Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/24/2004 - Minutes
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 24, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall BIvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Padgett; Commissioners Buehner, Caffall, Haack, Meads, Munro, and Sutton Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Bienerth Staff Present: Gus Duenas, City Engineer; Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The next meeting is scheduled for June 7th 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES It was moved and seconded to approve the May 17, 2004 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Sutton abstained. Commissioners Buehner and Caffall arrived after the minutes were approved. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 2004-05 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Gus Duenas gave a PowerPoint presentation on the 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program (Exhibit A). He detailed the proposed projects for streets, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, parks, water, and City facilities. He noted key meeting dates and asked the Planning Commission to send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Buehner asked about the status of improvements to Fern Street. Duenas advised that those improvements would be part of the County's MSTIP 3 project. Commissioner Munro noted that the Downtown Task Force met with Council in April and Council had made a commitment to look at some place savers in the CIP for Commuter Rail infrastructure. She said there doesn't appear to be the commitment shown for the out years in the staff report. Duenas advised that he wrote a memo to Council identifying what funding the City had and that he moved PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -May 24,2004-Page 1 some projects up from the out years to the 05-06 fiscal year in anticipation of the downtown development plan being completed. Burnham Street is listed in FY 2005-06. President Padgett voiced his position about spending City money to improve service at the Library when the service is shared equally by non-City residents who don't pay for it. PUBLIC TESTIMONY John Frewing, 7110 SW Lola Lane, Tigard, OR 97223 asked why CIP projects aren't required to meet the Community Development Code. He noted that developers are required to meet the development code and adopted street standards, but CIP items aren't. He referred to the SW Mapleleaf project that will be 25' in width, but 28' is standard for a local street. He also talked about the sidewalk improvement project on Hall Blvd. that does not meet standards. Frewing stated that the Development Code references and requires consistency with the1981 Master Drainage Plan. He noted that there are projects listed on the Plan that have not been done, yet the City is doing other projects instead. Frewing advised that he has suggested to the City Engineer that Tigard should provide a sidewalk on 72nd Ave. from Fred Meyer north to the Washington Square Estates. Commissioner Buehner asked Mr. Frewing if he is aware that there are areas that aren't going to meet the code and that adjustments have to be made. Frewing said it's a matter of will power, and where adjustments have to be made, it should be a public process. In the matter of the Hall Blvd. sidewalk improvements, Frewing said he was not aware of any community meeting on how to design the project. He noted that in some areas, the Hall Blvd. sidewalk narrows down to 3' when the standards call for a 5' clear width. In one area, there is a fire hydrant, a guide line, and a power pole in the sidewalk. He believes City staff do their projects the way they want, but developers have to follow a different process. He asked if detailed drawings for projects have come before the Commission. Commissioner Buehner advised that the Commission does not see detailed layouts for public streets from developers. President Padgett believes that, in general, when the City makes improvements to existing sidewalks and roadways, they shouldn't be held to the same design standards as a developer who gets to start with a blank piece of property where they can do a lot more. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -May 24,2004-Page 2 APPLICANT REBUTTAL Gus Duenas advised that the City tries to retrofit improvements in existing neighborhoods. For example, on Hall Blvd., to expand a 3-lane section to meet the Development Code, we would have to tear everything out on both sides. The City is trying to fill in the sidewalk gaps in that area. He noted that the Code requires a 5' minimum, but it also allows reductions to 3' if there are obstructions in the way. He said the City does not have the right-of-way in that area and we don't have the money to buy it. He noted that new development along Hall Blvd. has the room to provide planter strips. Other retrofitted areas do not have planter strips. Regarding SW Mapleleaf, Duenas advised that the City will be paving the existing gravel road. We will not be widening it to optimal width, but the street will be able to accommodate 2-way traffic. The City is considering doing some joint sidewalk projects with TriMet. President Padgett discussed a previous decision the City made about specific sidewalk criteria and construction in the following priority order: 1) sidewalks that would allow better access to transit and shopping, 2) safer access to schools, 3) fill in gaps to connect long stretches of existing sidewalks. Duenas believes he has followed that criteria. Duenas believes the 1981 Master Drainage Plan is outdated and needs to be updated. The City is in the process of creating a Storm Drainage Public Facilities Plan. After it is completed, it will come to the Planning Commission for review. Currently, the City is not doing projects related to the 1981 Master Drainage Plan; we are just doing storm drain projects that are tied in with street projects. Commissioner Sutton thinks it is inconsistent if the City does not have to meet development standards, but we require developers to do so. He understands the reasoning behind new development practices vs. retrofitting with existing conditions. He suggested that the City Engineer add information to the staff report noting if projects meet development standards and, if not, include a brief explanation why not. He also suggested adding the same information regarding the 1981 Master Drainage Plan. Duenas noted that the Transportation System Plan and the Development Code provide a process for granting exceptions. The exceptions are brought before Council for approval. Commissioner Buehner moved that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the 2004-05 Capital Improvement Program, with the comments that have been made tonight, based on staff report. Commissioner Sutton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -May 24,2004-Page 3 6. BUILDABLE LAND USE INVENTORY UPDATE Associate Planner Julia Hajduk gave a PowerPoint presentation on the buildable land inventory (Exhibit B). She explained why a buildable land inventory is necessary. She advised that Tigard's current inventory includes vacant lots with no habitable structures or specific features (such as parks or parking lots). Developed parcels are also included if there is less than a quarter of an acre remaining undeveloped. Areas not included in the inventory are water quality tracts, open space tracts, publicly owned park and open space land, wetlands and wetland buffers, 100-year floodplain, and right-of-ways. Hajduk noted that not everything can be assessed. The inventory doesn't account for site specific development constraints, such as topography conditions. It also doesn't take into account market conditions; does not factor in redevelopment; and doesn't taken in to account commercial areas potentially maximizing their space. Commissioner Buehner asked about planned developments on steep slopes that may not be able to build at the same density as they could on flat land. She wondered if adjustments could be made for those types of developments. Hajduk noted that the method used to calculate buildable land is not an accurate reflection of reality, but it gives us an idea of how much available land we have. President Padgett asked about using a point system to acknowledge particular characteristics of a parcel. Hajduk thought that may be more useful if we were doing something for economic development. Commissioner Buehner believes we should recognize limitations, e.g., steep slopes, to present a more accurate picture of inventory. Hajduk advised that steep slope areas have been identified on the map but the acreage hasn't been taken out of the calculations. She can rerun the calculations if the Planning Commission would like. Hajduk provided inventory results on the buildable acreage by zones. President Padgett asked her to find out if heavy industrial uses are allowed in MUE zoning. Hajduk said the City would like to update the inventory every year to keep track of trends and to do comparisons. She reported that the core purpose of having this information is to provide information to planners. Commissioner Buehner referred to the inaccurate information on Metro's Goal 5 map. She believes it is important to have accurate information on residential buildable land, particularly if that information may be used by Metro to determine how much density we need. Hajduk believes that if we get more specific, we may be saying we can accommodate more capacity. Hajduk clarified that the "Buildable Land Inventory Map" is actually a map of undeveloped and partially undeveloped land. Hajduk summarized the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -May 24,2004-Page 4 Commissioners' suggestions as: identify the totally vacant parcels from the partially developed parcels and note that steep slopes may not be developed at the same capacity as flat parcels. 7. OTHER BUSINESS The Commission requested that they not have any more meetings on the fourth Monday of the month. If additional meetings are necessary during the month, they should be scheduled for the second Monday. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Jer-e- taynor, P inning eirmmission Secretary '41 ATTEST: P es�" ident Mark Padgett PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -May 24,2004-Page 5 eit r S 3'I�3'S.7i ' jTigard i 12 FY 2004-05 Capital Presentation Overview Improvement ''' Program • Formulation Process • Program Areas • Priorities for FY 2004-05 F • Proposed Projects • What's Next? , j,4,zoo4 2 Formulation Process ; Program Areas • CIP Overview-Focus on Tigard • Street System Program •(December 4,2003) -Traffic Studies• • Citywide meeting(January 14,2004) -Traffic Safety-Related Projects • Planning Commission(February 2,2004) - Pavement Major Maintenance • City Council(February 17,2004) -Traffic Calming Program • Finalize Project List(March-May 2004) - Major Street Capital Improvements • Presentations in May and June 2004 - Bridge Replacements , • 1 it i' Program Areas 1 Program Areas • Sanitary Sewer System Program • Parks System Program - Sanitary Sewer Major Maintenance - Citywide Parks • ' - Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvements ,.-„ -Trail Systems - Sewer Extension Program `i';iary • Water System Program jy • Storm Drainage System Program 1-',4!•;,‘ • City Facilities System Program p r"�uj - Storm Sewer Major Maintenance • - Storm Drainage Capital Improvements 1 Priorities for FY 2004-05 Priorities for FY 2004-05 • Complete Gaarde Street Improvements • Additional traffic calming measures Phase 2 Construction • Citywide Sewer Extension Program • Complete the new Library construction projects • Complete the Wall Street/Hall Boulevard • Storm and sanitary system repairs Intersection and approaches • Implement the Street Maintenance Fee • Parks Projects funded projects • Land acquisition for new pathways " • Additional water system improvements 8 Priorities for FY 2004-05 Initiate projects to improve traffic Street Projects carrying capacity • Evaluate and develop alternative funding sources for major street s improvements 4)--` :10,, Pavement Overlays F Pavement Overlays • 66Th and 67Th Avenues(south of Oak •110Th Avenue(Fairhaven to Park Street) 's Street) •Park Street(110th to Watkins Avenue) It • Burnham Street(Main Street to Hall Blvd) s.` •Derry Dell Court(Park St to Watkins) • Mapleleaf Street(72tl to 71sT Avenue) •James Court(Howard Drive to end) Fern Street(138sh Avenue to 135Th ••Ventura Ct(Barbara Lane to Ventura Dr) Avenue) •121sT Avenue(Ann St to S rin wood Drl�' r „= ( p 9 Dr) 4r 72nd Avenue (Fir Loop to Hunziker St) 2 i irv'At w ,0 �rF apt A t Traffic Calming Street Striping • 3 speed humps on Park Street(110th to • Dartmouth Street(72nd to 68th Avenue) Watkins Ave) • 68th Avenue (Hampton to Dartmouth) • 1 speed hump on Hawksbeard Street • Various other streets (130th to Summer Lake Drive) • 1 speed hump on Summerfeld Drive (Meadowbrook to 114th Court) 13 14 r , r 4 J t Mapleleaf Street (72nd to 71st) Crosswalk Lights (Hall Blvd at Fanno • Creek) Existing narrow gravel road • Existing pathway on west side of Hall Blvd •• Conversion to paved street Proposed pathway on east side • • Propose to widen to 25 feet and pave Provide safe crossing of Hall • • Install catch basin and storm drain pipe Painted crosswalk, raised median,and push-button activated flashing lights I 16 Tiedeman Ave Railroad Crossings McDonald Street (at Hwy 99) (south of North Dakota Street) z E' ` t • Existing left-turn only lane • i. >200 feet of street _ �"k `-" • Through and right share one lane reconstruction • Proposed project—Widen McDonald Street Adjustment of to add a right-turn only lane ,_' railroad tracks to match • Includes storm drain and traffic signal modification 3 y ,, McDonald Street McDonald Street t. WrJ P¢e / T �' Widening of ,i-� j A� Widening of McDonald rs n. I X® -+W,. McDonald '° �- `r Sheet to P i" �r�d" Y l j Street @ c--i. yyl Z a,•.mr,_r ,, add a right- '-"�- �--� �` ter Hwy 99W to '"`��'r'?x,s<i--i'�-.` j - — tum lane "�tx'Fy" f.,t.`r e14ii-i ,ri-Si add a right- _ ? g tit., _ I y_ turn lane 197: 20 o. Hall Blvd (at McDonald Street) Hall Boulevard Existing left-turn only lane , Widening of • Through and right turn share second lane - , t - 1 Hall at • Acquire right of way I ,, tr,� tipN- McDonald to -j r71 ,_ ._r add a right- • Widen Hall for right-turn only lane turn lane ?''_ • 21i' 22 r., Hall Boulevard Commercial Street (95th Avenue to Main Street) rL i +�'�II 0 Widening of • Existing narrow road with pedestrian ,,.. , `ri ii 4 �4 ., Hall @ traffic $ , - McDonald Propose to widen and provide sidewalk If �a l • CDBG Funding approved !3, tii r .‘ :t Y 1 . r • Gas Tax funding will supplement 4 Commercial Street (95th Avenue to Main Street) Sidewalk Projects 1 t ,a t a v 5 • Projects anticipated in conjunction with r c%). northsid on TriMet projects (support ofthe'MOUwith �$ r Y v t pooh side to P 1 - '"R, `;, y tt b xP r'" pedestrian -.:4— .. �`rx}'�!t `',,e walkway to • Sidewalk improvements for / ti? - Pedestrian connections between transit stops s , A",� and key activity centers �, '\t,' - Extension of sidewalks to schools for safer <4 •e `$` `.:,--;":4; w wN school access from residential areas 251% fe1 /i i>,9 ` .ar r}' `` ,26, Bull Mountain/Roshak Road Bull Mountain/Roshak Intersection Road Intersection • Existing Conditions ..•. • Proposed Improvements - unsafe movement due to! lass„ —Reconstruct the existing pavement sharp horizontal curve at s `tj! qs the intersection * v �`� -Provide larger turning radius Sight distance does not ' l —Add turning lane and gravel shoulder meet standard design --- / —Re-stripe the intersection requirements -Underground drainage work to .`.%x accommodate widening 29 28 Gaarde Street - Phase 2 Walnut Street Project status (116th to Tiedeman Ave) � Existing Conditions S 'r , tt u • Construction schedule Narrow roadway 9�t - Project began March 2003 -Vertical sight -Street closure: March through June 2004 distance problem 1 r ' i-T` st • - No sidewalks - 1 lift of paving completed from Highway 99W to 121st d - Left turns onto side .r - Projected Completion:July 2004 1? streets are difficult A r„ at peak hours via!ts!r,.i rosii;ou•i 295 $6„ a _ 5 Walnut Street 121st Avenue (116th to Tiedeman Ave) (Quail Creek Lane to Tippitt Place) • Proposed Improvements '. Existing Conditions -2,500 feet of roadway reconstruction _Two-lane roadway �; - One lane in each direction with or no shoulder • - Center-turn lane - Sub-standard sight - Bike lanes on both sides distance _, - Sidewalks on both sides - No bike lane& sidewalks - Streetlights i, Ai �"�' ilh%) 1'0 31 - Underground existing utilities 32 121st Avenue 121st Ave & Walnut Street (Quail Creek Lane to Tippitt Place) Project status • Proposed Improvements • Design -3,100 feet of roadway reconstruction -Completed-June 03 -One lane in each direction • Right-of-Way - Center-turn lane - Bike lanes on both sides -Rights-of-way acquisition in progress -Sidewalks on both sides • Construction - Streetlights -No funding available-Schedule has - Underground existing utilities not been established 33 ':34'. Wall Street LID Hall Blvd/Wall St Intersection (Hall Blvd to Hunziker Street) - Proposed for construction through the • Phase 1 is half-street improvements formation of an LID along new library frontage(nearing - Preliminary Engineer's Report(60% completion) complete)presented to Council March 23rd • Phase 2 is construction of 425 feet of -Council delayed decision pending the at- Wall Street grade crossing application hearing -Applications submitted for: -At-Grade Crossing application hearing • Environmental permits upcoming Comprehensive Plan Amendment 35! 36 6 Hall Boulevard Improvements Walnut Street Extension Project status n ra rtWE rt `" ' at'j -New street connection strongly • <It 4 "irr ji w a�' recommended in the TSP I, ''g j• r rm �' 'I '„, Corridor study needed to determine Bt L,LikoN Yry i feasible corridor -Once corridor is identified •Connection from the Commuter Rail parking lot can be established •Issues can be addressed; Crossing of Fanno Creek, 37 .. 38;': crossing of railroad tracks,etc. r Walnut Street (135th to 1215t) Greenburg Road (Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman Ave) Existing Conditions • Washington County MSTIP-3 project Congested 3-lane Will widen to 44 feet with curbs, sidewalks roadway with and storm drainage sidewalks • City to participate with upgrades to water Bike lane on one • -system,sanitary sewer extension,and side underground utilities Narrow median- No center-turn lane 3r4^a. 40 r e rfl. , Upcoming Projects Main Street Projects • Greenburg Road Improvements �is - Federally funded MTIP project(design • Main Street/Burnham Street Stop Sign and land acquisition) •Elimination of one parking space -Widening of Greenburg Road •Creation of curb-out and relocation of stop sign (Washington Square Drive to Tiedeman •New pavement markings Avenue)to 5 lanes • Main Street/Commercial Street Curb • Project Status Return Modification • - Project design by consultant upcoming • Commercial Street sidewalk project sky 7 • Storm Drain Pipe Rehabilitation • About 6,000 feet of damaged pipes Storm Drainage Projects require continuous repair or maintenance • Project scope - Rehabilitate approx. 1,000 feet of pipe using trenchless pipe replacement method - Use Cured-in-Place Pipe(CIPP) trenchless construction method - Continuing program till completed 43 44 Storm Drainage • Major Maintenance • Addresses minor storm drainage problems Sanitary Sewer Projects requiring more than normal maintenance effort • This year's project:Repair drainage problem along Fanno Creek's slope at DeAnn Court 455 46' Citywide Sanitary Sewer Extension Program Sanitary Sewer Projects - Install sewer mains to provide approximately 200 services to existing homes.Proposed """"":•'tL 'IEFX"'"" Sewer new districts include: i « �---•-� Extension •O'Mara/Edgewood -Approx.48 services 4 y "i,;i `' ' •121st(Carmen Street to Marion Street)-A Approx. !� .�-, I '1 100Project ( ) PP :- 5� l 10C/wand 73 services 1E -��� y P Murdock •100th/Murdock/Settler-Approx.71 services e /4"-O -:y;= •117th(Cole Lane to end)-Approx.6 servIces _ '•- ` L dfl6 X14 ,,;6:,; •Walnut(Near 132nd Ave.)-Approx.3 services � r. .v.•Z 1 t:;L l (i w 8 Sanitary Sewer Projects ih�tit �iEd I •P"•• Extension't,e' {I Ki '1 ti�i k City Facility Projects 7• ,*71 =r i r , , 7_ •Projectat •d I;rn �c ail �" 121ri z 9F. F Fid �I t1C E'1 �� Avenue .,,■4�'Ij�1ALiT ,iFZa 49 50 City Facility Projects • Complete the new Library construction • Remodel Project - City Hall and Existing Library Building Parks Projects - Includes HVAC System Replacement - Includes seismic upgrades • Water Building Space Study • City Hall Driveway Repair 5'1 -5x,; - .4fi LLY Parks Projects Parks Projects 1. , • Fanno Creek Trail 1 - -ir ' ) i f North — Grant to Main Street ' - Hall Blvd to Wall Street mitl-MO k • Fanno Creek Park Shelter '..5' i( I 1 i --- .? crosswalk • Tualatin River Trail wa ra r -. - it r • Skate Park(from donations primarily) e� � � " s p Yir • Master Plan and SDC Updates cs`�r , [r[{ ` ` ` nv< <ti I � ..� r i 1, t53r_i 9 Water Project • 3 MGD Reservoir Project Water Projects - 550-foot Elevation -Adjacent to Alberta Rider Elementary School - Design work in-progress - Conditional use permit application in- progress - Project completion: June 2005 ,56,r. ,.'` Water Project Other Water Projects t — . . - • Defective meter replacements • Water main replacement Installations 6 _ .<.-.,-'4 r■ 3 MGD Security vulnerability evaluation and C 7�- Reservoir pg Project on upgrades I ntt..4 a v Bull • Reservoir structural repairs A �' Mountain • line replacements / _ • Aquifer storage and recovery projects ,,y �� y'qI' • Miscellaneous other water projects 57,; — . - - — _ 58' What's Next? Staff Recommendation Presentations to • That the Planning Commission approve - Budget Committee(May 17,2004) the proposed FY 2004-05 Capital - Planning Commission(May 24,2004) Improvement Program - City Council(June 8,2004) • That the Planning Commission -City Council approval(June 8,2004) recommend approval of the FY 2004-05 • Program effective July 1,2004 CIP to City Council ti' z5 .;'. A69 10 .x Purpose of discussion Buildable Land *Explanation of assumptions used *Discuss how the assumptions impact IlnlVV&nit©iiy the inventory o Share the acreage identified as Discussion, of assumptions; buildable and prellintai results *Solicit comments regarding the assumptions used and how updates will occur Why is an inventory of Assumptions made for Buildable Land necessary? Tigard's current inventory o It is necessary to see existing conditions a Areas included as buildable: when considering community vision and -Vacant lots goals for Comprehensive Plan updates. •no habitable structures or specific uses o Projection of growth potential -Developed parcels if there is less than Ya acre -Planning,transportation,funding remaining undeveloped(example next slide) o Areas not included as buildable: o Ability to see trends -water quality tracts and openspace tracts, -Where have we been and where are we going .even if privately owned o Economics -publicly owned park/openspace land -Businesses and land developers want to know -Wetlands and wetland buffers where land is available -Right of Way Example — partially developed lots Not everything can be assessed: 111\ �-., L ` ..� a o Does not account for site specific 1 II c development constraints lif *Does not take into account market r � x conditions ;74 L �; �. ' i cif -whether property owners have any intention of �. °1 selling/developing their property aim i� !� �j o Does not factor in redevelopment ` ''�"� —Residential areas with low dwelling value vs. $' .07 - i land value 1. �� t'a� � �1 ) -Commercial areas maximizing space 1 1 Changing assumptions Initial results and what it means— will change the inventory Residential •For instance: Zone Acres. Potential lots" -Increasing or decreasing the amount of R-1 0.4 <1 land needed for property to be R-12 64.5 736.95 considered partially developed R-2 1.8 3.14 -Includin publicly owned land as R-25 47.4 _ 1021,70 -Including y R-35 20,0— 69.70 developable 'R-4.5 245.8 1142.09 -Removing steep slopes from inventory R-40 0.0 <1 -Reviewing actual ability to develop R-] 375.9 2762.05 •Access,terrain,property"hold-outs", Total 772 5736 easements,etc *based on removing 20%for roads and dividing by min lot size, Does not Include potential densities from mixed use zones Initial results and what it means— Initial results and what it means— Commercial Industrial -Approximately 95 acres zone Acres -Approximately 73 acres considered buildable CC 0.0 considered buildable zone Acres •For perspective-Coslco site Is CG 42.2 •For perspective-Home Depot site Iii 0.0 approximately 145,000 sq feet on is 11.15 acres and 130,000 square 12.6 acre parcel,Fred Meyer is CN o feet of building IL 24.8 approximately 160.000 sq feet on CP 0 -No heavy Industrial land IP 48.6 12.8 acre parcel Cep 0,9 -does not fully reflect re- DUC 10.2 remaining development potential DuE 27.5 -Industrial capacity not full •Parking lots DUE-1 8.6 captured by looking at buildable land. *Aging structures Due-2 -4.3_ •re-development of existing ♦Re-models,budding up NURn 4.3 structures that are older and •Etc. DUR-2 0,7 underutilized Recommendation for I Planning Commission input requested; inventory updates: o Utilize existing assumptions o Utilize aerial photos and site visits to o Are the proposed assumptions determine if substantial construction has adequate? I started oAre there any suggestions to adjust o Utilize building activity reports to remove the assumptions? parcels o Review plats to refine/remove tracts that are o Do you agree with the recommended restricted from future development update process? -Water quality facilities •Additional questions/comments? -Open space -Resource protection easement areas o Updated yearly to track trends In activity 2