public meeting notice for the washington county … · 2 days ago · no public tes timony is taken...

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE FOR THE

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 PUBLIC MEETING 6:30 PM

NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are being held virtually, until further notice, via Zoom.

Join online: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86274004273 • If the link doesn’t open directly for you, copy the link into your browser.

Online participants will be able to see and hear the proceedings. Online participants’ microphones will be muted, unless they are called upon to speak/testify. Participant cameras will not be activated at any time.

Join by phone: +1-346-248-7799 or +1-669-900-6833; Webinar ID: 862 7400 4273 Participants on phones will be able to hear the proceedings. Phone participants’ microphones will be muted, unless they are called upon to speak/testify.

Prior to scheduled public hearing items, the Planning Commission conducts a Work Session to receive briefings from County staff. No public testimony is taken on Work Session items.

Following the Work Session, the Planning Commission considers agenda items, including scheduled public hearing items and consideration of minutes. The public is welcome to speak during the public hearings and time is limited to 3 minutes. The public may also speak on any item not on the agenda during Oral Communications. Time is generally limited to 5 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for an authorized representative of a Citizen Participation Organization (CPO). The Chair may adjust time limits.

To provide testimony on agenda items or provide oral communication, please complete and submit the sign up form at www.co.washington.or.us/PlanningCommissionTestimony at least 24 hours before the start of a meeting.

To testify, either phone in or log in to Zoom. (See instructions above). When your name is called, your microphone or phone will be unmuted. You will have five seconds to begin speaking;

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86274004273

http://www.co.washington.or.us/PlanningCommissionTestimony

if you do not, the next topic/speaker will be called. Please follow these guidelines:

• When your name is called, state your name and home/business address for the record. • Groups or organizations making a presentation must designate one spokesperson in the

interest of time and to avoid repetition. • When there is more than one speaker on any topic, please avoid repetition.

If you need a sign or spoken language interpreter, please call 503-846-3519 (or 7-1-1 for Telecommunications Relay Service) at least 48 hours prior to this event.

PUBLIC MEETING DATES

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSIONS

8:30 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 2 p.m. 4th Tuesday

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS

10 a.m. 1st and 3rd Tuesdays 6:30 p.m. 4th Tuesday

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS

1:30 p.m. 1st Wednesday 6:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday

Note: Occasionally it may be necessary to cancel or add a meeting date.

Department of Land Use & Transportation · Planning and Development Services Long Range Planning

155 N. First Ave., Suite 350, MS14 · Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: 503-846-3519 · Fax: 503-846-4412

www.co.washington.or.us · [email protected]

PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY SEPT. 16, 2020 6:30 PM

ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING

Join online: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86274004273 • If the link doesn’t open directly for you, copy the link into your browser.

Online participants will be able to see and hear the proceedings. Online participants’ microphones and cameras will be muted, unless they are called upon to speak/testify.

Join by phone: +1-346-248-7799 or +1-669-900-6833; Webinar ID: 862 7400 4273

Participants on phones will be able to hear the proceedings. Phone participants’ microphones will be muted, unless they are called upon to speak/testify.

AGENDA

CHAIR: JEFF PETRILLO VICE-CHAIR: MATT WELLNER

COMMISSIONERS: IAN BEATY, MARK HAVENER, DEBORAH LOCKWOOD, ANTHONY MILLS, SUSHMITA PODDAR, AND ERIC URSTADT

PUBLIC MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL

3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to items not on the agenda) 5. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Ordinance No. 869 – Significant Natural Resources (SNRs) continued from Sept. 2 An Ordinance amending the Community Development Code relating to development in areas designated SNRs and planned developments

6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

a. August 5, 2020

7. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS

8. ADJOURN

http://www.co.washington.or.us/

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86274004273

S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION\2019\2019 FORMS\MINUTES TEMPLATE AND INFORMATION

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, AUG. 5, 2020

ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE RECORDED

1. CALL TO ORDER: 1:30 p.m. Zoom virtual meeting The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Wellner. 2. ROLL CALL PC Members Present: Mark Havener, Deborah Lockwood, Anthony Mills, Sushmita Poddar, and Matt Wellner; Absent: Jeff Petrillo, Ian Beaty, Eric Urstadt. Staff Present: Andy Back, Planning and Development Services (PDS); Theresa Cherniak, Anne Kelly, Bryan Robb, Todd Borkowitz, and Susan Aguilar, Long Range Planning (LRP); Jacquilyn Saito-Moore, County Counsel 3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Andy Back, Manager of PDS:

• The OAPA Planning Commissioner Training will be done virtually (online) and is scheduled for Sept. 16 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. PC members should let staff know if they are interested in attending.

• In a previous PC meeting, staff mentioned updating the PC on rulemaking for Oregon House Bill 2001 (middle housing). Staff will brief the Board of Commissioners (Board) on this rulemaking Aug. 18 and may be able to update the PC at its Aug. 19 meeting.

• The recruitment for the PC District 3 position goes through Sept. 1.

Upcoming PC Meetings Aug. 19 (via Zoom; 6:30 p.m. start): • Hearings on the following:

o Ord. No 868 – Tektronix o Ord. No. 869 – Significant Natural Resources (Hearing 1)

Sept. 2 (via Zoom; 1:30 p.m. start): • Continue hearing on Ord. No. 869 – Significant Natural Resources (Hearing 2).

Sept. 16 (via Zoom; 6:30 p.m. start): • The PC may want to cancel this meeting to allow PC members to attend the OAPA Planning

Commissioner Training scheduled for the same time.

Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 2020

Page 2 of 5 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

(none) 5. PUBLIC HEARING

a. Ordinance No. 865 – Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansion Areas Todd Borkowitz, Associate Planner with the LRP Community Planning group, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed ordinance. Staff gave a brief overview of UGB expansion, the policy framework for the ordinance, a description of the four 2018 UGB expansions in the County, and the recommended ordinance provisions. The ordinance was authorized in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 – 2021 LRP Work Program.

In 2018, Beaverton, Hillsboro, and King City submitted proposals to Metro for UGB expansion into Urban Reserve Areas to accommodate projected future demand for needed housing. Concept plans were completed by these cities and acknowledged by the Board. The UGB expansions were approved by Metro Council in December 2018 and the Land Conservation and Development Commission in January 2020.

The proposed changes in Ordinance No. 865 will transition these new UGB areas from the rural to the urban area.

Staff recommendation • Commence the public hearing on Ordinance No. 865 and continue it to Aug. 19, 2020.

Written testimony received • Housing Land Advocates and Fair Housing Council of Oregon • Matthew Martin, Attorney - Vial Fotheringham, LLP

Oral testimony Alice Kinzer (10915 SW Avocet Court, Beaverton, OR) expressed concern about the timing of Ordinance No. 865. Since Beaverton’s plan for annexation is three to four years out, she asked why the County must immediately change the land use designations within the UGB expansion areas. The ordinance provisions will likely increase property taxes and will cause undue hardship for affected property owners in the Cooper Mountain UGB expansion area. It will also take away the farm and forest land deferral many property owners depend on and may force some property owners into foreclosure. For these reasons, Ms. Kinzer advocated to delay implementation of Ordinance No. 865.

PC Discussion and Comments • Questions about tax impacts, including impact on assessed property value when a new

land use district is designated by a jurisdiction, interest in tax impacts for properties subject to past UGB expansions, and whether tax impacts resulting from the land use changes can be delayed or phased in over time.

• How much housing is projected in each UGB expansion area? • Request that staff invite a representative from the County’s Department of Assessment

and Taxation to the Aug. 19 PC meeting to assist with tax questions.


Page 3 of 5 County Counsel suggested the PC leave the public testimony portion of the hearing open and continue it to the Aug. 19 PC meeting. Staff noted the timing of tax collection is complicated and often dependent on state statute. Staff also noted that tax implications are not a land use issue and not usually part of the deliberations on land use ordinances.

Final Vote Commissioner Lockwood moved to keep the public testimony portion of the hearing open and continue the hearing to the Aug. 19 PC meeting. Commissioner Poddar seconded the motion. Vote: 5 - 0. Motion passed.

Yes: Havener, Lockwood, Mills, Poddar, and Wellner (unanimous)

b. Ordinance No. 866 – Minor Amendments

Bryan Robb, Associate Planner with the LRP Community Planning group, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed ordinance. Staff indicated Ordinance No. 866 is a housekeeping and minor amendments ordinance, and that in past years, the County filed separate ordinances for each. The proposed changes would amend Comprehensive Plan elements to improve accuracy, clarity, and consistency with federal, state, and local requirements. Staff’s presentation provided an overview of these proposed changes.

Staff Recommendation • Conduct the public hearing. • Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 866 to the Board.

Written Testimony • Housing Land Advocates and Fair Housing Council of Oregon • Jennifer and Allen Flanagan • Mary Manseau

Oral Testimony • Jennifer Flanagan (29697 SW McNay Road, Hillsboro, OR) requested the County provide

some assurance for implementation of Oregon House Bill 2106 (2019) that farm parcels and farm buildings utilizing the law’s provisions are verified to have been used in agricultural operations, as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 455.315.

• Mary Manseau (5230 NW 137th Avenue, Portland, OR) shared concern for North Bethany

maps in Chapters One and Two of the Bethany Community Plan. Maps for North Bethany were in Chapter Two in the past and the information was since added to some of the Chapter One maps. If this ordinance is adopted, the Board should address this issue in the coming year.

PC Discussion and Comments • If farm buildings are not being utilized for a farm use, certain taxes may be affected. • Property taxes for dog training facilities should be adjusted if not being used for farming. • Does LUT do periodic inspections to ensure Community Development Code compliance? Final Vote


Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Mills moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 866 to the Board. Commissioner Havener seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0. Motion passed.

Yes: Havener, Lockwood, Mills, Poddar, and Wellner (unanimous)

c. Ordinance No. 867 – Safe Parking Anne Kelly, Senior Planner with the LRP Community Planning group, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed ordinance. The ordinance’s purpose is to allow safe vehicle parking/camping for homeless persons as part of a program to help them transition to stable housing. Beaverton requested the ordinance and its basic provisions as part of the FY 2020 –2021 LRP Work Program so that the city may extend its own program to serve a site in the urban unincorporated area. Staff provided information on a related Oregon statute from 1999, court findings that spurred many West Coast jurisdictions to begin related programs, and Oregon’s rate of unsheltered families – noted as the highest in the U.S. in 2018. Staff also shared background on Beaverton’s program, modeled after a Eugene program initiated in the 1990s, and noted that this ordinance would allow Beaverton to initiate service within the County’s urban area and allow the County or other public agencies to do likewise. Staff discussed proposed CDC amendments for exempting the use from permit requirements and lifting impediments to the program’s operation. Staff also highlighted compliance considerations and likely provisions of a separate Resolution & Order under development by the County’s Housing Services to govern certification of the required program to aid participants transition to housing.

Staff Recommendation • Conduct the public hearing. • Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 867 to the Board.

Written Testimony • Mayor Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton • Housing Land Advocates and Fair Housing Council of Oregon • Helen Golden

Oral Testimony Wayne Hayson (12669 NW Westlawn Terrace, Portland, OR) generally supports the proposed use but has concerns about its impacts on residential neighbors, particularly when occurring at religious institutions within residential land use districts. Limits on vehicle size and lot minimums (two acres) may help the ordinance gain community acceptance. Any future increases to the proposed vehicle cap could cause adverse effects on neighboring properties.

PC Discussion and Comments • How is Beaverton program funded? • Are there criteria to ensure an operator is qualified to run a program like Beaverton’s? • Why does this program need to be government coordinated? Experienced nonprofit

organizations could facilitate such programs on their own. • Questions about program operation, including maximum length of stay and responsibility

for ensuring proper management of sanitation facilities.


Page 5 of 5 • Some interest in flexibility in capacity to allow larger properties to host more vehicles and

smaller properties to host three or less vehicles. • Discussion about establishing process to provide notice to neighboring property owners. • 10 percent of County residents are below the poverty level. Metro recently passed a

housing bond after hearing testimony from both housed and houseless persons. Proposed requirements, including those for sanitation, storage facilities, and vehicle caps, pose barriers that will cause more people to sleep in unsafe locations, and should be removed.

Final Vote Commissioner Mills moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 867 to the Board. Commissioner Poddar seconded the motion. Vote: 3-2. Motion passed.

Yes: Lockwood, Mills, and Wellner; No: Havener and Poddar

6. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

Vice Chair Wellner moved to approve the PC meeting minutes for June 17, 2020. Vote: 5-0. Motion passed.

7. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION

(none) 8. ADJOURN: 8:05 p.m. Matt Wellner, Vice Chair Andy Back, Secretary Washington County Planning Commission Washington County Planning Commission Minutes approved this __________ day of ______________________________, 2020 Submitted by LRP Staff

Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning and Development Services • Long Range Planning

155 N First Avenue, Suite 350, MS 14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: 503-846-3519 • fax: 503-846-4412

www.co.washington.or.us/lut • [email protected]

Sept. 10, 2020 To: Washington County Planning Commission From: Andy Back, Manager Planning and Development Services Subject: PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 869 – An Ordinance Amending the

Community Development Code Relating to Development in Areas Designated Significant Natural Resources and Planned Developments

STAFF REPORT

For the Sept. 16, 2020 Planning Commission Hearing (The public hearing will begin no sooner than 6:30 p.m.)

I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing; recommend approval of Ordinance No. 869 to the Board of Commissioners (Board) with engrossment as described in this staff report and provided at the hearing. II. OVERVIEW Ordinance No. 869 amends Community Development Code (CDC) sections relating to Significant Natural Resources (SNRs) to address the determination by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and affirmed by others that some of these standards are not clear and objective. State law requires standards applied to residential development applications in urban areas to be clear and objective. The proposed changes focus on the urban area and have limited impact for sites with SNRs in the rural area. The Planning Commission (PC) held two hearings on Ordinance No. 869 and voted to continue the hearing to its Sept. 16 meeting for further consideration of proposed changes to the ordinance.

Planning Commission Staff Report Ordinance No. 869

Sept. 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6

III. BACKGROUND The PC considered Ordinance No. 869 at its Aug. 19 meeting. After testimony and discussion, the PC continued the hearing to Sept. 2. At the Sept. 2 meeting, the PC discussed the changes proposed in the ordinance and the testimony received. After discussion, the PC voted to continue the hearing to Sept. 16 to review expected staff-proposed changes for engrossment. They expressed appreciation to the engaged members of the public for their well-researched and comprehensive testimony and interest in this issue. The PC acknowledged this is a complicated topic and supported keeping the record open for additional testimony on proposed changes to ensure adequate public participation. Several PC members expressed general support for the approach proposed in Ordinance No. 869 but had questions about some of the details. There was interest in ensuring all subjective standards are addressed and in reviewing the changes to be proposed by staff for engrossment at the next hearing. Some members expressed the importance of addressing the Enforcement Order as soon as possible so that the injunction could be lifted, and the impacted development projects could proceed through the land use review process. Several PC members had specific comments/questions regarding how meaningful the 25% Preservation Area was, interest in expanding the Planned Development (PD) allowance so that 100% of any SNR area could be counted toward PD open space and questions about the extent of tree inventory needed. The PC briefly discussed the broader policy issues raised through the testimony and the interest in more substantial updates to the County’s Goal 5 Program or significant natural resource requirements and showed interest in consideration of these topics through the development of future Long Range Planning work programs. IV. ANALYSIS Since filing the ordinance, staff has identified several minor errors and potential changes to offer as part of an engrossment of the ordinance. This section addresses the primary proposed changes for engrossment identified by staff at the time of publication of this report. Other possible changes have been identified through testimony received, PC discussion and staff review. A comprehensive set of proposed changes will be presented at or before the Sept. 16 meeting. A. Submittal Requirements (§ 422-3)

The ordinance as filed proposed language to clarify and improve the SNR review process by standardizing the information provided by an applicant to review a development application when a site contains an SNR. The proposed submittal materials clarify what was already required through the CDC or the 1998 Director’s Interpretation (DI) in order to provide


Sept. 10, 2020 Page 3 of 6

consistency and a thorough review. This will allow for a comprehensive assessment of the location and condition of the resources and proposed disturbance, so that the proposed clear and objective criteria can be applied consistently and uniformly. Based on further evaluation and public testimony received, staff proposes the following changes to § 422-3:

(1) Field Verification (§ 422-3.1)

Proposed changes to this section are related to the definition of a natural resource professional and the methodology to be used to verify the location of the SNRs (a) Natural Resource Professional

This section requires that the Field Verification and Habitat Assessment be done by a “natural resource professional.” Comments have been made that the term “natural resource professional” is not clear and objective.

Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees this term is not defined in the CDC, which could lead to confusion, and offers two possible approaches to address this concern:

• The term could be removed, so that the section does not specify who must prepare the report. Instead, ensuring the work is done consistent with the County’s methodology requirements would lead to an appropriate individual preparing the report. Clean Water Services (CWS) and others rely on this type of approach for their work to delimit the boundaries of their areas; OR

• Additional clarification could be provided to specify the qualifications of a natural resource professional.

(b) Methodology for Field Verification

While the current CDC requires an applicant to “Identify the location of the natural resource(s)…” it does not explain the process or information needed to satisfy this requirement. The filed ordinance addresses this by requiring the boundary of each resource type to be identified on site plans, based on specified criteria which, in part, rely on delineations already required by other regulatory agencies. The intent is to rely on the expertise of those agencies regulating the resource type (e.g., wetlands, flood plain and drainage hazard areas, riparian corridors/Vegetated Corridor) and to not duplicate requirements. Comments were made that the references to Department of State Lands’ (DSL) or CWS’ methodology did not provide enough specificity for applicants to identify the appropriate process for how to conduct the field verification and delineation of the on-site SNRs.


Sept. 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6

Staff Recommendation: To ensure clarity, staff recommends the addition of the specific methodology used by DSL, the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps or USACE) and CWS to identify and delimit the particular resource. Since DSL, the Army Corps and CWS periodically update their delineation and reporting methodology, staff proposes to reference the most current accepted methodology used by each agency. This would likely include reference to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, which is typically the foundation of the DSL and Army Corps delineation methods, and the CWS Design & Construction Standards, Chapter 3, Sensitive Areas and Vegetated Corridors.

(2) Habitat Assessment “Guidelines” (§ 422-3.5) The filed ordinance codifies and standardizes the requirement for a Habitat Assessment

so that the condition of the habitat is assessed, and appropriate Preservation Areas can be determined. The Assessment must evaluate and rate the different habitat values using the methodology that is being developed and that will be outlined in Guidelines for the Habitat Assessment. The regulations currently propose the Assessment be prepared by a natural resource professional. Staff Recommendation: Under the requirements in the filed ordinance, there is very limited opportunity for discretion or inconsistency, which may have occurred in the past under the 1998 Director’s Interpretation. The wording of this section, however, is not clear that the Habitat Assessment itself will include guidelines that provide the direction and requirements for what a Habitat Assessment must include. Staff proposes to clarify this by making the following change (modification to filed ordinance language is shown in track changes with gray highlight):

A Habitat Assessment that identifies the extent and type of wildlife habitat located in the field-verified Water-Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Upland/Wildlife Habitat. The Assessment will evaluate and rate the different habitat values using the recognized methodology outlined in the Habitat Assessment Guidance and Forms.

B. Water-Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat (§ 422-4)

In the filed ordinance, as in the existing regulations, development is generally prohibited in areas with Water-Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat, except for a limited list of uses and activities described in this section. The list is not an expansion of the currently allowed uses, but clarifications to references of the appropriate federal, state and local regulatory agency (including CWS within the urban unincorporated area) responsible for permitting the specified activities. No changes are proposed to the allowable uses within the rural areas.

Based on comments received, staff is recommending further clarification to this section regarding the references to federal, state and local regulations, along with other technical fixes to be more precise and improve overall readability.


Sept. 10, 2020 Page 5 of 6

(1) Compliance with federal, state and local agencies (§ 422-4.1)

Comments have been received that the following standard is not clear and objective, in that it has the possibility of imparting a subjective value judgment.

Where these uses are subject to CWS Design & Construction Standards or other federal, state and local requirements, the more stringent requirement shall control.

Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees with this assessment and recommends that this language be deleted.

(2) Enhancement or alteration of the Riparian Corridor The comment has been made that the term “enhancement” in § 422-4.1 F. is not defined and may require a value judgement to determine, and therefore is not clear and objective. Staff Recommendation: Since an enhancement is also an alteration, which is a clarification of an activity that is already a permitted use, staff believes the word “enhancement” is not needed and should be removed, as shown below. This limits any value judgment on whether the alteration to the Water-Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat may be described as an enhancement to the SNR.

Enhancement, or aAlteration of the Riparian Corridor, Sensitive Area or Vegetated Corridor, as required by the applicant’s CWS Service Provider Letter or as permitted by DSL or the USACE.

C. Upland/Wildlife Habitat Standard (§ 422-5)

A number of comments have been received regarding this section. Potential changes to address potentially subjective requirements, concerns expressed regarding the alternative discretionary path, and revisions to encroachment areas to allow for maintenance are under consideration and will be presented at or before the Sept. 16 PC meeting.

D. Mineral and Aggregate Resources

In a letter dated Aug. 17, Todd Baker, President of Baker Rock Resources, expressed concern about whether the proposed amendments exempt Goal 5 Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resource sites from requirements of § 422. He requested clarification that § 422 is not intended to supplant conditions or add more regulations to a Significant Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate site than permissible under the governing Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) for such sites.

Staff Recommendation: County Counsel has verified that for reviews specific to Goal 5 mineral and aggregate resources, the entire CDC is superseded by OAR § 660-023-0180. While the added clarification requested by Mr. Baker is not necessary to address his concern, staff recommends adding clarification in CDC § 422 stating the section is not applicable to


Sept. 10, 2020 Page 6 of 6

Goal 5 mineral and aggregate sites and referencing the applicable OAR and Policy 7 of the Rural/Natural Resource Plan.

E. Remaining Issues for Potential Engrossment of Ordinance No. 869

A number of other possible changes to the filed ordinance are currently under consideration by staff for possible recommendation to the Planning Commission. As noted above, possible changes will be presented to the PC on or before the Sept. 16 meeting. Potential additional changes include the following areas:

• Technical revisions and corrections. • Revisions to address subjective provisions. • Increase in requirement for minimum preservation area. • Maintenance requirements. • Threshold distance for identifying on-site SNRs.

List of Attachments The following attachments identified in this staff report are provided: Attachment A: Public testimony received subsequent to Sept. 2 PC staff report S:\PLNG\WPSHARE\2020 Ord\869_Significant Natural Resources\Staff_Reports_PPTs\PC\091620\869_PC_SR_091620.docx

From: Ona Golonka <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 1:32 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] SNR - more protection needed

Dear Ms. Miller,

I'm deeply concerned about the loss of habitat in Washington County and the disregard that the County has had towards habitat protection over the years. Significant natural resource areas need more protection, and should be regarded with equal or greater importance than development, especially single-family home development. It seems as if short-term thinking - of five to ten years - leads how we plan our communities instead of longer-term thinking of 20-50 years.

I urge you and your team to place more objective measures and language related to protecting habitat in the development code. Without clear and objective regulations, confusion and complications will arise, and loopholes will be found.

I've volunteered with the Audubon Society in the past and love to go walking and hiking in the surrounding parks and natural areas of Washington County. I'm concerned about climate change and habitat destruction. It's depressing to know that only 15% of Washington County's wildlife habitat areas exist today. What we do now will impact society in the long-term, so wouldn't it be better to create a more stringent plan? What's the point of creating a plan where interpretation is subjective?

One of the reasons this current pandemic happened was that society is encroaching on wildlife habitat. I hope this pandemic allows us to reconsider our approach to the environment and I hope this also applies to the development code.

Best regards, Ona Golonka

-- Ona Golonka

503-453-3057 | [email protected] |

Received 09/09/20Wash. Co. LUT

Attachment A Page 1

mailto:[email protected]

From: Jason Clinch <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:11 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]>; LUT Planning <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comments Ordinance No. 869

Dear Planning Commission,

I am a resident of Washington County, Oregon and I believe natural resources should be protected. Draft ordinance 869 does not do enough to protect upland habitat.

• Protecting large trees (>24 inch DBH) is important to me as a resident of Washington County.Therefore, the tree protection section should be changed to cover all large trees, not just thosein the urban growth boundary. Furthermore, there should be more focus on protecting largetrees (>24 inch DBH) across sites subject to development and not just those in designatedpreservation areas.

• Habitat Preservation Areas should be assessed and the ratio or percentage required forpreservation should be on the functions and values they provide. Neither the currentCommunity Development Code nor the proposed language in the Proposed Ordinance No. 869provide a "clear and objective" standard in regards to how to assess functions and values ofthese Habitat Preservation Areas. This decision on preservation ratios should be science-basedand not utilize a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

• As for the development standards in the “proposed” development code, there is some poorlydefined language in 422-5.3. It states that a minimum of 25% of the site must be preserved andenhanced to “good” condition “as defined in the Habitat Assessment (Section 422-3.5)”. YetSection 422-3.5 does not define what “good” condition is but rather allows for “evaluating andrating the different habitat values using the recognized methodology outlined in the HabitatAssessment”. This isn’t a “clear and objective” standard since Washington County has norecognized methodology for evaluating upland habitat nor is there a recognized methodologyfor defining what “good” habitat is relative to other habitat values (i.e. excellent, fair, poor,etc.). It seems this language has been potentially taken from Clean Water Service’s languageand definitions from their Design and Construction Standards for assessment of impacts tovegetated corridors. However, those are all water, wetland, riparian-related standards notnecessarily relevant to Upland/Wildlife Habitat assessment of impacts. The functions and valuesprovided by Upland/Wildlife Habitat are not the same as the functions and values providedby water, wetland, riparian-related habitat.

• The required habitat preservation areas should be based on the assessed functions and valuesof the habitat proposed for impact. Requiring only 25% to be preserved may not be enough tomaintain the functions and values of the habitat. Again, the ratio should be based in sciencewith higher function and value habitat requiring a higher ratio or percentage of protection.


Attachment A Page 2

• Preventing habitat fragmentation and saving biodiversity are important to me as a resident ofWashington County. Therefore, the percentage of habitat required to be preserved when nextto a riparian corridor should not be less than the general preservation requirement. Allowingless habitat to be preserved near streams could lead to habitat fragmentation and loss ofbiodiversity.

Sincerely,

Jason Clinch

11032 SW 81st Avenue, Tigard OR 97223

Attachment A Page 3

From: JOHN WILLIAMS <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:17 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ordinance 0869; Mature tree protection measures

Dear Ms. Miller:

I am writing to support adopting this Ordinance. There are large, mature trees up to 30 feet in girth near the corner of 183rd and NW Union Road. They include sequoia redwoods, Doug fir, pines, downed logs, and rotting tree trunks.

In other words, it's good habitat, including big trees for the big birds. Eagles, herons, osprey, and other birds use those trees for habitat.

Tax lot aerials show those trees are in vegetated areas, and shade wetlands natural resources areas in the Greenway, and may be partly on Parks land. But at this moment those trees have no protection, and are slated to be cut down.

The existing natural resources maps do not designate these trees by a matter of feet, denying them protection. These trees could be 100 years old. One still has visible bear claw marks. I'm attaching photos.

I also seek protections for coastal and sequoia redwoods as native species. Redwoods species have lived in Oregon for millions of years. The current coastal redwood species is native at Brookings, and sequoias have been here 140 years, and many sequoias are Oregon's heritage trees. Redwoods are also losing habitat in California and may only be surviving in Oregon in another few decades.

Thanks, John Williams

PS: The pictured heron often fishes several yards from these large trees, where the Rock Creek tributary flows under West Union. In this picture the heron is at the west end of Bethany Lake, less than a mile distant from the mature trees pictured.


Attachment A Page 4

Attachment A Page 5

Attachment A Page 6

Attachment A Page 7

-----Original Message----- From: Lynne Staver <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:49 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Wa Co’s Proposal Ordinance # 869

Please stop what the county is doing to destroy our precious natural areas on Cooper Mountain! I moved there in 2011 because of the trees, the deer, and to get away from cookie-cutter homes with no paths and no nature found in suburbia. I have been part of a group for several years to save Cooper Mountain. To prevent the loss of our wildlife habitat and natural resources. We have worked long and hard to be heard. Please save one of the last remaining natural areas in our county!

Thank you Lynne Minich

Sent from my iPhone


Attachment A Page 8

September 2, 2020

Washington County Planning Commission 155 N. First Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124

RE: Proposed Ordinance No. 869

Dear Chair Petrillo and Commissioners,

In 2017, my wife and I purchased a property mapped with SNR and wildlife habitat to build a house for

our family. From dealing with planning staff regarding this property, I am fully aware of the ambiguity

associated with these overlays, and the need for clarity. It is apparent that Planning and Development

Services saw this need, as they have been continually working on assessment of code associated with

these areas.

Unfortunately, needed code updates were not practicable, and due to the enforcement order from

LCDC, our building lot is currently useless. While the thrust of the new code standards is aimed at

development of new tax lots, we are being told by Current Planning that we cannot submit for building

permits to build a replacement dwelling on an existing tax lot. There was an inhabitable house on

“wildlife habitat” that we took down, and now we cannot rebuild it.

My concern is for property owners, like myself, who cannot use or sell their land during this period.

Additional regulations beyond what is being proposed for development of these properties will only

decrease their value and increase cost of new housing. I am unaware of the number of people affected

by this enforcement order, but I want to convey the serious financial and emotional burden this has

brought upon my family.

While I realize the importance of these issues beyond monetary value and how they affect my property,

I believe it would be a mistake to postpone implementation of what county staff has been working on. I

urge the Planning Commission to not delay in doing what is necessary to lift the enforcement order so

that my family, and others like us, can use our property.

Thank you,

David Leary

7775 SW Florence Lane

Portland, OR 97223


Attachment A Page 9


I am a resident of Washington County, Oregon and I believe natural resources should be protected. Draft ordinance 869 does not do enough to protect upland habitat.

Protecting large trees is important to me as a resident of Washington County. Therefore, thetree protection section should be changed to cover all trees, not just those in the urban growthboundary.

While there is a state Heritage Tree Program, most of these trees are on public lands like at thestate fairgrounds or readily accessible to the public. There are many important trees that arenot covered under this program or meet the exact qualifications that deserve to be covered bythe creation of a Washington County Heritage Tree Program.

Many trees, including old growth oak trees have also been lost to such projects as theWillamette Water Pipeline Installation and other building and development projects.

The required habitat preservation areas should be increased to require larger percentages ofhabitat be saved. Requiring only 25% to be preserved is not enough to maintain the functionsand values of the habitat.

Preventing habitat fragmentation and saving biodiversity are important to me as a resident ofWashington County. Therefore, the percentage of habitat required to be preserved when nextto a riparian corridor should not be less than the general preservation requirement. Allowingless habitat to be preserved near streams could lead to habitat fragmentation and loss ofbiodiversity.

Please make these changes to ensure upland habitat is preserved and protected for it's valuable functions like maintaining biodiversity.

Andy Haugen CPO 10 Chair 23290 SW Farmington Rd Beaverton, OR 97007


Attachment A Page 10

From: Roger <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:10 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Land Use Ord 869

From: Roger Staver, 45 year+resident of Washingto County

I am writing to encourage further study and revision of the proposed Ordinance 869. Washington County is not now and has not been in compliance with LCDC directives, and 869 needs to address these shortcomings.

Early on Washington County began to outline ways to address Oregon’s Goal 5, but has not been a leader or an example of how this should be done. In fact, Washington County is far from being in the "leadership" role" that has become to be expected of it. Current proposals are disjointed and far too subjective to be enforceable.

Please Re- and Re- review the current draft(s), consolidate and clarify these important guidelines and directives. Without this approach, 860 will face many challenges, and fail in the purpose it is intended to achieve.

Thank You,

Roger Staver 3232 SW vVsta Drive

[email protected]




From: Kay <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:51 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Habitat

Dear Commissioners,

Over the years several of us have collected hundreds of Cooper Mountain signatures trying to slow down the extensive housing developments. We wanted careful planning as we were concerned about our precious wildlife habitats, natural resources, and tree preservation.

Our hard work of testifying, writing letters, gathering signatures were barely given a nod. One CAN NOT create a natural habitat. Now we must try and preserve what we can.

I am very much opposed to Ordinance 869.

Many of us have lived in the area for over 40yrs. I am putting my trust in our LUT planning staff to make the necessary decisions to protect what our creator gave us.

Fran Warren has been our honorable and trusted leader for years and will continue to be so with her extensive knowledge and love for “flora and fauna.”

Thank you Sincerely, Kay Nakamoto

-- Kay



From: Dobberfuhl, Scot A. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:29 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]>; Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter Opposing Ordinance 869

Scot Dobberfuhl 2114 C St Forest Grove, OR 97116

September 1, 2020

Attn: Ms. Michelle Miller Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services 155 N. First Avenue, Suite: 350 Hillsboro, OR 97124

RE: Ordinance No. 869

Dear Ms. Miller,

I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed changes to Ordinance 869 and would like this letter to become part of the record for the September 2, 2020 public hearing.

I live in Forest Grove, and the proliferation of new housing projects in my own town has made me more aware of the irreversible consequences of code changes that favor urban development over preserving ever-dwindling natural resources.

The proposed changes to Ordinance 869 would grant developers far too much unregulated power to redraw the boundaries of existing Significant Natural Resource (SNR) areas with methodologies that favor their own interests. It is simply not realistic—in fact, it is naïve— to assume that developers have habitat preservation as a primary concern, especially when their success depends on maximizing the profit they can realize through development.

I understand that finding the balance that will satisfy all residents is sometimes simply not possible. However, in this case is seems Washington County is prioritizing development policies that will actively reduce or remove the existing protections given to SNRs at a time when preserving those undeveloped areas is more important than ever.

If anything, now is the time to carefully consider how any development that compromises or reduces remaining wildlife habitats and SNRs would actually diminish our collective quality of life. Any actions that accelerate the loss of the few remaining urban wildlife habitats is folly for the people and animals that call Washington County home.



My teenage daughters are sitting near me as I type this, and they simply cannot understand why anyone would take steps to prioritize development over preservation. I have always asked them to reflect on how actions they take today will create a better world to live in tomorrow. This seems an equally valid question for Washington County to consider on Ordinance 869. Sincerely,

Scot Dobberfuhl [email protected] 503-35-4985



From: Michael J. Donoghue <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 5:55 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]>; Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on proposed WA county Ordinance 869

August 31, 220

Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124

RE: Proposed Ordinance 869 – Section 422

I have recently read Section 422 (Significant Natural Resources/SNR) of the proposed Ordinance 869. Some definitions seem vague and I can’t put my finger on what they mean objectively. Alot seems dependent on the good intentions of applicants, their SNR evaluations, voluntaryactions and mitigations. There do not seem to be objective protections for SNRs that have theteeth of real county enforcement.

Allowing applicants/developers to determine the boundaries (even existence) of SNRs through “field verification” by the applicants chosen “natural resources professional” seems flimsy and open to self-serving interpretation. What degree or certification determines the expertise of a “natural resources professional”? What independence is guaranteed?

This role of protecting SNRs (wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors, riparian areas, SNA, etc.) is being ceded by the county to individual applicants/developers as if their isolated actions will automatically lead to SNRs of healthy size with animal friendly wildlife corridors. What invisible hand is guiding the overall SNR vision for the county?

Wildlife Habitat needs to be of sufficient size with quality native vegetation to support wildlife. Wildlife corridors need contiguous pathways sufficiently wide with tree/brush coverage to provide for animal safety. Mitigation efforts applied to a different SNR do not necessarily help the “home” SNR or the “away” SNR stay integral. At some point SNRs become too small to be meaningful. This is something county experts should determine.

We need independent field verification by an expert beholden to the citizens of the county. It is my understanding that the county employs a biologist. SNR designation and field verification of SNRs should be a county responsibility protecting the citizens SNRs.



In 2003 application was made to Washington County for the development of the Renaissance Pointe II housing complex on the north side of Cooper Mountain. The location overlapped with a Significant Natural Area (SNA as identified on a county map) that was defined around the headwaters area of Beaverton’s Johnson Creek (which flows to Beaverton Creek, to the Tualatin River, etc.) At the time I was president of the Fallatin Homeowners Association. At the county hearings on the proposed development we argued that the new development was encroaching on too much of the SNA and asked that it be scaled back. After a “walk through” by the developer’s biologist and two hearings, the hearing officer approved the development essentially saying that there was nothing the SNA designation legally authorized him to do. The approval was essentially given with the same riparian setback requirements that any development was being required to honor, SNA or not.

In recent years I had occasion to look at a more recent map of SNA defined areas in Washington County. I noticed that the area on North Cooper mountain that I had fought for was no longer designated an SNA. The SNA designation wasn’t removed by any legal decision. It was de facto no longer an SNA because of the development. So, what does an SNA designation mean if an SNA can’t be protected and preserved?

I ask that you not approve Ordinance 869 (at least Section 422) in its current state. Allow for more time for planners and true SNR experts to come up with something that includes stricter definitions and more responsibility for the county to designate and protect SNRs.

Thank you,

Michael J. Donoghue

971-235-5073


From: Anne Goldfeld <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 5:38 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] comment on Ordinance 869

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ordinance 869.

The ordinance as it stands lacks specificity, strength, and plans for evaluation. Quantitative measures should be determined and environmental justice issues should be addressed.

I urge you to adopt the suggestions of local environmental nonprofit organizations.

Please apply section 407 to the whole of Washington County’s unincorporated urban area.

Please strengthen the terms of the ordinance taking into consideration scientific research on climate change, the importance of nature within neighborhoods, impact of nature on mental health, and intrinsic value of trees to the environment, wildlife and people.

I urge you from my heart to take the right and just action, to enforce the strictest protection for SNR’s, especially tree protections, both inside and outside of SNR’s. We are part of nature as nature is part of us. What protection, conservation, and rehabilitation we enact and enforce now will impact the health and well-being of all future generations.

Thank you, Anne Ashton Goldfeld, MSW, MPH 18090 NW Cornell Rd A Beaverton, OR 97006





Washington County, Oregon

Draft Ordinance No. 869

Michelle Miller, Senior Planner Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350 Hillsboro, OR 97214-3072 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Miller:

I am writing to you because I feel strongly that the protection for Natural Resource Areas in Washington County is woefully in adequate and I am very hopeful that the new version of Ordinance 869 will correct most of these flaws. In particular I find that the tree ordinance is so weak as to be nonexistent.

I have lived in Washington County since 1984 and currently reside in the Bethany area in a dwelling that was once the Bethany schoolhouse. I have a degree in animal science and veterinary medicine and am an avid gardener and bird watcher.

These are some of my observations over the years regarding SNRs:

I submitted testimony when Arbor Homes developed the 900 acre Arbor oaks development in an area that was not yet in the UGB, flanking my property on two sides. I observed that the plot map was drawn without regard to existing mature trees. The development came within 25ft of a year round stream and initially proposed to fill in a smaller tributary. Only with vigorous community protest was that altered to protect the entire watershed but the trees were entirely removed.

When a sidewalk was built along the southern border of my property with a portion of land taken by eminent domain, I discovered that the three mature Douglas fir trees removed had NO VALUE in the eyes of the county despite significant contributions of carbon sequestration, storm water management, reduction in wind velocity and ample shade (both of these reduce energy costs). The only value given to the property taken was the value based on potentially buildable lots.

When road improvements were made to Springville Rd crossing the wetland (near NW Samuel Drive), a massive concrete bridge/structure, with a small culvert, was built that effectively blocked movement of wildlife from the south to the north side of the road. A similar, if slightly smaller structure, within Arbor Oaks on 170th near PCC property creates a similar impediment to wildlife flow.



There is a small (~10-15 acre) stand of mature Oregon White Oak at Brugger Rd and 160th which does not even seem to be identified as a SNR area. I do not think the overlay maps are accurate.

I have observed that all of the trees on the property of the Chevron Gas Station at Cornelius pass and Imbrie Drive were cut down though they were planted when the gas station was built. I have observed that trees that are planted on many commercial properties are given such a small footprint that heat stress and root/trunk damage doom them from the start (eg.Tannasbourne east of 185th and the Bethany shopping center). I have observed that trees planted in conjunction with the intersection project at Springville Rd and 185th were planted in JULY of 2019 and are showing extreme heat stress due to lack of water in 2020. (FYI Oregon State University, Master gardeners of Washington County and the Oregon Landscapers Association do not recommend planting in midsummer). The point is that there is no follow up to insure that trees planted will actually survive let alone thrive.

The houses north of Blacktail Drive and south of Oakley Ct are built so close to Stoller Creek, that the vegetative buffer is nonexistent. This is readily observed from the boardwalk that crosses Stoller Creek.

These are only a few of my observations, but sufficient to make the points that protection for SNRs needs to be stepped up considerably.

Urban Greenspaces Institute and Tualatin Riverkeepers have both submitted comments that I wholeheartedly support. The Urban Greenspaces institute document provides a very comprehensive framework for crafting an ordinance that will protect current Natural resource areas and mitigate appropriately where any are negative impacts occur. Please give careful consideration to these comments as time is running out for making any significant difference to remaining SNRs.

Sincerely,

SusanNolte


KENNETH P. DOBSON ATTORNEY AT LAW

telephone: (971) 717-6582 0324 S.W. Abernethy Street email: [email protected] Portland, Oregon 97239 www.pdxlandlaw.com

September 1, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Michelle Miller Senior Planner Washington County Department of Land Use & Planning 155 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 350 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 [email protected]

Re: Proposed Ordinance 869 – Supplemental Comments

Ms. Miller:

As you know, I represent Jill Warren. I have reviewed the supplemental Staff report on proposed Ordinance 869 dated August 26, 2020 and offer the following supplemental comments.

The Supplemental Staff Report Does Not Set forth the Actual Text of a Revised Proposed Ordinance and Any Decision on the Revised Proposed Rules Would be Premature and Deprive the Public of its Right to Participate in the Process

The Staff Report makes various recommendations to modify the text of Proposed Ordinance 869 based on comments previously received. Apparently, Staff agreed with the commentators that some of the language in the proposed ordinance was not “clear and objective” as required by the Needed Housing Statute. However, the Staff Report does not set forth a revised draft of the proposed ordinance and the exact wording of this highly technical proposal is unknown. This problem is compounded by the fact that, at least in some instances, Staff has suggested multiple options for revisions. For example, Staff acknowledges that the term “Natural Resource Professional” as used in proposed CDC 422-3.1 is not clear and objective and then goes on to set forth two options for dealing with this issue. Staff Report p. 3. One of the options is to define the term, but no proposed definition is given. The other option would be to require that the work be performed per “County’s methodology requirements,” but no further clarification of that option is given either.

Although the Staff report makes mention of the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, its references to CWS methodology for determining the extent of vegetated corridors are more generalized and vague. As noted below, there are fundamental problems in attempting to use DSL and CWS methodologies to determine the boundaries of County designated Goal 5 resources because, among other things, they involve separate statutory schemes designed for separate purposes. Those problems aside, the public cannot effectively




comment upon the proposal without seeing the exact language of the proposed revisions. At a minimum, the County needs to provide a complete text of the revised proposal and additional opportunity for public comment prior to the Planning Commission voting on any amended proposed ordinance. Because the County Goal 5 Program Serves an Independent Purpose of Protecting Wildlife Habitat, the Proposed Reliance on DSL and CWS Delineation Methodologies, Which Do Not Address the Presence of Fish and other Wildlife, is Misplaced The Staff Report continues to recommend adopting by reference DSL and CWS methodologies for determining the extent of the various riparian SNR’s identified in the County’s Goal 5 program. Under this proposal, the geographic boundaries of the SNRs previously identified in the County’ Goal 5 process would effectively be modified to match the boundaries of statutory wetlands under the Clean Water Act and analogous state law and the vegetated corridors under the CWS regulations.

As noted in previous comments, this approach is misguided because the DSL and CWS programs are designed to protect wetlands and water quality and do not specifically address other types of habitat features, let alone the actual presence of fish and wildlife. Both the CWS regulations and the Comprehensive Plan expressly recognize that while there may be some overlap, CWS rules and the County’s Goal 5 program serve different purposes and protect different aspects of the resources (water quality v. wildlife habitat). CWS Resolution & Ordinance 17-5, sec. 3.01.1 (April 2017); WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE URBAN AREA, p. 18. Similarly, the Court of Appeals has expressly held that areas delineated as wetlands under the federal Clean Water Act and analogous state law do not necessarily overlap areas designated as SNRs on the County’s Goal 5 map. Plotkin v. Washington County, 165 Or App 246, 997 P2d 226, 227-29 (2000) (the fact that a particular site may or may not otherwise contain wetlands not listed in the County’s Goal 5 inventory is irrelevant in determining compliance with CDC chapter 422). The idea that the boundaries of riparian SNRs under CDC Section 422 should match wetlands and vegetated corridors identified using methodologies under these separate statutory schemes also runs afoul with the how SNRs are defined under both the existing and proposed SNR rules. Specifically, CDC Section 422 classifies riparian SNRs into two categories: “Water Areas and Wetlands” and “Water Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat.” The later of these two designations is defined under the proposed rules as “Water Related Areas that are also fish and wildlife habitat, including Riparian Corridors.” The problem in using DSL and CWS methodologies to define the boundaries of “Water Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat” is that those methodologies rely on moisture dependent plants, soil types, bank slope, and proximity to certain defined waterways. None of these methodologies take into consideration the actual presence, or lack thereof, of fish and wildlife. Taking the presence of fish and wildlife out of the field verification process entirely, as is now proposed, would render the term “Fish and Wildlife Habitat” as used in Section 422 superfluous and run contrary to the letter and spirit of Goal 5 and the Comprehensive Plan, which both require the County to adopt programs to protect “habitat.” See, e.g., OAR 660-023-0110 (setting forth methodologies for identifying “wildlife habitat” under Goal 5 by reference to, among other things, habitat studies promulgated by the ODFW).


Many Proposed Rules are Still Not “Clear and Objective” as Required Under the Needed Housing Statute As discussed in its latest report, Staff acknowledges that much of the language of proposed Ordinance 869 is not clear and objective as required by the Needed Housing Statute, Goal 5 rules, and the LCDC’s enforcement order. Although Staff has recommended deleting or further defining some of the vague and subjective language, there are still a large amount of such problematic language that has not been properly addressed. CDC 422-2

The use of the term “generally” creates ambiguity and is not “clear and objective” as required by the needed housing statute. CDC 422-3.1A.1

The term “consistent with the methods currently accepted by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and/or Clean Water Services (CWS) (as applicable)” is not clear and objective. DSL and CWS have their own regulations that are designed for specific purposes that do not necessarily overlap the purposes of Goal 5, the Comprehensive Plan, or CDC 422. It is unclear which of a possible myriad of DSL and CWS requirements and standards would apply when evaluating the boundaries of SNRs previously identified on the County maps through its Goal 5 ESEE process that may or may not otherwise fall under the concurrent jurisdiction of these other agencies. CDC 422-3.5

The requirement that the “Assessment will evaluate and rate the different habitat values using the recognized methodology outlined in the Habitat Assessment” is ambiguous and not clear and objective. Again, who determines what is a “recognized methodology”? The proposed rule must specify exactly what standards shall be used but the Staff report does not answer these questions. CDC 422-5.3C

The standards for variances to the tree preservation requirements are not clear and objective. What standards are to be used to determine whether the outcome under the proposed variance will “meet or exceed the ecological function and value” of the outcome of applying the requirements? The list of examples of target outcomes is also marred by the “could include but is not limited to” language. In response to this problem, Staff notes that the variance process “is a voluntary option, which is allowed in accordance with statutory and Metro requirements when a clear and objective process is also available.” Staff, however, does not identify what specific “statutory and Metro requirements” it believes allows it to impose alternative compliance requirements that do not meet the clear and objective requirements of the needed Housing Statute and the Goal 5 rules, especially when dealing with “locally significant” resources already


identified on the County’s Goal 5 maps prior to the adoption of Metro’s Title 13 rules for separate “regionally significant” resources. CDC 422-7

This section purports to restrict serious interference with SNRs outside the UGB unless the interference is mitigated. As previously noted, this language is anything but clear and objective as required by the Goal 5 rules, in particular OAR 660-023-0050(2), which states:

“When a local government has decided to protect a resource site under OAR 660-023-0040(5)(b), implementing measures applied to conflicting uses in the resource site and with its impact areas shall contain clear and objective

standards.” (emphasis added). In response, Staff states that this requirement “does require clear and objective standards but only when adopting new policies and uses for the rural area.” Staff Report p. 10. The basis of the Staff’s understanding of the applicability of this requirement is unclear, but what is clear is that the requirements of OAR 660-023-0050 apply to any post-acknowledgement plan amendment (“PAPA”) to the Goal 5 program, which proposed Ordinance 869 is because it amends and adopts land use regulations. See OAR 660-023-0010(5) (Defining PAPA to include any amendments or adoption to land use regulations). The County Must Coordinate with ODFW in Implementing the New SNR Rules As noted by many members of the public, proposed Ordinance 869 (especially the field verification process) leaves out an important partner – the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The proposed new rules delete previous requirements that required applicants and the County to solicit ODFW’s input in carrying out certain activities in SNRs. As a matter of policy and basic biology, ODFW’s input is vital to implementing any new Goal 5 strategy to protect what few remaining SNRs are left. Moreover, ODFW’s involvement in this process is also required under the Goal 5 rules. Specifically, the Goal 5 rules require the notification and involvement of “public agencies.” OAR 660-023-0060. Similarly, OAR 660-023-0110(6) requires local jurisdictions to coordinate with “appropriate state and federal agencies” when adopting programs intended to protect sensitive species habitat areas. As set forth in several of the public comments, areas affected by the proposed new rules include habitat for sensitive species. Accordingly, it is imperative that the County solicit input from ODFW before adopting any new rules that will result in long term impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. The County Should Take Its Time in Implementing New Rules to Address Other SNR Requirements that are not Clear and Objective and to Avoid Further Piecemeal Proceedings Before the LCDC Many commentators have noted that the process in adopting new rules appears to be rushed. This could help explain why the proposed new rules presented to date are full of


subjective language, internal inconsistencies, and apparent loopholes that render many of the purported protections for SNRs illusory. For this reason, the County should not be shy about using the time allocated to it under the enforcement order to solicit additional public comment and to involve ODFW to ensure the new rules that are adopted are not only legally defensible but also accurately reflect the County’s stated policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Not rushing through sloppy rules has the additional benefit of allowing the County to address other rules and regulations on the books that do not comply with the Needed Housing Statute’s clear and objective requirements. In its June 1, 2020, enforcement order, the LCDC noted that other provisions of the CDC as it relates to SNRs were likely not “clear and objective” and recommended that the County take the time to go through other sections of the rules and identify and correct them to comply with state law. It appears that the County has so far not followed the LCDC’s advice, which will help guarantee additional enforcement proceedings before the LCDC. For example, just last week, a County Hearings Officer approved a development application that called for the removal of 80% of a mapped Wildlife Habitat subject to additional requirements under the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mountain Community Plan. See Appeal of L2000048-S (Rigert Commons). One of those additional requirements is set forth in Community Plan Design Element 1, which states that “wooded areas” shall be “preserved and protected to enhance the economic, social, wildlife, open space, scenic, recreation qualities of the community.” Obviously, removing 80% of an SNR does not “preserve and protect” that resource as required under the community plan. However, the Hearings Officer, citing the Needed Housing Statute, refused to apply that requirement because it was not “clear and objective.” This sets the stage for another enforcement proceeding before the LCDC. However, the County can avoid more trips to the LCDC by taking its time, engaging in a comprehensive review of all its rules and regulations affecting SNRs, and adopting new rules that are consistent with Goal 5 and the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your attention and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Kenneth P. Dobson


September 1, 2020

Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners Washington County 155 North First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on proposed Ordinance 869. The Public Input and Engagement Report includes many comments from the community calling for more protections for SNRs. Policy-wise the proposed Ordinance 869 language does not satisfy Land Use Goals 5 or 2.

1. The purpose of statewide land use Goal 5 is different than the goals of Clean WaterServices and Division of State Lands. DSL, CWS, and Goal 5 all have different goalsand focus. Ordinance 869 as written does not “protect natural resources” asrequired by Goal 5 because the proposed code allows developers to destroy theremaining 15 percent of originally mapped Goal 5 Wildlife Habitat classified in therecently published SNR report as having “development potential.” The ordinancecalls for only a 15 or 25 percent “preservation area” and also has a provision forapplicants to destroy even that if they plant baby trees and shrubs. This is notprotection.

2. We are concerned that the “Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife” wasremoved from the proposed Code language. Regulatory oversight with acceptedmethodology is needed, so our suggestion is:422-3.1 A Significant Natural Resources Field Verification prepared by anindependent natural resource professional from Oregon Department of Fish &Wildlife that identifies . . .



3 This ordinance should affect both SNRs within and outside the UGB, particularly related to tree removal.

4 We find the following terms in the proposed Ordinance may lead to subjective analysis, as they are not clear and/or objective.

“Generally”

“Natural resource professional”

“as applicable”

“Habitat Assessment”

“more stringent” (compared to what?)

“Enhancements”

“could include”

“serious interference”

“mitigation”

5 We support the Tualatin Riverkeepers letters of November 25, 2019 as published in the Public Input and Engagement Report and their letter of August 18, 2020 in your September 2, 2020 meeting packet, and we encourage more input from them.

6 There is no definition of Riparian habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Upland Habitat, Wetlands, or Headwaters in a single location within the Policy document for applicants and readers to be able to distinguish the difference in these terms and qualifications. We want independent biologists to define those terms and put in a single place in the code.

7 The lack of Tree Code disproportionately affects housing in areas of lower incomes. We support environmental justice equity in Washington County as it relates to protecting wildlife habitat and tree canopy.


8 There are no calculations for incentives commensurate with ecological value of

habitat. The total value of preserving trees in Washington County is not quantified in the Policy.

9. Allowing mitigation outside the county does nothing for habitat corridors and connectivity which is essential for wildlife within the county. Code should say mitigation happens within a Washington County drainage basin.

10. We support Staff’s recommendation in the September 2 meeting packet or the Planning Commission to continue the hearing to allow for adequate opportunity for the community to review and comment on the proposed engrossments to Ordinance 869.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Dale Feik

Chairperson of WC-CAN

Cc: WC CAN Board of Directors: Brian Beinlich, Dan Bloom, Glendora Claybrooks, Deke Gundersen, Faun Hosey, Jim Long, Greg Malinowski, Gerritt Rosenthal, Ellen Saunders, MaryLu Savana


From: Rosencrance <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:56 AM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Ordinance 869

Good morning Michelle, I am submitting the following letter on behalf of a group of five citizens, who have requested I do so. Thank you, Tanya Rosencrance

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the County’s SNR proposed ordinance 869. We are all constituents in our early 20’s and care deeply about theenvironment and effects of climate change in our county.

It is about time to establish clear and objective standards to protect our SNRs. We stand with Urban Greenspaces Institute (UGI) to require field verification of SNRs and to use additional, updated natural resources information when making development decisions. It is imperative that climate change be considered in each and every situation.

We also believe wholeheartedly that urban tree protection is definitely needed and it should apply to ALL neighborhoods, not only the wealthier ones. We stand behind a comprehensive plan to include the entire county.

To ensure clean and healthy waters, the Tualatin Valley watershed needs protection to include larger areas adjacent to streams and wetlands to preserve biodiversity and our quality of life.

Livability in Washington County matters to us and future generations. We support smart development that will ensure clean air and water starting right now.

Thank you.

Madelynn Rosencrance 4398 NW Palmbrook Drive Beaverton, OR 97006

Caleb Allison 202 SE 58th Ct Hillsboro, OR 97123





Jennifer Rodriguez 83d2 NE 68th Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124

Nolan Richartz 1780 NE 10th Ave Hillsboro, OR 97124

Nathan Allison 202 SE 58th Ct Hillsboro, OR 97123


Donald Alexander 7862 SW Oviatt Dr. Beaverton, OR 97007 [email protected] 503-703-9696

Attn: Ms. Michelle Miller Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation Planning and Development Services 155 N. First Avenue, Suite: 350 Hillsboro, OR 97124

RE: Washington County Ordinance 869

I am writing to oppose Washington County’s proposed Ordinance 869.

I have lived in this county for more than 45 years, and have long enjoyed its livability. For many of the years I have lived here, the inevitable development of land has proceeded in a manner that appeared to respect the environment and maintain a good balance of agriculture, industry and housing. In addition, the designation of SNRs mandated by LCDC planning was a welcome accommodation to aide in the preservation of the county’s unique character and balance of wildlife, natural beauty and livability.

However, Ordinance 869 is emblematic of Washington County’s change in approach to development. Now the county has embraced a development approach that values housing density over livability. Vast areas of farmland and natural areas have been turned into a sea of tightly packed houses, with little or no open space. Narrow streets plus lack of arterial highway improvements create traffic congestion.

SNRs provided a welcome respite and some balance to the county’s drive for housing density over livability. Now with Ordinance 869, the county seems intent on violating the spirit, if not the LCDC regulations, governing SNRs. While the stated purpose of Ordinance 869 is to clarify the rules governing development in SNRs, the practical affect will be to give developers full reign to destroy forever these irreplaceable resources. It may provide clarity of rules, but Ordinance 869 does nothing to protect wildlife, greenspace or livability.

Furthermore, after participating in hearings and citizen meetings, I am dismayed by the county’s seeming lack of serious consideration of citizen input. County planners listen politely and then proceed to do what developers want. This is not the responsive and responsible government that we as taxpayers deserve! I want citizens to not only be heard on this issue but to have our concerns make a difference in the county’s approach!



Specifically, I request that the Planning Commission hold off on approving the proposed ordinance to allow additional public comment. I also request that the staff prepare an alternative proposal for public review and comment that (1) retains greater levels of protection for SNRs as originally contemplated in the County's Comprehensive Plan and (2) provides some level of review and oversite by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Habitat concerning the proposed "field verification" process which currently gives developers and their paid consultants broad ability to unilaterally redraw the boundaries of SNRs as they see fit. Please listen to the people and do not approve and enact this ordinance in its current state! Respectfully, Donald Alexander


From: Whitney Crandall <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 8:12 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 869

Michelle Miller, Senior Planner Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124

Re: Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 869 August 31, 2020

To: Michelle Miller, Planning Staff, and Commissioners,

When you think of living in Oregon, what do you picture? I picture neighborhoods and hills with green mature trees. I know that picture may not apply to the whole state, but it can apply to the area that I live in in Washington County. As a resident, I find value in protected natural areas throughout the county. I know besides adding the beauty and attractiveness to our community, there are many benefits that come from these areas such as: habitats for urban wildlife, improved water quality with less runoff and erosion, flood control, improved air quality, reducing potentials of heat islands.

I’m grateful for the former leader's insight to try to protect the beauty of Oregon and Washington County establishing Significant Natural Resources (SNR) area under the state’s Goal 5 Planning. The purpose of Goal 5 states is to adopt “programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic and open space resources for present and future generations.” It is a well-intentioned goal that I whole-heartedly support. After reviewing the purpose of Goal 5, I am disappointed that even the state acknowledges its failure to uphold the standard set by Goal 5 when it says, “many local plans and codes are not consistent with the current Goal 5 standards”, Washington County included.

In the failure to abide by Goal 5 protections, we have failed to periodically review the quantity and quality of distinguished SNRs. What will be the consequences future generations will face? The rate and ease to which developers throughout the county have been able to clear-cut and remove majority (if not all) mature/established trees is alarming. Planting street trees and shrubs does not mitigate the removal of established mature trees and shrubs. The tree canopy will never be reestablished to what it was before. Corridors wildlife use to get from one SNR area to another is disrupted.

If development occurs on land designated SNR, independent professionals should perform the field verification and help determine the best way to limit the development’s effect on the land and surrounding area. We need clear and objective statements defining what reducing impact to the “maximum extent feasible” is and who/with what qualifications oversees this impact.



The protection for the remaining SNR areas in the county is imminent. Protecting our natural resources to the minimal extent is not an option. Before adopting ordinance 869, the county needs to first determine the remaining SNR within the county, and assess the most essential wildlife habitat and ecosystems and then adopt “clear and objective requirements” to preserve what we have as best as we can. Thank you for your time. Whitney Crandall 7778 SW Laird Place


REUSSER COURT HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION

BEAVERTON, OREGON 97007

August 31, 2020

Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners 155 N. First Avenue

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Via Email to [email protected]

Re: Proposed Land Use Ordinance# 869

Dear Commissioners:

I write on behalf of the seven homeowners that comprise the Reusser Court HOA. Reusser Court is located on the East side of Cooper Mountain along 175th

. The Reusser Court HOA members include:

Kay and Steven Nakamoto 17345 SE Reusser Court

Judy and Brad Hadfield 17350 SW Reusser Court

Danielle and Michael Magnus 17390 SW Reusser Court

Kim and Hieu Pham

17 400 SW Reusser Court

Susan and Curtis Borchardt

17 440 SW Reusser Court

Kasey and Tyler Sondag

17470 SW Reusser Court

Judy and John Klar 17475 SW Reusser Court

The homeowners of Reusser Court support the detailed and well-reasoned



August 18, 2020

Washington County

Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners

155 N. First Avenue

Hillsboro 97124

Re: PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 869

First, I would like to thank the Washington County Board of Commissioners for raising the level of Planner

resourcing for Significant Natural Resource (SNR) Research and Reporting to a Tier 1 Work Plan item as of

2017 as I and many others in the community had requested. This allowed Washington County Land Use

and Transportation (LUT) Department to develop the SNR Assessment and Review Staff Report. This

particular project is a good beginning toward preserving the quickly diminishing Significant Natural

Resources which include the essential mature wildlife habitat critical for our communities in many ways.

I continue to request that The Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners postpone the

acceptance of this Policy change until this Policy can be revised to the absolutely needed levels.

Theresa Cherniak testified at the LCDC Hearing that the Enforcement/Injunction would likely affect only 5

or 6 Development Applications over the next year. The LUT website states that even with the current

pandemic situation, “Washington County Department of Land Use & Transportation continues to provide

most services remotely - online, by phone or via U.S. Mail.” I believe that this staff of very capable LUT

Planners can make the necessary Policy corrections needed to address the issues on Page 51 of the SNR

Assessment, “BOARD DIRECTION AND NEXT STEPS.” Please give these Planners an opportunity to take

the most practical actions and correct Policy 869 to meet the Oregon's Land Conservation and

Development Commission (LCDC) Enforcement Injunction and go beyond to address the BOARD

DIRECTION AND NEXT STEPS, all in one revision process which may take longer than this October

Ordinance cycle to complete.

My letter provides additional testimony to my document dated 05 August, 2020. I have bulletized my

issues with detailed explanations in Appendix A attached to this letter.

#1 The proposed Policy still contains verbiage that is still subjective such as “generally” or “more

stringent, etc.”

#2 The proposed Policy changes still rely on voluntary actions, mitigation and non-specific incentives

rather than regulatory methods. LCDC found this subjective in nature during their review. This

past methodology by Washington County has led to serious compromise of mature wildlife

habitat and fragmentation across the county. Allowing mitigation outside the county does

nothing for habitat corridors and connectivity which is essential for wildlife within the county.

#3 There is no definition of Riparian habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Upland Habitat, Wetlands, or

Headwaters in a single location within the Policy document for applicants and readers to be able

to distinguish the difference in these terms and qualifications. A specific example is cited in

Appendix A where WETLANDS were filled in due to misinformation/confusion by a Planning

Commission.



#4 The lack of Tree Code disproportionately affects areas of lower incomes. We are experiencing

Environmental Justice inequity in Washington County as it relates to tree canopy and parks in areas

of lowest household incomes. This Policy does not address this issue and it should.

#5 The Washington County Community finds the proposed Ordinance 869 unacceptable as written.

PIERS review of the SNR Assessment showed that Community is asking for greater protections not

less.

#6 The true value of preserving trees in Washington County is not quantified in the Policy (for

The purpose of determining mitigation or for incentives, etc). In the LUT SNR Assessment and

Review, Appendix Q, Page 5:

“The loss of these trees has an impact far beyond simply landscaping. The loss of trees

also negatively impacts the overall health of the urban forest, habitat for wildlife,

community attractiveness and livability, and county infrastructure (storm water

management, ground water recharge, air quality, and heat sink reduction). An excellent

primer for understanding the urban forest’s net contribution to the county’s infrastructure

and for quantifying the value lost as we lose our tree canopy is the “The Western

Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic

Planning” produced by the US Forest Service’s Center for Urban Forest Research.

I feel that for all the above reasons, the Washington County Commission(s) should refuse this particular

version of the proposal in favor of a more encompassing version. By doing this process once, we will save

taxpayer dollars and County resources so we do not have to go through multiple revisions in order to get

it right “the next time.”

Thank You for considering my testimony. I am happy to make myself available for any questions or for

further research should any of the Commissioners have any questions.

Fran Warren

“Nature is My Medicine”


APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

As I reviewed the video of the LCDC Hearing and Enforcement documents against the proposed Policy

revisions, I found the following problems or terms still remain in the Policy which render it not to be

“clear and objective” and do not answer the concerns of the LCDC Commission’s Enforcement Injunction.

#1 GENERALLY is one of the subjective terms still used in the proposed Policy document.

422-2 Lands Subject to this Section

“Those areas generally identified in the applicable community plan or the

Rural/Natural Resource Plan Element as one of the Significant Natural Resources

described below and further field verified through the process in Section 422-3.1

Areas identified as Class I and II Riparian Habitat on Metro's current Regionally

Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map shall be evaluated during

the field verification process.”

The proposed Policy still retains the word, GENERALLY, above and this is vague. But all the caveats

attached to the “Lands Subject to this Section” are specific – except “field verification.” Typically, this is

the APPLICANT’s field verification, which has been, in many cases, quite controversial – but not

challengeable by expert testimony in the community. It has become clear that field-verification must be

done by an impartial third-party whenever there are challenges by defined sufficient community

testimony. It is also unclear as to what is meant by CDC 422-3.1: “Natural resource professional.”

#2 The proposed Policy changes still relies on voluntary actions, mitigation and non-specific incentives

rather than regulatory methods. This past methodology has led to serious compromise of mature

wildlife habitat and fragmentation across the county. Allowing mitigation outside the county does

nothing for corridors and connectivity which is essential for wildlife. Do we even know what lands have

been set aside where – what funds have been set aside to foster wildlife habitat/SNR preservation? The

Committee for Community Involvement has initiated a request to the County Auditor to request an audit

of the SNR lands – and also to request information on these mitigations as well. This is, at this moment,

an unknown.

#3 No definition of “Riparian habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Upland Habitat, Wetlands, Headwaters

all in one place in the Policy document for applicants and readers to be able to distinguish the

difference in these terms and qualifications.

o There was actual confusion amongst the LCDC Commissioners during their discussion period

as to what was covered under this policy. The Policy should have those definitions right up

front directly within the document so it is clear and objective to all parties at the outset.

There are references to other agencies definitions of some of these terms – but not for all.

And, there needs to be some baseline set for Washington County specifically.


Under the above 3 bullets, I am citing just one of several cases that I am personally aware of

where the problem of the Washington County Policy is not “clear and objective” and this led to

filling in of wetlands.

o WETLANDS – Background info:

▪ Per WWF, Caution on Buillding House on/near Wetlands: “Only about 5 percent

of the land area in the continental United States is composed of wetlands. But these

transitional zones—neither completely dry nor entirely liquid—are enormously

valuable, especially when it comes to controlling floods. Wetlands act like natural

sponges on the landscape, absorbing and then gradually releasing storm waters and

lessening flood damage.” Some wetlands appear dry/distressed during non-flooding

times of year but are ready to come into action when needed.

▪ National Wildlife Association: "Build your house in a wetland area, and you've got

a hobby for the rest of your life," warns Ed Perry. "You will be fighting that water

forever."

o WETLANDS – My personal experience:

• I was at a hearing where a Biology Ph.D professional and a Botany Ph.D.

emeritus have both testified that a specific wetland area was still viable, but the

developer applicant’s “Natural resource professional” testified that it was a

“distressed wetland” and no longer viable. Note: according to Wikipedia: Wetlands

can be dry during the dry season and abnormally dry periods during the wet season,

but under normal environmental conditions the soils in a wetland will be saturated to

the surface or inundated such that the soils become anaerobic, and those conditions

will persist through the wet portion of the growing season. At that meeting, the

Planning Commission did not know the difference, and since there was no unbiased

third party field-verification, and since the hired “Natural Resource Professional” took

their photos during the dry season, the Planning Commission abided by the

applicant’s hired resource’s evidence and recommendation. Note: By definition, a

wetland may appear as distressed or dormant periodically, but any wetland may

reappear at any time and often result in cracks in foundation walls, sinkholes or

potholes if attempts are made to infill. The County or homeowner are left with the

costs at a later date.

#4 I researched the question raised by the LCDC Commission about the lack of a Tree Code and

how it affected areas of lower incomes This is how I learned about the Environmental Justice

inequity in Washington County as it relates to tree canopy and parks in areas of lowest household

incomes.

o I looked at Parkserve (The Trust for Public Land) and their mappings of areas of

Washington County – as well as Washington County as a whole. Parkserve provides

information on park areas within 10 minutes’ walk of various communities.

o I used i-Tree tree canopy mappings (same tool used by US Forest Service).

o I then looked at socio-demographic overlays using Justice-Map to see if there is a

correlation.


o An excellent article for me was, “Trees Grow on Money.” I read about mature trees

left untouched in higher-priced neighborhoods. But quick-growing ornamental

saplings as mitigation for mature tree removal in lower-income neighborhoods or in

neighborhoods with weak Community Plans or no tree codes.

As I looked at all these tree canopy mappings and the socio-economic mapping around Washington

County, it became increasingly clear that this lack of tree code is definitely showing a pattern that the

Urban Tree Canopy Cover is related to the socio-demographics of the unincorporated areas of our

county. This fits the scientific evidence that our county has been headed in the wrong direction.

#5 On 10 August, I had a discussion with several knowledgeable community members regarding the

proposed 869 policy and the Oregon's Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)

enforcement action. Below is our voice as it represents a segment of the Community of Washington

County.

▪ The Washington County Community finds the proposed Ordinance 869 unacceptable as written.

We are a reminder that the diverse Washington County Community is made up of not just

landowners, builders, farmers, and consultants but also of residents who have chosen to live in this

wonderful county because of the many different resources it has to offer. There is economic

opportunity as well as natural resource – and these two dynamics need not be in opposition. We

believe we can help the county to see how to achieve the optimal outcomes for all who choose to

live and work here.

We recommend that the Commission postpone approval of the revised Ordinance 869 until the

Planners have an opportunity to rewrite the Policy to meet, or beat, the much-needed

improvements as pointed out in the already-resourced SNR Assessment and Review

recommendation. We can only appreciate the incredibly hard work that the LUT Planners have

done already and we feel this has been a tough assignment under these constrained Ordinance

Season limitations. The SNR Assessment and Review PIERS report had cited several resident

feedback letters which cited the following basic message – “…need stronger policy with greater

coverage, with regulation – not just incentives, etc…” – in other words MORE PROTECTION NOT

SAME OR LESS:

“…Need to protect remaining SNRs through regulation, funding, enforcement and

staffing, insufficient survey, need for entire unincorporated area tree protection –

especially in new UGB expansion areas, insufficient inventory information ..”

▪ Why did LCDC issue the injunction? The LUT proposed policy changes have not resolved these issues

(see Attachment A – LCDC Washington County Enforcement Final Order). Two examples:

o “While the Commission agrees with the County that there are still many protections for Goal 5

resources, that does not mean the County is still in compliance with Goal 5 in all instances.

The Commission does not find it is necessary to go through all of the alternative programs

cited by the County and explain how they do or do not replace or complement the CDC

provisions invalidated.5 The County decided to prohibit uses, partially allow uses, or allow

uses that conflict with Goal 5 resources. The CDC, including CDC 422.3.3, 422-3.4, and 422-3.6


determines how those conflicting uses are either allowed or prohibited. While perhaps the

County could have decided to completely allow conflicting uses in the SNRs – it did not do so.

The County decided to only allow certain conflicting uses if, for instance, measures such as

enhancement of degraded riparian areas mitigated such losses. As Warren points out, there

are no valid mandatory protections for upland Wildlife Habitat SNRs (involving housing

applications) that are clear and objective. The bottom line is that the County has a Goal 5

program that relies on the provisions of CDC 422, including CDC 422-3.3, 422-3.4, and 422-3.6

to implement the Goal 5 program. When those provisions are invalidated as to housing

applications by ORS 197.307(4) and Warren v. Washington County, the County’s Goal 5

program is no longer being fully implemented.

The Commission agrees with Warren that the County is out of compliance with Goal 5. 2.”

o “If the LUBA and Court of Appeals decisions trigger action on the part of the County, what is

an appropriate schedule for the County to review and amend its program?

“…The Commission relied on input from Warren, presented at its hearing, that between

308 and 507 acres of significant natural resource area wildlife habitat within the County

would be vulnerable to elimination or degradation as a result of new development

applications until the County adopted new or amended clear and objective code

provisions. …. The Commission determined that this is potentially a significant loss of

such wildlife habitat areas within the County, which would if continued, aggravate the

violation of the County’s requirements under Goal 5, its comprehensive plan or land use

regulations.”

#6 The true value of preserving trees in Washington County is underestimated. In the LUT SNR

Assessment and Review, Appendix Q, Page 5:

“The loss of these trees has an impact far beyond simply landscaping. The loss of trees

also negatively impacts the overall health of the urban forest, habitat for wildlife,

community attractiveness and livability, and county infrastructure (storm water

management, ground water recharge, air quality, and heat sink reduction). An excellent

primer for understanding the urban forest’s net contribution to the county’s infrastructure

and for quantifying the value lost as we lose our tree canopy is the “The Western

Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic

Planning” produced by the US Forest Service’s Center for Urban Forest Research.2

The report outlines how to calculate the annualized $ value on the benefits and costs of trees

in a community – examples include the impact of the urban forest to a community’s net

energy savings, annual air quality improvement (such as pollution uptake and avoided

power plant emissions), annual reductions in storm water run-off as well as carbon dioxide

emissions, and aesthetics.” Mature habitat is essential in helping Washington County respond to

Climate Change.


Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro 97124

Dear Commissioners:

From: Fran Warren (835 SW Touchmark Way – Portland, Unincorporated Washington County)


I request that the Commissions postpone approval of the Policy, as submitted, to allow the Washington County LUT Planners more time to make the following necessary adjustments:

• there is some more work to make this document meet the “clear and objective” requirementsof the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) Commission

• there are still major issues (per LUT Significant Natural Resources Assessment & Review, May2020) which will need to be addressed in yet, a new revision to Policy 869

Washington County was an early adopter of Oregon’s Goal 5, but as you can see in the attached table, Appendix R, Model Code Jurisdictional Comparison, Washington County has truly fallen behind the nearby cities and other counties in applying Title 13 and in providing Incentives and standards for preserving Significant Natural Resources. My thanks to the LUT Planning staff for including this succinct table compiled in 2018-2019 in their Significant Natural Resources Assessment & Review document.

The County’s acknowledged Goal 5 program for SNRs is not contained in one document, but is located throughout multiple elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Resource Document, CFP, RNRP, CDC and each community plan. This makes it difficult for applicants and residents to research processes and relevant policies.

For several years now, I have been researching and volunteering on the topic of Preservation of Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity. I am participating on a regional Strategic Action Planning activity as well as working with State and Federal representatives to determine where we might best leverage efforts. I am particularly focused on how we may preserve these critical corridors and connectivity throughout Washington County. We may not be able to save everything – but let’s determine the most essential wildlife habitat and ecosystems and preserve what we can. I continue to work to establish the stewardship and community advocacy to support these vital programs. We need these essential policies to support us as well.

Example of lacking “Clear and Objective” statement in the Policy:



Some of the Major Issues Still Unaddressed: ➢ Policy needs additional incentives to replace/mitigate with NATIVE species essential as food

source for wildlife (not just fast-growing ornamentals for temporary aesthetics) o See 422-5.3 Required Preservation Area – Table on Page 9

Above is one example: This table should recommend replacing with NATIVE trees and shrubs. ➢ OAKS: There are no specific provisions for protection of oaks (Oregon White Oaks) in this Policy. Note: This is not about a Tree Code – this is specifically directed at Oaks as a “diminishing” resource. Humans and Oaks compete for the same locations: elevation, water, soil components. As the available buildable lands become compressed, there is no extra incentive for builders to protect these environmentally crucial trees. Oaks can live to be 500 years old, they are one of the most fire-resistant and disease-resistant trees and their numbers are diminishing. According to the Oregon Conservation Strategy Organization, the Willamette Valley have less than 5 percent of its original oak trees. Oak habitats which are necessary for a number of strategy species are being converted to agriculture, residential, and other uses in the Willamette Valley. The same rolling hills and scenic landscapes that indicate healthy pine-oak habitat also attract new residents and developers. Because much of the remaining oak woodlands are in private ownership and maintenance of these habitats requires active management, cooperative incentive-based approaches are crucial to conservation. See https://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitat/oak-woodlands/. ➢ Policy applies to riparian or upland/wildlife habitat areas that are specifically at or near

designated “water/watershed” only.

• Some wildlife habitat exists in wetlands designated as “distressed.” But documentation shows that wetlands are, by definition, always a source of water at some time or another even if they do not appear to have surface water all year long. Many of these distressed wetlands show up as sink holes or potholes later when builders have tried to pave them over. Now they become a problem of the County or City management for years to come.

• There is no provision for “headwaters.” Headwaters are key to providing the source for creeks and streams below. Today, builders are not required to inventory any of these water sources found on their building sites. Headwaters may start underground on the top of mountains/hillsides – filling these in can be devastating.


https://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-habitat/oak-woodlands/

➢ Policy is critically dependent upon what are ... dated Goal 5 Inventories” ..”Tracking of field-verified SNR is limited and Monitoring of Mitigation is Inconsistent but not addressed in Policy”:

o The Washington County LUT Assessment and Review (May 2020) notes that the Washington County Wildlife Inventory is out-of-date. Yet many of the Community Plans within urban Washington County are dependent upon incomplete or obsolete Washington County wildlife habitat inventories (Washington County Mappings were done 1983-4, some updates 2004). The Community Plans do utilize Metro’s Wildlife Inventory Plans, but these too, are incomplete. This is a critical point, since the qualification for independent field verification is dependent upon whether the subject land was designated as Wildlife Habitat in the first place. ▪ For example, on Cooper Mountain, the area designated as “Outlook Woods,” is 96%

mixed tree canopy and provides habitat for 4 ODFW strategy species of wildlife, plus populations of red-legged frogs, rough-sided salamanders, white breasted nuthatches and olive-sided flycatchers not to mention many different species of birds and mammals. These woods provide “edge habitat” protection for Cooper Mountain Nature Park wildlife for breeding – but these 25 acres of contiguous habitat are not even classified as any form of Wildlife Habitat on any of the Washington County Wildlife Inventories.

▪ A study by the U.S. Forest Service found that just one mature tree in the Portland region can capture 449 gallons of stormwater per year. The City of Beaverton estimated that if at least 60% of the Cooper Mountain planning area is covered with tree canopy, the area’s stormwater issues will be largely solved with trees capturing over 34 million gallons of stormwater per year. Yet, very little of Cooper Mountain was designated as Riparian Habitat. Neighborhoods in Durham and Lake Oswego currently exceed 60% tree canopy and have some of the more desirable housing in the region.

o I concur with Ted Labbe, Executive Director – Urban Greenspaces Institute: Dec. 2, 2019 On his comments on the SNR Assessment as it carries over to this Policy. “Revise the SNR review process to include technical reviewers with expertise in natural resources, including outside agency reviewers.” … “Require mitigation sequencing based on a site-specific habitat assessment.”

o Mitigation to an off-site location breaks the connectivity of wildlife corridors thus should not be allowed if the riparian habitat is deemed part of a connectivity corridor.

o Policy should require a report of the Mitigation Inventory: within Washington County (habitat biological descriptors), off-site, and/or funding bank.

➢ Standardize Habitat Report requirements and add them to the Code If the field documentation of habitat and wildlife/biology were documented according to new the ODFW/PSU database standards, these reports could be utilized in the regional (Metro) wildlife inventory – at no additional expense to Washington County – or possibly receive reciprocal funding. Policy should reflect some form of consistency of biological notations reporting.


Washington County Board of Commissioners Washington County Planning Commission 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro 97124 Attn: Michelle Miller, [email protected]

REGARDING PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 869: Suggested Revisions to make PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 869 meet the “clear and objective” requirements

General comments stating why I oppose ORDINANCE NO. 869 as submitted:

1) Goal 5 program for SNRs is not contained in one document, let’s make changing this a Tier 1workplan task moving forward.

2) Habitat mapping is out of date, and significant alterations to the landscape of Cooper Mountainhas occurred since the last mapping making a new SNR inventory critical. By taking a ‘speciesspecific’ tree canopy inventory for Cooper Mountain, we may calculate stormwater collection bytrees as it pertains to the impacted watershed. Clean Water Services should be in point for this.Upland oak, large conifer, and madrone species are particularly important. Trees in locations thatconnect greenways to water (e.g. Tualatin River and/or its’ tributaries) should have enhancedsupport for protection, as these pathways provide the connectivity needed to maintain traditional behaviors by fauna in their habitat. Using science and math to document known conditions andcreate a financial model for tree protection may prove effective in ameliorating conflict.

3) Missing from the (Comprehensive and Community Plans for Cooper Mountain) plans offered byBeaverton: (intra-UGB) Density Transfers and Conservation Mechanisms (in non-riparian areas).Beaverton Planners offer Cooper Mountain residents a hard sell on their plans. “We HAVE to dothis” was repeated at their CPO6 presentation earlier this year. Inflexibility of their plan isproblematic, as rural residents could benefit from selling density to areas close to existinginfrastructure (such as Scholls Ferry Road) versus building on hilly terrain that provides thecoveted upland habitat. We know that land is more costly to develop. Clean Water Services ownsa leadership position to use an updated SNR inventory to provide Beaverton with a cost analysison habitat destruction along with infrastructure savings realized with conservation. Myunderstanding is that Metro (who mailed our household a postcard on habitat mapping)completed the last habitat mapping in 2003, and arguably should have updated that inventory asdue diligence before voting to expand the UGB. Asking them to complete this work after the factis perfectly reasonable.

4) “422-2 Lands Subject to this Section” This section needs absolute clarity. I suggest a reference toSNR inventory, and a statement of criteria where habitat could subsequently be included if notalready identified.

Respectfully,

Eric Squires

17172 SW Rider Lane, Aloha Oregon

97007-8581

503-807-3899

[email protected]





August 23, 2020Michelle Miller, Senior PlannerWashington County Planning155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350Hillsboro, OR 97124

Sent via email to: [email protected] for 9/2/20 Planning Meeting

Dear Ms. Miller, Planning Staff, and Commissioners,

I am writing in opposition to the adoption of the currently proposed version of Ordinance No. 869, and suggesting a few changes and additions. I would like my letter to become part of the record for the September 2, 2020, public hearing.

Revisions to Ordinance 869 were called-for by LCDC who found that the language in the County’s Ordinance 869 does not set out clear and objective standards for the protection of identified Significant Natural Resources (SNR) and Wildlife Habitat property. For years, Washington County has been negligent in the protection of SNR and Wildlife Habitat and LCDC is requiring a remedy. There should be Clear and objective language protecting both SNR/Wildlife Habitat land to-be-developed and SNR/Wildlife Habitat land to-be-protected.

Historically, development in the North Cooper Mountain area of Washington County, has proven that developers consistently use the MINIMUM setback standards required (or even request variances to go smaller) and the MAXIMUM density allowed in Washington County’s Community Development Codes. Minimum setbacks require clear cutting beautiful areas of large trees, and then ineffective mitigation ensures that tree canopy will never be reestablished over the hundreds of acres of new development. When you clear cut SNR, natural erosion control is lost and heat islands are created, adding to our CO2 burden. Groundwater quality diminishes as runoff from impermeable surfaces is no longer filtered through natural soils.

The County needs to take a longer-term view of verified SNR, and environmentally responsible regional development with “field verification” performed by independent professionals that are not connected in any way with the developer or the County. This requirement is not clearly reflected in the current proposed language of Ordinance No. 869. The citizens of Washington County do not want the County to be able to unilaterally allow consultants to redraw the boundaries of mapped SNRs through “field verification” using whatever methodologies they choose, and we are not in favor of allowing development on 85% of whatever SNR property is left within those redrawn boundaries!

Ordinance No. 869, should state that if SNR property is to be developed “the best part of the SNR property should remain in tact as open space within the new development,” and the degraded portion of the SNR property can be developed, even if it means

1 of 4




of 2 4

fewer houses can be built in that area. It would be the price you pay for developing protected SNR/Wildlife Habitat property.

As stated above, tree mitigation doesn’t work. You simply cannot mitigate the loss of 100 year old Fir trees, Madrone trees, and Oaks that can live 500 years, once they have been clear cut from SNR property when houses are built on small lots with minimum setbacks. Planting street trees here and there doesn’t mitigate that loss. If you allow destruction of SNR property, you will be minimizing protections afforded years ago to identified and protected areas in favor of more and more housing development which accelerates the loss of urban wildlife habitat. Once these resources are gone they are lost forever and we become a high density, noisy, high traffic area with no trees, wildlife or character.

Ordinance 869 could require Design Review for new developments.

I would encourage Commissioners to consider the damage that is being done long-term to Washington County when you allow builders to cram homes into small areas every which direction without any Design Review for overall esthetics or compatibility with existing neighborhoods. You can easily hurt the value of existing homes in the area, and make the entire neighborhood look less desirable.

Many of the people in my neighborhood are close to retirement or already retired and have worked all their lives to have their nice homes. New housing developments should compliment existing neighborhoods even if they are intended to be smaller in square footage and/or more affordable. Design Review could require street widths compatible with area streets and include driveways that provide enough parking for not only all residents but also any visitors. In the proposed “Rigert Commons” subdivision developers are planning short narrow dead end streets with “no parking” signs on both sides of the street. Most homes have at least two cars, and they use their garages for storage because there is no storage area in their house. Design Review could also require landscaped walking paths and bike paths. I

f Washington County required Design Review for new developments, residents wouldn’t be so opposed to new development because it wouldn’t have such a negative effect on their own livability and property appeal.

This Ordinance could prevent the loss of the best SNR, and the construction of narrow dead-end streets designed so developers can cram in a couple more houses; it’s unattractive, and there is no flow if there isn’t egress at the end of the street or even a cul-de-sac to turn around in. Currently, you have to turn around in someone’s driveway where they are supposed to be parking.

Washington County, with its beautiful green trees has a very unique opportunity to build desirable neighborhoods. Now is the time to require better-planned development before we ruin the quality of life throughout the County. It requires planning. There is only a small percentage of precious SNR/Wildlife Habitat property left.


of 3 4

Oregon IS trees NOT 8 foot backyards with no trees and houses built sideways on flag lots crammed in between two other houses. We can do better. Washington County shouldn’t allow designs that ruin the aesthetics of existing neighborhoods.

Below is an example of the tall, skinny, close together construction mentioned above. This is the newly built “Oldham Meadows” at 175th and Rigert Rd. in Cain Park. It doesn’t fit in this neighborhood, and it destroyed all the trees and wildlife habitat in that area. When they developed Oldham Meadows we saw many animals, including bobcats and coyotes, crossing Rigert Road looking for safe habitat in the SNR at 17707 SW Rigert Rd. behind our home.

Every time I read the words “needed housing” I cringe because I don’t believe that every house needed in Oregon should be built in Washington County and especially on SNR/Wildlife Habitat property. The wildlife cannot speak for itself, but it is being forced out.

One more bit of information for staff and commissioners. I have family in real estate. They report that today’s buyers are looking for homes with room for home offices so they can work from home since Covid 19 popped up its ugly head. They are also looking for larger yards so their children can stay home and play outside. They want walking paths so families can get out for exercise close to home. Why do we continue to allow construction of tall skinny homes crammed together on small lots with no trees and without neighborhood walking and biking paths.


of 4 4

I believe the changes we are seeing because of Covid 19 may change our entire way of life. We may never completely go back to our previous lifestyle.

We need to plan ahead so that Washington County is a well planned and desirable place to live and real estate values in the area remain competitive. Think ahead.

Thank you for your consideration,

Diana Nicolay-Biles7958 SW Oviatt DriveAloha, OR 97007(503) 591-0488


August 30, 2020 Washington County Planning Commission c/o Michelle Miller, Senior Planner Dept. of Land Use and Transportation Hillsboro, OR 97124


First, I would like to thank Washington County for responding to community concerns and making Significant Natural Resources a Tier 1 focus. Please include my following input in the official record of the September 2 Planning Commission meeting.

I know I’m not alone in asking that the Planning Commission postpone action onOrdinance 869 until it is rewritten to ensure actual protection for Goal 5 SNR WildlifeHabitats. The County SNR Assessment and Review PIER includes communications fromcitizens and organizations, although I wonder if my 12/23/2019 letter is the only onemissing. I’m attaching it here. When I emailed my comments, I received a gracious thank-you message from Board of Commissioners Chair Harrington, but somehow my letterwasn’t included in the PIER. Most comments that did appear called for more SNRprotections and echoed countless communications over the years from citizens andcommunity groups voicing increasing alarm as Goal 5 resources were being developed.Why haven’t those voices had more impact on County policy? I know LUT plannershave put a tremendous amount of work into Ordinance 869, but more work is needed.

Why did LCDC issue the injunction? Proposed Ordinance 869 has not resolved issuesraised by LCDC as it decided on an injunction against approval of applications proposingdevelopment in SNR Wildlife Habitats, pending clear and objective Washington Countycode for protection. As stated in the Enforcement Order issued June 1, 2020, “……. between 308 and 507 acres of significant natural resource area wildlife habitat within the County would be vulnerable to elimination or degradation as a result of new development applications until the County adopted new or amended clear and objective code provisions. The Commission also considered information…...that development applicants in the County were already submitting applications and requesting modification of existing approved applications that would result in development on significant wildlife habitat areas identified in the County’s comprehensive plan and Goal 5 protection program. The Commission determined that this is potentially a significant loss of such wildlife habitat areas within the County, which would if continued, aggravate the violation of the County’s requirements under Goal 5, its comprehensive plan or land use regulations.” (emphasis mine)

As written, Ordinance 869 is a formula for the “significant loss of such wildlife habitat areas” that LCDC feared. It allows applicants to destroy all but 15 or 25 percent of SNR Wildlife Habitats on development sites, depending on location relative to riparian zones.



While unclear, CDC 422-5.4 also appears to allow unauthorized removal of those meager preservation areas by merely requiring a developer to “mitigate” with baby trees and shrubs that cannot possibly offset the loss of mature habitat functions. Given LCDC concerns reflected in its injunction, would the current Ordinance 869 draft be acceptable to either LCDC or citizen groups that have repeatedly asked for real protection?

The proposed policy still relies on voluntary actions, mitigation and non-specific incentives. Understandably, this approach was historically driven in part by Measure 37, but 37 later bowed to Measure 49. Further, regulatory elements are clearly included in the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 3.07.1310 that the County has cited to support optional protections alone. (Exact 3.07.1310 language is included in my attached letter.) I think most County residents would strongly support incentives allowing developers to apply 100 percent of an SNR toward PD open space requirements. Along with easily exploited weaknesses of the now invalidated CDC 422-3.6, however, discretionary approaches have not protected Goal 5 resources that have no CWS or other agency regulations to defend them. These SNR Wildlife Habitat resources are a critical part of the entire watershed ecology, and you will be receiving expert input on the fallacy of policy that allows their development.

At the Planning Commission’s August 19 Zoom meeting, a Home Builders Assn. representative mentioned our housing shortage, which of course everyone recognizes. But he then went on to say, “Now we have a moratorium preventing the opportunity to build housing in Washington County.” That is simply not true. The remaining 15 percent of SNR Wildlife Habitats “with development potential” represent a minuscule bit of “buildable land” in our region. We need housing, and we need greenspaces and all their functions, and a balance between those needs can only be restored by outright protection of remaining SNRs. My initial thoughts for Ordinance 869:

If any encroachment at all is allowed into Goal 5 SNRs, including Wildlife Habitat, it

should be limited to a very small percentage. Code could possibly require removal of invasive species in a different area of the SNR to compensate.

To avoid conflicts of interest, field verification of mapped SNRs should be carried out by an ODFW biologist. (A concerted push by local governments, citizens and advocacy groups may help bolster ODFW funding.) Ditto any evaluation of condition. Since ODFW’s regional biologist has noted that invasive plant species can be found in most Portland metro area habitats, however, that is a relatively meaningless provision. If anyone thinks wildlife can’t use habitat “degraded” by invasive species, please see the wildlife list of more than 65 species observed in the “Crestline” area (attached), the only such census I know that has been done for a proposed SNR development.

To augment protective code, add provisions for the County to explore partnership with Metro’s Nature in Neighborhoods program to purchase and manage SNRs as they become available along wildlife corridors.


In addition to policy revisions, address subjective language in the initial ordinance draft, such as enhancement, recognized methodology, more stringent, natural resource professional, habitat assessment, mitigation, serious interference, etc.

Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area Policy 10, Biological Resources and Natural Areas, states, “It is the policy of Washington County to protect and enhance significant natural areas.” The County’s SNR Assessment and Review itself extolls the value of trees and impact of their loss. Page 5 of Appendix Q says it well, not only stressing livability but also county infrastructure: “storm water management, ground water recharge, air quality, and heat sink reduction.” As climate change increasingly puts public safety at risk, mature trees and their understory—within SNR habitats and elsewhere—are critical allies as our County responds to challenges posed by global warming. Along with other community members, I look forward to working with the County as Ordinance 869 evolves to help ensure a livable future in this special place we call home.

Sincerely, Pat Pat Forsyth 8101 SW Cedarcrest St. Portland, OR 97223 (Unincorporated Washington County)


Washington County Board of Commissioners c/o Andy Back, Planning and Development Services Manager Department of Land Use and Transportation 155 N First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 December 23, 2019

First, thank you for responding to our community’s call for action to save what’s left of SNR Wildlife Habitats. I know the County’s resultant draft SNR Program Review and Assessment involved countless hours of work. It comes at a critical time. When SNRs were mapped, who could have known their role would someday reach far beyond nature-in-neighborhoods, that words such as carbon sequestration and flood prevention would define our escalating climate crisis?

Multiple choices offered by the online SNR “Open House” provide no place for many comments the County is likely to receive from citizens. I know I’m not alone in finding no proposal for strong action in the report’s pages. Please consider my thoughts, starting with Goal 5 itself as benchmark.

Goal 5: “To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.”

Goal 5’s call for inventory of habitat resources gave us our mapped SNRs, and Goal 5 guidelines include: “4. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats should be protected and managed in accordance with the Oregon Wildlife Commission's fish and wildlife management plans.” Goal 2, Land Use Planning, emphasizes that local governments don’t have to use goal guidelines, but says: “Governmental units shall review the guidelines set forth for the goals and either utilize the guidelines or develop alternative means that will achieve the goals.” (emphasis mine) With the draft SNR report admitting that only 15 percent remains of SNR Wildlife Habitat with “development potential,” our County is not achieving Goal 5.

Despite SB 1051 invalidating subjective development code such as CDC 422-3.6 (as affirmed by court decisions involving the “Crestline” plan), the draft SNR report says that the County is in compliance with Goal 5 because other parts of the code contain optional, voluntary “clear and objective” measures such as density transfer. But the statewide planning goals are NOT optional and voluntary. They are mandatory. As confirmed by County staff, CDC 422-3.6 is the only code section written to comply with Goal 5 for SNR Wildlife Habitats, so court decisions have left Washington County with NO code for these upland Goal 5 habitats.

Even the county’s own 2005 issue paper on SNRs noted that upland Goal 5 habitats have only CDC 422-3.6 to defend them, while riparian zones have CWS and other agency regulations to limit destruction. That issue paper admitted: “As a result, preservation of non-riparian resources (i.e. upland habitat areas) is rare.” Given the record of upland habitats replaced by subdivisions, “rare” is a generous term.

Where is information on what happened to SNR areas that were annexed? We know of one in Tigard, with mature upland habitat bordering a rich riparian zone along a branch of Ash Creek. Endangered species Pileated Woodpeckers often were seen working the large trees there. Tigard



approved a seven-lot subdivision on the site, and the developer clear cut all of the SNR upland habitat, now a moonscape awaiting more bulldozers. Is this typical?

The County’s draft SNR report says applicants have determined that most development plans wouldn’t “seriously interfere” with habitat and that 78 percent of SNR Wildlife Habitat and Water Areas and Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat are “degraded” and of little or no value to urban wildlife. Tell that to the wildlife living there! We know of only one wildlife inventory at a proposed development site in our area, taken over time by biologist neighbors of the “Crestline” property, where the upland SNR targeted for clear cut anchors an amazing diversity of habitats flanking Ash Creek. Among many other animals, the list includes 55 bird species with only one non-native.

How the discrepancy? Applicants understandably want to develop, making them a poor choice to assess habitat value for wildlife. Their consultants also understandably want to provide reports that support a client’s interests and thus encourage future assignments. County citizens can find only one case where ODFW’s Regional Biologist and other independent experts assessed a development plan—the “Crestline” plan. The applicant’s biologist rated upland habitat as “degraded” with “no wildlife seen” and claimed that destroying most of the SNR grove would not “seriously interfere” with Goal 5 habitat identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. But the ODFW Regional Biologist echoed other independent experts when she reported seeing 19 wildlife species on a short site visit and said the “Crestline” mitigation plans were “out of kind and do not address temporal losses.” Other experts also stressed the likelihood of flooding if grove trees were replaced by houses. Even the County Hearings Officer ruled in 2017 that the plan didn’t satisfy CDC 422-3.6.

In the pie chart showing 15 percent remaining of SNR Wildlife Habitat with development potential, the pie slice “preserved” should be added to the “developed” slice. As stated in the chart, “preserved” means that mitigation was done, not that the mapped habitat was preserved. You cannot mitigate the loss of mature habitat, especially mature woods such as the “Crestline” 100-year-old grove, by planting any number of saplings, no matter where you plant them. Even if they thrived, baby trees would develop little habitat (and climate mitigation) potential for decades. Too late. This is what ODFW’s Regional Biologist meant when she talked about temporal losses.

For obvious reasons, if the County persists in using biologist reports as it considers development applications and “field verification” of SNR boundaries, those reports should come from an ODFW biologist to ensure independent review.

As you know, Metro’s land use ordinance provides for environmental protections on private property and calls for allowance of one dwelling to avoid a “takings” if an entire tax lot has environmental constraints. Measure 37 called for compensation or waiver for landowners if regulations that reduced property value were passed AFTER the owner acquired the property (based on value just before and just after regulations applied), and Measure 49 further--and dramatically--limited impacts of 37. As amended by SB 1051, ORS 215.416 (4)(e) applies here, saying that a county may reduce density or height of an application “…..to comply with a protective measure pursuant to a statewide land use planning goal.”

The County draft SNR report cites Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 3.07.1310 to support incentives and voluntary optional measures as the only protection strategy for upland


Goal 5 habitat. The actual text of Metro 3.07.1310 reads: “The purposes of this program are to (1) conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system, from the streams’ headwaters to their confluence with other streams and rivers, and with their floodplains in a manner that is integrated with upland wildlife habitat and with the surrounding urban landscape……..This program: (a) Will achieve its purpose through conservation, protection, and appropriate restoration of riparian and upland fish and wildlife habitat through time, using a comprehensive approach that includes voluntary, incentive-based, educational, and regulatory elements.” (emphasis mine). The remainder of the UGMFP Nature in Neighborhoods Title 13 contains no language indicating that Metro considers the region’s upland habitat fair game for obliteration unless developers use optional measures. The statewide planning goals are mandatory. Voluntary and optional haven’t been doing the job, and they won’t start now.

Given all the above, I join County CPOs and the CCI in calling on Washington County for strong action. We are in a climate crisis that adds urgency to preserving what remains of our upland habitats and the important role all remaining habitats, riparian and otherwise, play in mitigating the impact of climate change. We need housing, but our remaining upland SNRs account for a minuscule percentage of land “with development potential” and are especially precious given decades of destruction that have left us in this 15% situation.

Since our County no longer has an alternative means that even purportedly achieves (and hasn’t been achieving) Goal 5 for upland SNR habitats, CDC 422-3.6 should default to the Goal 5 guideline: “4. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats should be protected and managed in accordance with the Oregon Wildlife Commission’s fish and wildlife management plans.” Clear and objective and achieves the goal.

I also ask that Washington County fully support the visionary Public Trust Doctrine as discussed by Deborah Kafoury and Pete Sorenson in their Opinion piece (Oregonian, 11/13/19) on the Cherniak v. Brown case now before the Oregon Supreme Court.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Sincerely,

Patricia Forsyth 8101 SW Cedarcrest St. Portland, Oregon 97223 (Unincorporated Washington County)


Bird and Critter List Update 2020 Cedarcrest St. Tax Lot 1400 Wildlife Habitat Grove/Field/Riparian Corridor/Ash Creek and

Neighbor Yards, List by Pat Forsyth, 8101 SW Cedarcrest St., and Rich Hanson (8116)

Barn Owl Red-tailed Hawk Bald Eagle Great Horned Owl Western Screech Owl Barred Owl Cooper’s Hawk Sharp Shinned Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Red-breasted Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch Rufous Hummingbird Anna’s Hummingbird Bullock’s Oriole House Wren Bewick’s Wren Townsend’s Warbler Wilson’s Warbler Bushtit Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Pine Siskin Black-capped Chickadee Chestnut-backed Chickadee Song Sparrow

Cedar Waxwing Fox Sparrow Vesper Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Spotted Towhee Black-headed Grosbeak Evening Grosbeak Western Tanager Steller’s Jay Western Scrub Jay American Crow American Robin Varied Thrush Lesser Goldfinch House Finch European Starling Brown-headed Cowbird Canada Goose Mallard Great Blue Heron Green Heron Red-winged Blackbird Western Wood Pewee Vaux’s Swift Other Mystery Birds calling/singing

________________________________________________________

Garter Snake Sundry Frogs Coyote Cottontail Rabbit Raccoon Skunk (smelled, not seen)

Beaver Squirrel, two species: Fox and Douglas Norway Rat Sundry Mice Black-tailed Deer Mole (species unknown)

This list doesn’t cover insects (our dragonflies, butterflies, bees, etc.), fish or wildlife in stream or wetlands north of creek or that confine themselves entirely to the cover and wooded corridor along Ash Creek (not visible from yards south of Wildlife Habitat) or that may be entirely nocturnal with nothing to say when they’re out and about.

###



TESTIMONY AGAINST ORDINANCE NUMBER 869

[email protected]; [email protected]

Date: Sept. 1, 2020

I oppose Ordinance Number 869. Please do not approve it as Goal 5 of Title 13 needs to be addressed.

“Significant natural resources” need protection. Where I live, Kemmer View Estates with 91 homes, this area from S.W. 175th to S.W. 182nd is vital to the deer crossings up the north side of Cooper Mountain from Rigert Road. Water flows under Rigert Road into the Johnson Creek system and shelters wildlife. From Kemmer Road between S.W. 176th and S.W. 180th lies a steep ravine housing underground artesian wells and natural springs which flow all the way down to Rigert Road. The ravine in KVE is protected and used as deer habitat as well as flora of Washington County. Deer from this waterway system climb up to Kemmer Road, cross over to the water tanks, and make their way to Cooper Mountain Nature Park near S.W. 190th.

Please obey the LCDC enforcement requirements for wildlife habitat on Cooper Mountain. Please protect with wild areas and wetlands of Cooper Mountain against the proposed Policy 869, against developers who want to create infill or damage significant natural resources. Thank you.

I am in CPO6, have attended several of their meetings, and a 30-year resident at KVE, 17565 S.W. Casilda Ct., Beaverton 97007.

Ruth Green




August 31, 2020

Washington County

Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners

155 N. First Avenue

Hillsboro 97124


My name is Fran Warren. I live at 835 SW Touchmark Way, Portland 97225 – Unincorporated

Washington County. Below is my planned oral testimony for the September 02, 2020 Planning

Commission Session.

As I listened to the testimonies of many individuals and organizations and read their submittals and then

listened earnestly to the discussions of the Commissions, I heard one very common theme: perceived

conflict of goals: Goal 2, Goal 5 and Goal 10. But I think we’re missing one key opportunity.

Ordinance No. 869 is summarized as, “(it) would amend the Community Development Code (CDC)

related to significant natural resources in the development review process, adopt clear and objective

standards for tree preservation and removal requirements within significant natural resource areas and

allow protected habitat areas to meet open space requirements in planned developments.”

Many of those testifying have been thinking of this Ordinance as a natural resource protection policy –

but in reality, as Mary Manseau puts it, “ When I look at Policy 869, rather than allowing “limited”

development on these site—it seems more like limiting wildlife habitat within development sites.”

Now this may be the true question on the table. There is no clear and objective section in this policy for

an incentive to reduce the housing lot footprint in favor of protecting more wildlife habitat, more trees,

more open spaces. Several recent nationwide surveys show that mature trees can increase the value of

a house by 7 percent to 19 percent … this number has been quoted in many website. Mature trees can

increase property value by 20 percent, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The City of Portland’s nearly

quarter million street trees provide a total boost to Portland house values of $1.53 billion. That

translates into more property tax revenues – and the same processes could boost Washington County

tax revenues. This does not have to be a lose-lose decision – everyone can win here.

It is not essential to give up open spaces, transportation venues, nature trails nor clean water catch-

basins in favor of wildlife habitat – but rather challenge the building development community to create

the needed housing with a smaller footprint. I remember Commissioner Harrington speaking about this

conceptually when she was on the Metro Board. She would talk about having smaller backyards,

smaller house lots, but the homes could be abutting a larger Greenway for shared use. I didn’t quite

understand at the time – but now I do as I look at the GIS maps across Washington County. I see that

model used frequently in the single-level Duplex homes built in planned developments. And now that

so many families are looking to have multiple generations living nearby, this is an ideal time to consider

the Duplex type of housing options. Any form of smaller lot footprint per dwelling, with the community

sharing the contiguous treed habitat, would be beneficial in so many ways.

Photo taken 31 August 2020 - Rufus Hummingbird



So, in summary, I am asking that the Commission request that the Washington County Planners add a

section to 404-4.1 Planned Development Review of this Policy to provide the building applicant with an

explicit and specific incentive option to build smaller homes or homes on smaller lots whenever there is

potential habitat which may be contiguously preserved by doing so. The PUD verbiage speaks only to

setting limitations on natural areas, not to limitations on developments. An incentive calculation table

could be easily added which is derived based on the Real Estate Association stated values and in

conjunction with the benefits to the Washington County tax revenues.

Thank You,

Fran Warren


From: Maxine Francisco <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 2:11 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to Ordinance 869

Hi there,

My name is Maxine Francisco and I am a resident of Washington County. I am writing to you to express my opposition of Ordinance 869.

I believe that these wildlife habitats need to be protected and these natural resources preserved. The construction/development of new houses in this area will cause unnecessary disturbances not only to wildlife but also to residences already established in the area. There would also, undoubtedly, be an increase of harmful pollutants and emissions as a result of this development which can lead to long-term negative effects environmentally.

Our existing natural resources are significant but limited; I don't see how the destruction of them could possibly be justified.

NO to Ordinance 869.

Sincerely, Maxine Francisco





From: Jeanette Rothberg <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:22 AM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ordinance 869

It has come to my attention that this ordinance is in the works and I would like to give my input. I visit this area often and every time that I visit there is more wilderness taken over by housing. I realize that people need housing but animals need places to live as well. We are gradually and greedily destroying more and more of our environment and making it less accessible to wildlife and other aspects of nature. So much housing and so few green spaces is quite unattractive. Also, the more people we have living in the area the more traffic to clog our roadways. It is getting to the point where Oregon is losing its beautiful wooded areas and is no longer the wilderness “mecca” of the past.

Please, for the sake of our precious and fragile environment, reconsider this ordinance.

Jeanette Rothberg





From: judybvtn judybvtn <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 1:18 PM To: Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Ordinance No. 869

I would like to add my support of making sure that each new development requires open space for the areas of that housing. Green space is so important for both land value of the homes, and having natural wetlands and such included in that plan shows a respect of our beautiful natural area. Being able to use natural areas that already exist makes perfect sense.

May I also suggest that when building homes, the developers should be required to include at least 3 levels of housing--starter homes or apartments, moderate and more affluent housing all in the development. This is one of the ways, besides those important green spaces, to ensure that neighborhoods remain stable and well maintained. It also provides a means for persons who like the neighborhood and it's schools to stay there as their incomes and family needs change.

Thank you for your work in this area and for your consideration of my ideas.

Judy Anderson

Greenwood neighborhood, Beaverton.





From: Mary Brown <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 12:58 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protection of our trees and wildlife habitat

Commissioners:

I totally agree with Fran Warren's testimony regarding protecting our natural resources and wildlife habitat! It is so important to our area and country.

Mary Brown





In Livable Cities is Preservation of the Wild P.O. Box 6903 l Portland, OR 97228-6903 l 503.319.7155 l www.urbangreenspaces.org

STAFF Ted Labbe Executive Director

Mike Houck The Urban Naturalist

OFFICERS Mike Faha Chair

Bob Wilson Secretary-Treasurer

BOARD Daniela Brod MJ Cody Judy Bluehorse Skelton Mel Huie Tom Liptan Steffeni Mendoza Gray Kelly Punteney Nadja Quiroz Jim Rapp Ruth Roth

August 27, 2020

Michelle Miller, Senior Planner

Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation

155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350

Hillsboro, OR 97214-3072

[email protected]

RE: Washington County Significant Natural Resources Program Update – Supplemental information relevant to the Tree Code

In my August 13, 2020 comments to Washington County on the Significant Natural

Resources (SNR) update and ordinance number 869, I referenced additional data and

information pertinent to the discussion of Washington County’s tree code,

demographics, and vulnerability to urban heat and climate change. The purposes of this

follow up note is to provide Washington County staff, planning commission, and County

Commission with direct links to this supplemental information. And I wish to re-

emphasize my request that Washington County consider how its proposed SNR and tree

code update impacts vulnerable communities within the unincorporated urban areas.

Given that Washington County is proposing to continue applying its tree code only in and

around mapped Significant Natural Resources (SNRs), it is very important to understand

how this will disproportionately impact urban County residents who live distant from

SNRs, parks and natural areas. Parks and natural areas (where the tree code applies)

cluster in and close to wealthy, whiter neighborhoods. Meanwhile, neighborhoods where

people of color and the poor concentrate in neighborhoods that frequently have lower

access to parks, natural areas, and tree cover. The proposed approach to only apply the

tree code in and around parks, natural areas and other SNRs therefore disadvantages

lower income residents and people of color. This is an environmental justice issue.

There is now an abundance of information and interactive maps online that show the

extent of urban tree canopy, urban heat, in relation to vulnerable populations. As urban

heat worsens under a changing climate, the piecemeal approach to urban tree protection

and mitigation proposed by Washington County will disproportionately impact people of

color, the poor and other vulnerable populations through reduced health and longevity.

Please consider your approach to urban tree conservation carefully and review the

following tools and online maps that demonstrate this point. World-wide more people die

from extreme heat than from all other natural disasters combined. Washington County

needs to begin preparing for climate change now, and an excellent first step would be to

adopt a comprehensive tree code that protects and benefits all residents, not just a select

few lucky enough to live close to parks, natural areas, and other SNRs.

.



UGI comments on Washington County SNR program update and ordinance #869 2

Please review and consider incorporating by reference the following useful tools. Metro’s Regional

Barometer on climate and climate adaptation

(https://regionalbarometer.oregonmetro.gov/pages/climate-adaptation) has high-resolution maps of

tree canopy and urban heat, in relation to census tracks with high numbers of people in poverty and

people of color. The map tools available enable one to zoom to individual neighborhoods and resolve

detailed, parcel level information on tree cover and urban heat. The census tract-level data can also be

downloaded and utilized in a variety of formats.

Closeup maps of Aloha, Oregon neighborhoods from the Metro Regional Barometer applications show

that select neighborhoods are currently burdened by more urban heat and lower tree cover at present.



In addition, the Trust for Public Land maintains their ParkScore online mapping application, which is

available at https://www.tpl.org/parkscore is very useful. The focus of this tool is identifying high need

neighborhoods for future park development, but it also provides high-resolution urban heat island

overlays and shows neighborhoods with lower access to parks and nature. This tool also highlights Aloha

and surrounding unincorporated Washington County neighborhoods as a geography with park needs

and high vulnerability to urban heat extremes.

The Metro Regional Barometer data resolves patterns of tree canopy, impervious cover, protected

lands, and demographics to the census tract level. This may be too coarse of a resolution to reveal

DEMONSTRATES WHERE TREE CANOPY PROTECTION IS CURRENTLY NEEDED MOST –VIA PARK OR HABITAT CORRIDOR



strong relationships of environmental injustice within Washington County, but it does reveal suggestive

patterns.

Within Washington County, people of color (POC) and low-income residents1 are found at higher

densities in census tracts with high impervious cover and less acreage of ‘protected lands’ (those

dedicated to outdoor recreation, parks and natural areas)2. Similarly, POC and low-income residents

comprise a higher percentage of the population within census tracts that have low canopy cover.

1 Incomes equal to or less than 200% of the federal poverty level. 2 As represented in the Metro ORCA data, which includes parks, natural areas, school lands, cemeteries, golf courses, HOA set aside tracts, trails, and other open space.

R² = 0.3554

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80

POC

dens

ity -

Num

ber p

er a

cre

Washington Co Census Tracts - % Impervious Cover



R² = 0.5004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

10000 1000000 100000000 1E+10

POC

dens

ity -

Num

ber p

er a

cre

Protected land area (Metro ORCA, acres)

R² = 0.2144

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50

Perc

ent p

eopl

e of c

olor

Washington Co Census Tracts - Percent Canopy Cover



R² = 0.3574

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 20 40 60 80

Low

inco

me d

ensit

y -Nu

mbe

r per

acr

e

Washington Co Census Tracts - % Impervious Cover

R² = 0.521

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

10000 1000000 100000000 1E+10

Low

inco

me d

ensit

y -Nu

mbe

r per

acr

e

Protected land area (Metro ORCA, acres)



The lack of a comprehensive urban tree preservation code in Washington County contributes to these

inequities and environmental justice disparities, and potentially serves to worsen the situation. If the

tree code is only applied in and around protected SNR lands, then potentially only those neighbors who

live within their immediate area may be safeguarded from tree loss and the associated extreme heat.

Since people of color and low income residents concentrate in census tracts with lower acreages of SNRs

and protected lands, this suggests that they do not enjoy the same safeguards from exposure to

extreme heat.

Please adjust your proposed approach to the tree code revisions, and apply section 407 to the whole of

Washington County’s unincorporated urban area.

Sincerely,

Ted Labbe, Executive Director

Urban Greenspaces Institute

[email protected]

503-758-9562

R² = 0.109

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50

Perc

ent l

ow in

com

e

Washington Co Census Tracts - Percent Canopy Cover


From: Cindy & Tim ** <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 7:05 PM To: LUT Planning <[email protected]>; Michelle Miller <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Draft Ordinance 869


I am writing because I am a Washington Co citizen, and I am concerned that the Draft Ordinance 869 does not protect our natural resources carefully enough especially in riparian areas.

Large trees are needed not just in urban boundaries, but in all areas open to consideration for development. We need to protect our environment in all areas when developing, and not just the 25% set aside as not to be "protected": all areas rely on each other for biodiversity, and trees are a huge protection in shade, root systems, protection of water and temperature. We need to save large trees as much as possible because of these benefits, especially.

I want what most Oregonians want, the protection of large trees and land being considered for development, and not just protect large trees in urban boundaries. We look to you to add in these protections to the language of your ordinances, and Draft Ord. 869.

Thank you, Lucinda Kimble






August 27, 2020

Washington County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners 155 N. First Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124

RE: Testimony Regarding Proposed Ordinance 869

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Ordinance 869. I appreciate the

effort that Washington County staff have made to respond to this complex and critically important need

to amend Community Development Code (CDC) sections relating to Significant Natural Resources

(SNRs). This is an opportunity to make updates that meet an immediate need and improve on natural

resources protections in the county. Washington County has until May 21, 2021 to respond to LUBA

requirements, and has the opportunity to provide more consideration of this issue, particularly in light

of the amount of concern expressed by the community.

I am significantly concerned about the requirements in section 422-5.3 Required Preservation Area. As

development densities have increased over time there is increasing less space available to provide any

type of habitat for wildlife from bumblebees, to common bird species, let along any type of sensitive

species. This is highlighted in the following figures. Figure 1 provides and overview of some of the Bull

Mountain SNRs. Figure 2 is a close-up of the same plan, and Figure 3 shows the current conditions of

areas that were identified as wildlife habitat in Figure 2. There is very little wildlife habitat remaining,

except where there are larger parcels or protected areas. What remains in many areas is fragmented.

Figure 1: Excerpt of Bull Mountain Community Plan Showing SNR Areas



Figure 2: Identified Willdlife Habitat Areas

Figure 3: Recent aerial photo showing remaining wildlife areas and the increase in density in newer

developments. Some areas remain because they are large lots owned by a few people.


Many of the areas with dense housing have very little vegetation of any type. This has long-term

implications for human health and the ability to respond to climate change. Many studies have shown

that a lack of trees increases heat island impacts and decreases air quality. The loss of even the habitat

value of yards is also part of why we are seeing a steady decline of pollinators and common bird species.

It is critical to protect what we have left, especially considering that the existing maps are limited and

don’t include a lot of important wildlife habitat and connections between habitats.

I appreciate the intent to provide additional protection for upland habitats. The recommendations to

protect 25% of a Habitat Area is inadequate. The proposal for 15% next to a riparian area or vegetated

corridor is worse. These Habitat Areas need a much higher level of protection, ideally the same level of

protection that vegetated corridors receive. The concept of a minimum of 100 square feet needs to be

removed since that is barely the area of one large tree. The preservation area requirements need to be

linked to the actual habitat type. Oregon oak is a very important species and the plant community

composition looks very different from the tree and shrub composition of a conifer dominated forest.

I see in the staff responses that there is a strong desire to keep this discussion focused on the

requirements for the LUBA case. I hope the Planning Commission and County Commissioners will

appreciate that there are much larger policy questions that need to be addressed. This is an opportunity

to build in some additional natural resource protection that balances development, our community

health in the future, and better equity in both access to and enjoying the benefits of significant natural

areas.

Thank you for your consideration.

Janelle St. Pierre

8145 SW 87th Ave.

Portland, OR 97223


Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland 1

August 28, 2020

Jeff Petrillo, Chair

Washington County Planning Commission

155 N. First Ave.

Hillsboro, OR 97124

Re: Ordinance No. 869 – Significant Natural Resources

Dear Mr. Petrillo,

The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (“HBA”) represents over 800

businesses and thousands of women and men who work in the residential building and remodeling

industries throughout the greater Portland area. We are dedicated to maximizing housing choice for

all who reside in the region while promoting housing access and availability for everyone.

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing severe economic disruption throughout Washington

County. Home building, like many industries, is facing an uncertain future. Across the metropolitan

region, new home starts were down over 50 percent year-over-year in the months of April, May, and

June. This downturn in construction is attributable to many factors including, but not limited to,

supply chain interruptions for materials coming from East Asia, reductions in available capital, and an

uncertain economic outlook.

Washington County (the “County”) is approaching a Great Recession level decline in new

home construction starts at a time when we remain gripped in a severe housing crisis. Indeed, despite

the economic downturn, Oregonians continue to desperately need new housing. A recent report

showed the state underbuilt 155,000 units of housing since 2010. This failure forces Oregon families

to compete for ever scarce housing, which in turn drives up costs, delays family formations, and

inhibits economic growth.

Given the trying combination of the current economic outlook and the pressing need for new

housing to meet Oregon’s needs, the County should refrain from increasing the regulatory costs

associated with new housing. As an ever greater number of our neighbors find it difficult to secure

their housing needs, the timing is truly ill-suited to add thousands of dollars to the cost of building

each new home.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what draft Ordinance No. 869 (Significant Natural Resources)

could accomplish. Specifically, the County should address the following issues to ensure that

developers can build new housing at reasonable prices.



Section 422-2. The County has already conducted thorough Goal 5 analysis in compliance

with regional and state requirements. Section 422-2 seeks to greatly expand the areas delineated as

significant natural resources through the addition of Metro’s Class I and II Riparian Habitat. Not only

is Metro’s mapping notoriously inaccurate, but these additions add new land into the Goal 5 planning

process without providing property owners notice of the potential impact and their property rights

under state law. The County should forgo these additions and only pursue them in the future if and

when proper mapping and property owner notification has occurred.

Section 422-3. As stated above, the County has already conducted required Goal 5 analysis.

Like Section 422-2, Section 422-3 would dramatically increase the amount of area required to further

analyze significant natural resources. Expanding the reach of this analysis to properties within 150

feet of a mapped or established resources completely disregards the existing analysis and again

implicates property rights. Additionally, this section fails to recognize the importance of natural or

artificial barriers – such as roads and topographical features – that serve to completely separate

adjoining properties. If the County wants to expand the areas covered under Goal 5, it should initiate

a separate mapping exercise and ensure that it is properly notifying Washington County residents of

their property rights under state law.

Section 404-4.5.E.2.a. The County is proposing to allow for preservation of Water Areas

and Wetlands and Water Related Fish and Wildlife Habitat to count towards only 20% of the required

open space in planned unit developments (PUDs). This number is extremely low and fails to properly

advance the County’s goals of providing greater PUD flexibility while maximizing significant natural

resource preservation. In order to better advance these twin goals, the County should allow for

preservation to count towards 100% of the required open space. Doing so will expand preservation

opportunities and ensure that new housing can best integrate into the natural environment.

Ordinance No. 869 should respond to the current development moratorium. Any further

expansion of Goal 5 analysis necessitates far greater engagement and notification than that associated

with the Ordinance No. 869. HBA encourages the County to focus on the task at hand and continue

other discussions to a time when the County has the resources to fully do so.

Sincerely,

Ezra Hammer

Vice President, Policy and Government Affairs

Cc: Ian Beaty, Commissioner

Mark Havener, Commissioner

Deborah Lockwood, Commissioner

Anthony Mills, Commissioner

Sushmita Poddar, Commissioner

Eric Urstadt, Commissioner

Matt Wellner, Vice Chair


public meeting notice for the washington county … · 2 days ago · no public tes timony is taken...

Documents