google o?py • C OSle 51 1 11,2011 EurapaTechnologiaa 4414. • 'VI' -:-.N. Alt(V. 1 _ K.. . ..- 0. - .1 r '. - 1 1 .r - r 9r- " 1^ �•. ",L , - .r . Existing Home Example 2 17 . 79 Canopy Coverage ..•.., ... • ,.. ,. ...,....•,, .. . 94...- ',.- . . .. _, . . 71617. . .... . 7.1371 - ' . Wit:07' . .._ 11P A- . '.. -.... OP • ,,. .. op . . _ • , - A''';'. - i I, ... . • ' • I - , . ka .• f . • - . -• - ' . '-. i.441dill - , ., • • 0 '..6 •. r7 411_ r - .....-... ..........-*-..-- . - 4, N__...i_• ' *Ili -• .I. • . . ._ .. -.... SW LOLA LN . . ._ . ..___. •••........... . . ._ ._... :.• .•• .. _.•_. •... al •', .. .c , . 74 . ,. ' "T'''' '''' 111154117...,.. ."'••!"` . -• 1 -1 .. _, F'.,-.1:, - 1 ., .-".... 11r. IIIM. 1'T-bill ir - • • • ,-tr • ..$ . IE. . ,11, ...1 ..._ . , . .I. ..•. . , 1*--alla• . ": _ _.4- . , ....!i. : ,• . diadif I i '1111111.•,.-,,..... 4.1... 1.. ..i..:l..•-1.• "•.. a1 t1 1 k7 . ,7.'.',.."-. i'••4 Y.........,.,•.;• 1r. .4. . Jec • I. FRfig.:1 .7 :- 4-0 - . w_ n•.11 1 .-.io. so. .• .• ..... .._ . .. .• • 7 CI b 0 • ?r,:.---• .. kir .... _ •,. : .4 -1,,,E). ...' -,e,,......., 1.-- . -e.... . . . ....• - 4 ....,• ..... ..,ir , . • . _ .. _ • •. . h .... .._ .. .. .• ., . .. . r . :'. -' -' . —;Pr, iiiipk. : , ':-- 1 .4.1 1.• ...1.- t- • 7' -fir - I. _ ., *IQ•'''•- - t-' • r''.-»- . r .• 4 I. • vie .k• ,. . - -a''',• ' air .'91 L.,,,.•...1. -..i., •- r.. - i7 4..4 6 . -- • lir -- I .....‘.41,41114e.:' '' ..'k'..r ' 1 " 5.'11 • -.• --" —f- 4' , . „.kor"..- .... •• •-• .,. . 1111. •c . i . L.. •...• - ., q- --....., - .' • .,4, -- - . r-r- • - • ' P .. ...... •,3- ' .• ,• :', 4$1. r.v..$ , •4, i• ' , , „,. -••• . - .-irlit..11..; .-- "As Ti --11 - , • nil- _.;.••fi.-.,. . . .-, .,,, ,' .-4 4 • ii.___11. 1 -/. 1 • . .. ,..- : ..,• r. •:_.. . , .,.. - ,.,pr.-. -II .*„. .. • .6, . 10_, -'4111,.. p t, -; - -•..or& - ."‘",1 . .- . -'or!• - ‘,... ' - ..- - 1=44p* -. .7 -1 ;1-• •- r. -, '7. -,....—e.-").. . 04. • - .--.P.:i. f .... :.:, • .• . , , tat i i it,. e ..1. • . ef?4 f a. ,,, • • •1 ki• k "`no••• iliV ...' - ' • ' af.0 rl."-""'• ..i.' ....,. ,... . r ,r/- .,,... . - ...A -- ..r-i "," -• ii . . P ... -- • 1 . t.....'- • 7• . A. • - - • • ' '.-, *7. "^. i ..r. --.- -.'",- • ,.3wo. if: •-• -..-er-• - . -e-- - .:." '.- • • •.-k -- t. • •1` • c !' ' I ii •.1;. ...... .. - _ . :, '• -"....,.- '''... .....-06141 Ir ••,-- 1 . - .1 .... ,_. mt - I , • i ....ri.... • -• li poi.. '--"?ri Td: , ..- .. . I IN 1.1 a - .1i--. 1' u . . 'I . 4."•. ..- _;n-IT ..c.,. . .:•H.. ..7e,...!...2...9 - . . .., •_ .. ....,.. . . , Z 4 ''• .1.1. . I' . --r ,...7.... i .tii:44 -.r.. P•,. • • 4- . -et---..- . .,•9. s..,. „. 7.... - ,f, ,.- • ,.-..... #441•• , :,•-•,..,- , I:) . I6Bft _ . .. ._,•• N'''-"!••-rt..opkt J-.' *-..,—,„.016. .. ., '-' rr.....- PV,.... t - A 4... 4.1.'',2:, ExistingExampleHome 3 24 % CanopyCoverage rh d• 1.. 11,FPNi 114 T 1} i I r — A iiiiir r _ x -1 .-Ir ,,. ' i .--) ) l4. 3 . 1149 { �1ii. �` - 41.1 - . 1 . a., . , --,... ... 0 ` }i I .sJ . ; p - i 4.41C Z :g ..- . i• { C �, �..-? , • ii .'`.1 - T. p - .. IN; ,,, g 1 elk � • { r �� x tir as y ,:� ~ � 1' ''K . � tR 4. '�!- G -,•L �'. z/r-..� r ears--.A.-�1' -fit 3 710el_ir..; sTf r_ -.-.,:..,-........I..-Ti - Lam.# 'Y—�4"-0—.1_,.,.K art _...••` • � iiiii _ r` ----111---f--lop , • I Ir1.� • , i IL r 4 ,i r , .. } I #1111111' - tl { •+ - II MIL l l. Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was included in calculations Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows TREE CANOPY AT 40% COVERAGE R-4.5 Lot 40% 706.5 SF Trees 1 7586 3034 4.29 2 8286 3314 4.69 Missing Items: 3 7605 3042 4.31 Street Lights 4 6952 2781 3.94 Fire Hydrants 5 7355 2942 4.16 y 6 9521 3808 5.39 REQUIRED STREET TREES Lawn Areas 7 7544 3016 4.27 Play Areas 8 7486 2994 4.24 LEFT IN PLACE Play Structures 9 9210 3684 5.21 Swimming Pools 14 6026 2410 3.41 Sport Courts 15 6066 2426 3.43 Garden Plot 16 6158 2463 3.49 17 9382 3753 5.31 18 6307 2523 3.57 . ir - - _ �1 I , '. I. y .fi r, —�� --- V. , . .....moi 4.3 TREES 01111,71 , 1'4•0 4.3 TREES 7.595 SF :� ,. a ,�`a. ►__ ".': ,2 6,303.6 TREES �c � i ' �,sa4 r N ki 4.3 TREES •R'!r tl .` � Ilk 7�4 I ! !�, ; i Ir��- :r� 111 :; ; : f IillijrIm.frai 7alld y � � �`?00llr E . �# �: J r p IN - ; ;'1ri ,,, .r < < to-fis '�0 r d-if +l �W 7486 5 .r���Y ri .. 1 "EES mo''-z' A - ..� <E, , M �.. ' IT h 3.5 TREES Tm/ Over Planted f ; a �. 4.3 TREES :3 i 11:004 i- -1 .. � �� / 4�. Over Plant .1.,'-'4,1r,' iOI rT 'il .. ' r ( _ ` Pla 1, �`- �l-. I n •Tj�_ � JII � rout ,��J�. �.� �, �'� `' � ,, 1 6 -*► : 0' F= 1 1 3.4 TREES "_ ire �, all —1 r! \._:J 1'S ' ow a ,P. ��'�"" 1m_. J}/ - 9,270 ' - III4 Over Planted , 014r-rt, PM. zi,,..I.WNI--...... FM-= rk ...,„.4. ,m, ,..).,_ , E.. 4.3 TREES -r.06.2� 7:"6., ,, `r, ;� — �,,,124 LIIIII:prilli~I 14 .�A...A ' 3.4 TREES Over Plant•d ,-.�, �� �� 'I Fti 3" Over Planted • r Alk r , -:% �- �'�'---;,_ _, — -.rte 1 s I.4 5.4 TREES ! .� , t- / eft Doesn't *IIY 0 / 4uf, 1 6.05a SF Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was included in calculations Note. Several trees are shown closer than code allows TREE CANOPY AT 30% COVERAGE R-4.5 Lot 30% 706.5 SF Trees1 1 7586 2276 3-22 2 8286 2486 3.52 Missing Items: 3 7605 2282 3.23 Street Lights 4 6952 2086 2.95 Fire Hydrants 5 7355 2207 3.12 Lawn Areas 6 9521 2856 4.04 REQUIRED STREET TREES PlayAreas 7 7594 2263 3.20 LEFT IN PLACE 8 7486 2246 3.18 Play Structures 9 9210 2763 3.91 Swimming Pools 14 6026 1808 2.56 Sport Courts 15 6066 1820 2.58 Garden Plot 16 6158 1847 2.61 17 9382 2815 3.98 18 6307 1892 2.68 Or- 1 •►,4 + - 1 i� „ 3.2 TREES 111111:77,, 1 3.2 TREES 1 e. � 7.588 SP __ . Mt' ib�, 1 . ��. y►11� i -IIp2 wIt . f -,,,_ 2.7 TREES ,�: mr, \' lIi PO �I Ir 1 3. TREES �, ��C wiri. ., � Q; It 1 1F i . .�i lEn I u:, ai 411111 7 .... _man9.382 ��'• 4.0 TREES 1 • 11� V `� 1 +'4 r �ma � 32 TREES PIN, �" E!:: p . il� ■ „twain,41Mir i li , 7.885 ;Pi II IN'_ '. '��j�,:7 --,1. 1� \ �� . 'EES moi/ .IEL :adD .....N......., r, W; .11,-41&16174...,r �1�'�1 2.6 TREES ' i 1 ..2 i i or ...... .. _ 2.9 TREES �, \ 0 ,-0 �' . �,�„ Over Rant d e+� IIS -;I! 0 ' �'/- f �'�1 :� "wr n,. 1�� 'l•. . 1 A: •i�n� I �+ 1 III � Mr 1 i a • l' ! .r, \: $, i�. ! t:,` �_ 2.6 TREES , , Meal : '- 1 It i114►,1 . ,I� 9.210 , 3.1 TREES 1/` ill- . : , ` 9 . j/ ..�, 1, �1� '140O " " , _ 2.6 TREES f 1111* 4.0 TREES 6 :� 1.44.1)-,, \ IiF• ` I "Ti�� s.a13 sr iii,INV M ,r r �� 'QIP �4 4� 1' Note: Coverage % would be much if a Water Quality Facility was included in calculations Note: Several trees are shown closer than code allows TREE CANOPY AT 25% COVERAGE R-4.5 Lot 25% 706.5 SF Trees 1 7586 1897 2.68 2 8286 2072 2.93 Missin Items: 3 7605 1901 2.69 g 4 6952 1738 2.46 Street Lights 5 7355 1839 2.60 Fire Hydrants 6 9521 2380 3.37 REQUIRED STREET TREES Lawn Areas 7 7544 1866 2.67 Play Areas 8 7486 1872 2.65 LEFT IN PLACE Play Structures 9 9210 2303 3.26 Swimming Pools 14 6026 1507 z.13 Sport Courts 15 6 1517 2.15 Garden Plot 16 6158158 1540 2.18 17 9382 2346 3.32 18 6307 1577 2.23 ���mi-Anib La a te iMili 2.7 TREES +` ie 2.7 TREESIIII ��' 'f...1... , 7.586 SF 7 . � ' !`� . III r ' -!Ila, 1i�� ": s�` lc�; 2.2 TREES wm 2.9 TREESila ..ie 'I"' .11ta,8,286 SF EL �` 4 T / 3.3 TREES Hi 2.7 TREES r '"i�'"r fIA i;: �- 8 11141111M p ■ f-46.47_`� 1 ' 2.fi 'EES,RP1 111M1- 0 �, 'Jr1 m■. ,a, ,��1 2.2 TREES 2.5 TREES . , 'Na , I kr ' ` .IN t aor .4ep_I \ ,� ► ©0 :i -, 2.1 TREES Ei ` �� 1 - t��� . an04-1.14,1* s.zm Ir./Am' El. ; 9 3.3 ES �„ I ■. �� 2.6 TREES �.- � �n I SF 7-"TA 1 w Y r 1 ~� \� `'1' -�; ' 2.1 TREES C f. 1 I, t ��� '! 1 3.4 TREES j r si 952r :ka', \ f��! rila nk ' = • I . . 11raipG 4444. 1,1 1 •�,`f I, TREE CANOPY AT 25% COVERAGE R-4.5 ,,,00 0/ / o In/ / H�4 , MASTER�SUITE) (ww,ED, DINING /4/ I 0 10YG1tr1N .-m-, - (mum 14/4x11/0 1non13/D (VUILTEn) GREAT RM. / / MASTER SUI IE 2017x14!8 I 1-9x146 Y (YAWED) q { GREAT RM. ILII28'4x1](10 11111111 NAMED) 1/ it II _ DINING 0�1�r lsraxl vo- 3 l � `umm - SED.#3 ^iv// W- . IIIIIIiIMV==a14 a 111Dx1E10 un// 4 — /� SHEARWATER C! a /A BED.#2 11..0 m., — - 2-CAR GA FDYat �� 1108x191s II n�i RAGE / "Ii% r-` O h �41 M ,''. _ III11111111HI=,1 MALL • �I■I=+v c_ o W 1 1 lwrwuwml' ' lAI II Q 1 ATUR ' I GREEN DRAGON r ��' I DE1Z 112#2 FOYER FENG SHUT '� 121(Ix 2 TREE I DEN/BED.X1D.#3 I 1018x100 HOME ■ / k NO AL_! 1MEDIUM STATURE ' ''TREE1 ;171:9 , ..1 i .iiii ,i \ UTILITY VAULT v '„ 4. • a . v 7 GERTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. HOME SQUARE FOOTAGE BUILDING MAIN FLOOR =2214 SQ.FT. UPPER FLOOR =0 SQ.FT. CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1977 ,Z (503) 692-3390 �� TOTAL =2214 SQ. FT. 13918 SW Bradon Ct. GARAGE = 420 SQ.FT. Lot 3 McDonald Woods 2S12DC-03000 SCALE 1".20' GERTZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. PLOT PLAN 12/09/11 TREE CANOPY AT 20 . 1 % COVERAGE R-7 _ . Y } - _ s - Missing Items: 4i a , Street Lights ---F,1 ---, ,, ,,,,, ,:,-1-Th F t ;' x .� Fire Hydrants Lawn Areas I I I _ '_' Play Areas -1 -Oho = "'� = �` = �" Play Structures !h o, :_ GIf10 - (...\ ��= ?f=' I, . T, � Swimming Pools IsI! of ii 213HSI3 I KIWI EIZHEK ii CJI N3HSI3 I ii -0 eI3HSIEIEHE5 or n Sport Courts , J [. I Garden Plots • ii LY . _ - � :: : inimum Distance Ail at. to Structures 6 �°` �" WATER �` 410.Airal 513H2IH it3l I FISHER !! n bl3H2I3 KIN FISHER a i o_'=° 1� QUALITY 1i .e.!- -_ ,.� o� Developable Area 50,000 T. _ I S Ft. gar E. CD IF - FACILITYAlen _ �' ,.� 8 Medium trees —Iat 45, ' 0I14 Small Trees = 10,044 � I SF ---F. � „ -- / - - Canopy=20.1% E .1 a TREE CANOPY AT 31 % COVERAGE R-4.5 1 .11,...,4:- -, .— : , - . s,... --... '''''-'- • 2,-A: E } Missing Items:- k i Street Lights_ 2 ..,4- Fire Hydrants = i<- -- w , -- Lawn Areas i ,,� _rap 1 ____I 41,... Play Areas ?may 10 ___" = W _"__ "°` ,3 = _ Play Structures =fl►. ►1Ir- =\I►. =\1�►� �►.�I I- r� 17 ,� � 12 �,'� - -;� .9, Swimming Pools .l e13HSI3 1 � L121-1E6 t ii I el3HSI3 IND ii ?J3HSI3 3 1 LI211E13 Cr VI Sport Courts 'IN — ---•.1v,-- ,-.. . - Garden Plots I lig IIMI ir Imir II , 1, �' �__ inimum Distance A'°' 61,FISHER` WATER ,. to Structures !! 513H2I3 lla !1 n AEH2I-1FISHER IQ !,, �•�y �" I QUALITY I, :dil - � Developable Area 50,000 ••LI.i. �I•= FACILITY ='I`"' .-.1•_-` Sq. Ft. - 'I I, _ - •� I� 22 trees = 15,532 Sq Ft. I �a „ �'" . la Canopy=31% April 2011 -'� 'I - . -..,t, -`"(. ` '. MI 4 ' www.oregonmetro.gov �,� .rnr Climate Smart 'A.. , - ak • - lir.vr9!�1f14nef1C. • y4- ; - .. �* ! �+ w�,r.: Communities Scenarios T 0- .. . i , • Background ,�p In 2007,the Oregon Legislature established - '�� .'I'. P • ! y r a b. ,:,r„,,il; statewide goals to reduce carbon emissions— - 'a 'r %OKcalling for stopping increases in emissions by .► F"""""" 2010,a 10 percent reduction below 1990 levels . = ,, _?L , - 'a by 2020,and a 75 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.The goals apply to all The 2040 Growth Concept-the region's adopted growth management strategy The region's six sectors,including energy production,buildings, desired outcomes solid waste and transportation. In 2009,the Oregon Legislature passed House State response Oregon Sustainable Bill 2001,directing the region to"develop two Transportation Initiative or more alternative land use and transportation The Oregon Department of Transportation scenarios"b}January 2012 that are designed and the Department of Land Conservation and to reduce carbon emissions from cars, Development are leading the state response small trucks and SUVs.The legislation also through the Oregon Sustainable Transportation mandates adoption of a preferred scenario Initiative.An integrated effort to reduce carbon after public review and consultation with emissions from transportation,the initiative will local governments,and local government result in a statewide transportation strategy, implementation through comprehensive plans toolkits and specific performance targets for the and land use regulations that are consistent region to achieve. with the adopted regional scenario.The Regional response Climate Smart Climate Smart Communities Scenarios effort Communities Scenarios responds to these mandates and Senate Bill 1059,which provided further direction to The Climate Smart Communities Scenarios effort scenario planning in the Portland metropolitan will build on the state-level work and existing area and the other five metropolitan areas plans and efforts underway in the Portland in Oregon. metropolitan area.The project presents an opportunity to learn what will be required to Metro's Making the Greatest Place initiative meet the state carbon goals and how well the resulted in a set of policies and investment strategies support the region's desired outcomes. decisions adopted in the fall of 2009 and throughout 2010.These policies and A goal of this effort is to further advance investments focused on six desired outcomes implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept, for a successful region,endorsed by the Metro local plans and the public and private Council and Metro Policy Advisory Committee investments needed to create jobs,build great communities and meet state climate goals. in 2008:vibrant communities,economic prosperity,safe and reliable transportation, Addressing the climate change challenge will environmental leadership,clean air and take collaboration,partnerships and focused water,and equity.Making the Greatest Place policy and investment discussions and decisions included the adoption of the 2035 Regional by elected leaders,stakeholders and the public to Transportation Plan and the designation identify equitable and effective solution::through of urban and rural reserves.Together these strategies that create livable,prosperous and policies and actions provide the foundation healthy communities. for better integrating land use decisions Metro's policy and technical advisory committees 40 Metro with transportation investments to create will guide the project,leading to Metro prosperous and sustainable communities and Council adoption of a"preferred"land use and to meet state climate goals. transportation strategy in 2014. About Metro Clean air and clean water do not Climate Smart Communities Scenarios planning process stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does the need for jobs,a thriving economy,and sustainable 2011 2012 2013-14 transportation and living choice: Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 for people and businesses in the region.Voters have asked Metro NI ::' i;. to help with the challenges and er '` ,'• ^'i. ' '���' j opportunities that affect the 25 Understanding Shaping the Building the , cities and three counties in the chuites direction strategy , Portland metropolitan area. -rill, ,,, •'1. ;1pljl,' V`". "71+1 A regional approach simply makes sense when it comes to providing Jan.2012 Nov.2012 June 2014 services,operating venues and Report;o Confirm Adopt preferred making decisions about how the ,.waw• preferred strategy;begin region s. Metro works scenario implementation communities to supporta resilient elements economy, keep nature close by and respond to a changing climate.Together t,e're making Phase 1 great place,now and for Understanding the choices that are underway in the region (e.g.,SW generations to come. (We are here) Corridor Plan,East Metro Connections Stay in touch ith ne,a,stories andThe firstphase of regional-level scenario Plan,Portland Plan,and other local land things to do. g= analysis will occur during summer 2011 use and transportation plan updates). r.•.oregonmetro.go'cr'nnect and focus on learning what combinations By the end of 2012,Metro's policy Metro Council President of land use and transportation strategies committees will ht.asked to confirm a Tom Hughes are required to meet the state greenhouse "draft"preferred scenario that will be Metro Council gas emissions targets.Strategies will include brought fonvard to the final phase of transportation operational efficiencies that the process. tCraddick, District can ensure faster more dependable business 1 � p Phase 3 Carlotta Collette, deliveries; more sidewalks and bicycle Buildingthe strategyand District 2 facilities;more mixed use and public Carl Hosticka, implementation Districts transit-supportive development in centers Kathryn Harrington, and transit corridors;more public transit The final project phase during 2013 and District 4 service;incentives to walk,bike and use 2014 will lead to adoption of a"preferred" Rex Burkholder, public transit; and user based fees. land use and transportation strategy.The DBarbt 5 analysis in this phase will be conducted Barbara Roberts, Potential impacts and benefits will be District 6weighed against the region's six desired using the region's most robust analytic Auditor outcomes.Findings and recommendations tools and methods—the regional travel Suzanne Flynn from the analysis will be reported to demand model,Metroscope and regional Metro's policy committees in fall 2011 emissions model,MOVES.Additional before being finalized for submittal to the scoping of this phase will occur in 2012 Legislature in January 2012. to better align this effort with mandated regional planning and growth management Phase 2 decisions. Shaping the direction This phase will identify needed changes In 2012,the region will analyze more to regional policies and functional plans, refined alternative regional-level scenarios and include updates to the Regional ;, that apply the lessons learned from phase Transportation Plan and region's growth 1 to develop a"draft"preferred land use management strategy.Implementation of and transportation scenario.This phase approved changes to policies,investments, provides an opportunity to incorporate and other actions would begin in 2014 at Metro - strategies and new policies identified the regional and local levels to realize the through local and regional planning efforts adopted strategy.