natural resources, and functional street system. Both are proposed to be updated through the periodic review process.

Transcription

1

2 natural resources, and functional street system. Both are proposed to be updated through the periodic review process. On May 20, 2008, the City received a letter from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) directing the City to begin periodic review. In September 2008, the City requested a three month extension for submittal of its work program to DLCD to allow the newly elected City Council an opportunity to endorse the program. The City was granted an extension until February 18, 2009 to submit a Council approved evaluation and work program. Periodic review is a process administered by DLCD that is required by state law as described in ORS and OAR 660, Division 25. Periodic review requires that local governments review their Comprehensive Plan ( Plan ) and land use regulations to ensure that the Plan and regulations continue to respond to changes in local, regional, and state conditions and remain consistent with Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules, programs of state agencies, and statewide planning goals. This process emphasizes review and compliance with statewide planning goals related to economic development, needed housing, transportation, public facilities and services, and urbanization. There are two phases to the periodic review process. The first phase is the plan evaluation and work program development. The second phase is implementation of the work program. The City is not required to collect data during its evaluation, however the lack of current information about an issue typically suggests that the Plan should be updated. Prior to the beginning of the implementation phase, the City Council must first adopt a periodic review evaluation and work program. This work program is then forwarded to the Director of DLCD for final state approval. After DLCD approves the work program, the city may then start on implementation. DISCUSSION Overview Although the state required periodic review process places more emphasis on updating five elements of the Plan: housing, economic development, transportation, public facilities and services, and urbanization, the period review process requires that all parts of the Plan be in compliance with state regulations. To achieve a thorough update of the plan, the City proposes that a community wide visioning process be initiated. An updated comprehensive plan will be the product of the City initiated visioning process coupled with the state required periodic review process. Visioning Comprehensive Plan Update + = The visioning process is a critical component of the Plan update because through a broad and intensive public involvement process it will establish the community s values on a broad range of topics, including, but not limited to, arts and culture, recreation, transportation, sustainability, natural resources, and community development. The purpose of visioning is to establish a broad set of widely-supported vision statements that can serve to provide guidance for a variety of City and community actions. The periodic review process will use the vision statements as a community screen when evaluating goals, policies and implementing measures for the Plan update. The background and facilities plans update portion of periodic review will help inform the visioning process and act as a starting point for discussions for the visioning process. Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 2

3 Evaluation and Work Program (Exhibit F-1) Development This section discusses the development of the evaluation and work program requirements of periodic review. The evaluation is intended to identify issues, opportunities and omissions related to the four periodic review factors (Exhibit F-2) that are required to be addressed during periodic review; 1) Change in circumstance, 2) Inconsistency with the goals, 3) Issues of regional or statewide significance, 4) No longer achieving statewide planning goals. A large part of the Lake Oswego evaluation was based on the City s analysis of DLCD s Evaluation Survey Checklist (Exhibit F-3). The City also received three letters from state agencies: 1) Department of State Lands (Exhibit G-1) regarding updating the local wetlands inventory; 2) Department of Human Services, Public Health Division (Exhibit G-2) regarding water planning and quality related issues; and 3) Oregon Water Resources Department regarding an analysis supporting the water partnership with the City of Tigard, and compliance with applicable statewide planning goals (Exhibit G-4). Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement and the Lake Oswego Citizen Involvement Guidelines embody the philosophy and regulatory requirements for the City s public involvement program. These documents provided guidance in the City s efforts to solicit public input for the development of the work program and for identifying issues that should be addressed during the visioning process. Most of the public input received was useful in identifying issues that should be addressed during the visioning process, rather than focusing on specific work program tasks. It should be emphasized that comments received that did not pertain to the periodic review work program may still be relevant to the community-wide visioning process. The City used the following public involvement opportunities to collect comments and ideas for the development of the evaluation report, work program, and visioning processes. Outlook 2025 The City initiated this public outreach process in anticipation that periodic review was going to occur in The outreach process included a series of public meetings over a 10-month period in 2003 to identify issues within the Comprehensive Plan that should be addressed during periodic review. Information developed during this process was used as a framework for organizing public comments during the three periodic review public meetings that were held between August and November A summary of the 2003 work can be found on the City s website at: Public Meetings Three public meetings (8/14/08, 10/23/08, and 11/06/08) were held to provide information on the City s Comprehensive Plan update process (periodic review and visioning) and to solicit input on the development of the work program and other Comprehensive Plan update issues. Specifically, attendees were asked: Are there issues, opportunities, or omissions that should be addressed when the Comprehensive Plan is updated? What questions should we be asking as we update the Comprehensive Plan? What background information do we need to provide you, to help you plan the vision for the City? Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 3

4 In total, approximately people attended these meetings. A summary of the meetings are included as Exhibits F-4 through F-6. After the public meetings, the City also received combined comments from three additional people that focused on integrating and using sustainability as a filter for City decision making. Their recommendations and comments are included as Exhibit G-3. City Board & Commission Meetings During the month of October, staff met with seven 1 of the ten City boards/commissions to provide information on the City s Comprehensive Plan update (periodic review and visioning) and to solicit input on the development of the work program and to identify other Comprehensive Plan update issues. Prior to these presentations, a memorandum was mailed describing the purpose, request for the meeting, background information on the Comprehensive Plan and periodic review process, and timeline. Questions to the boards/commissions included: Does the Plan support the charge of the board? Do policies in the plan need to be updated to better support the work that you do? How do you see the future of this community given the charge of the board/commission? While most of the boards/commissions were interested in the process, many are evaluating how they can best contribute in this process. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, 50+ Board, and Sustainability Advisory Board are all working on their own plans and are considering ways to integrate their plans and the Comprehensive Plan. Minutes of the boards/commissions meetings are included as Exhibits C-1 through C-7. Planning Commission Public Meetings On July 14, November 10, and December 8, 2008 the Planning Commission held work sessions to discuss the City s Comprehensive Plan update (periodic review and visioning). The draft minutes for the July 14 and November 10 meetings are included as Exhibits C-8 and C-10. The draft minutes for the December 8 meeting are not yet available. City Council Study Session On October 21, the City Council held a study session to receive information on the Plan update process. Council members noted the following: ensuring the update is done in a timely manner, consider using the Quality of Life Indicators as a starting point for discussions, and including discussions about infrastructure deficiencies and issues. Adopted minutes of the study session are included as Exhibit C-9. As noted previously, many of the issues identified in the evaluation were based on the City s evaluation of the DLCD s periodic review checklist. The work program identifies six tasks that address issues, opportunities, or omissions identified in the evaluation. The first five tasks are intended to address the growth management and transportation periodic review requirements of complying with state regulations. The sixth task 1 The three groups that staff did not meet with include the Citizen Budget Committee (CBC), Community Forestry Commission (CFC), and the Library Advisory Board (LAB). The CBC only meets during the beginning of the year, the CFC only meets when necessary to review a tree removal application, and the LAB declined a presentation, but did receive a staff report on the subject. All boards and commissions are on the mailing list to receive notices of the Comprehensive Plan meetings. Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 4

5 addresses other updates to the City s Comprehensive Plan and any new tasks that are identified during the City s visioning process. The implementation of each task follows the same basic process: 1) Research/Background; 2) Visioning and Outreach; 3) Policy Alternatives; 4) and Refinement and Adoption. Planning Commission Comments/Concerns At the December 8, Planning Commission work session, staff presented a draft evaluation and work program, similar to the one shown in Exhibit F-1 2. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the length of time associated with completing periodic review (three and one half years) and that it did not address immediate community issues in a timely manner. It should be noted DLCD would like to see periodic review processes completed within three years. However, due to the value and importance placed on a visioning process, DLCD staff supported the City s slightly extended timeline. Staff was asked to bring back options to address the timing and community issue concerns. It is important to clarify that the options presented only effect the timing of the different tasks under Section V, Timeline/Workflow of the work program. It does not effect the evaluation or other work program tasks, because the different tasks were intended to address different community issues. The question to be answered is when, should they be addressed in this process. Community Issues: Planning Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Scot Siegel submitted comments regarding community issues that they felt needed to be addressed as high priorities under an accelerated time frame (see Exhibits G-5 and G-6). The issues are summarized and addressed below. Infill/Neighborhood Character: Scott Siegel noted that we need to balance design review and discretion with clear and objective development standards. The housing affordability report recommends (and state law requires) that the City provide a clear path for property owners and builders, while protecting community character. Adrianne Brockman comments that the proposed infill standards will not fully address the issues of concern to the neighborhoods. She notes that the process needs to address all abutting properties and properties across the street in terms of lot coverage, height, and setbacks. Urban Forest Management (Tree Code): Adrianne Brockman comments that the trees in Lake Oswego separate this community from other communities. She notes that the tree code is not working properly because applicants get two opportunities to remove trees; once before and once after building permits are issued. The Code should limit tree cutting to one permit per five years. 2 The draft evaluation and work program were updated to reflect the comments received via from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) on 12/9/08. The OWRD recommended that the City provide an analysis for the basis of the Lake Oswego-Tigard shared water service and to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan was in compliance with statewide planning goals related to water resources and carrying capacities. In response, in 2007, the City commissioned an extensive analysis and report on the City of Tigard water partnership. That report is proposed to be integrated in the updated Public Facilities Plan. To the extent possible, the City will coordinate its Plan update with the City of Tigard and include the necessary information and findings to ensure compliance with all statewide planning goals. Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 5

6 Scot Siegel states that the tree code is a critical issue, but it is part of the larger question about how we manage the urban forest. We should not have to give up the park feeling in exchange for development. Land Stewardship and Planning for Future Generations (Density): Adrianne Brockman noted that density is primarily a Forest Highlands issue, but is also of concern for other neighborhoods. The questions are: Are neighborhoods to sacrifice what they value for regional goals? Should the planner s principles and/or Metro goals be allowed to lessen the quality of life in Lake Oswego? Scot Siegel noted that the Affordable Housing Report, 50+ Advisory Board, and other recommendations need to be weighed and balanced with other priorities such as community character, public services and livability when considering density. Zoning Code: Scot Siegel notes that the Development Code is complex and needs to be revised but Code follows policy. We need to get the vision right and consider the tradeoffs (some noted above) before changing the Code. Adrianne Brockman comments that the highest priority is rewriting the Zoning Code, not visioning. Community plans may be the most effective way to address neighborhood issues. In addition, she noted that visioning should not start with a fresh slate as the Community has spoken in the following documents: o Comprehensive Plan o 50+ Study and Report o Affordable Housing Report o Lake Grove Village Plan o Lake Oswego Urban Renewal Plan o Quality of Life Indicators Document o Lake Oswego Telephone Surveys The issues with the Code are: o Exceptions process The view is that the exceptions process should be limited to preserving privacy and protecting natural resources. The process makes the Code confusing and difficult to use. It also makes it difficult for a person buying in Lake Oswego to know what can happen on adjoining property. o Scale Pertains to the amount of lot coverage and height, as well as setbacks and compatibility. o Readability The Code is difficult for citizens to read and understand. o Consistent Answers The current Code can require interpretation which sometimes results in inconsistencies. The community wants a code that produces a consistent answer. Sustainability: Scot Siegel commented that social, environmental, and economic sustainability should be addressed and should involve the Sustainability Advisory Board. Any discussion of future plans and programs must consider city finances. Timeline/Workflow: As noted above the question is not if community issues will be addressed, but when and how. The following are three conceptual approaches that illustrate how the three processes of periodic review (a.k.a. Comprehensive Plan update), visioning, and community issues relate to each other. Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 6

7 LEGEND: Visioning Community Issues Beginning of public involvement events Zoning/Plan amendment adoption OR Council Adoption of Vision Statements Option 1 Integrated This option was the original process proposed at the December 8 work session and is included as the baseline option. Integrates the three processes more closely because they follow along as one integrated process. Visioning and communities issues are part of the periodic review work program and timeline. Community issues are addressed after the adoption of community vision value statements. Visioning Community Issues Option 2 Integrated Hybrid Similar to option #1 above except, that it relies on the visioning process to identify community issues. The key community issues that are identified through the visioning process get addressed immediately, not after the adoption of the vision value statements. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments for those community issues get approved ahead of the rest of the Plan update. Addresses community issues immediately, if they are identified in the initial phases of visioning (not after adoption of the vision value statements). Visioning Community Issues Option 3 - Phased Each element proceeds on its own separate track; periodic review, visioning and community issues. Feedback loops to other process everyone is informed of what the other processes are doing. Visioning and the community issues tracks would not be part of the periodic review work program or timeline. Periodic review work program could be simplified to only address periodic review items. It would still take at least two years to complete periodic review. Visioning Community Issues Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 7

8 EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Findings and Conclusion [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes: C-1 Development Review Commission - Draft minutes 10/06/08 C Advisory Board Adopted minutes 10/09/08 C-3 Historic Resources Advisory Board Draft minutes 10/08/08 C-4 Natural Resources Advisory Board Draft minutes 10/15/08 C-5 Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Adopted minutes 10/15/08 C-6 Sustainability Advisory Board Approved minutes 10/20/08 C-7 Transportation Advisory Board Draft minutes 10/08/08 C-8 Planning Commission Work Session Approved minutes 7/14/08 C-9 City Council Study Session Approved minutes 10/21/08 C-10 Planning Commission Work Session Draft minutes 11/10/08 D. Staff Reports: (Note: The staff reports and attachments identified below are not included in this report due to their size. These attachments can be viewed on the City s web page at: _Periodic_Review/Periodic_Review_PP_ htm) D-1 Planning Commission Work Session for 7/14/08 dated 7/1/08 D-2 City Council Study Session for 10/21/08 dated 10/13/08 D-3 Planning Commission Work Session for 11/10/08 dated 10/29/08 D-4 Planning Commission Work Session for 12/08/08 dated 11/25/08 D-5 Planning Commission Work Session Supplemental Report for 12/08/08 dated 12/2/08 E. Graphics: None for this staff report F. Written Materials: F-1 Draft Evaluation and Work Program 12/22/08 F-2 Factors Determination of Need (ORS (3)(a-d) F-3 Department of Land Conservation and Development s Evaluation Survey Checklist and City s Analysis F-4 Comprehensive Plan update Meeting #1 Summary 8/14/08 F-5 Comprehensive Plan update Meeting #2 Summary 10/23/08 F-6 Comprehensive Plan update Meeting #3 Summary 11/06/08 G. Letters/ s: G-1 Department of State Lands Letter dated 06/19/07 G-2 Department of Human Services Letter dated 06/24/08 G-3 Public Comments Jean Baumann, Patrick Rowe, Craig Diamond via e- mail 11/24/08 G-4 Oregon Water Resources Department dated 12/9/08 G-5 Adrianne Brockman, Planning Commission List of Community Issues via 12/15/08 G-6 Scot Siegel, Planning Commission List of Community Issues via 12/16/08 L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2008\PP DENNY\Planning Commission\Staff Memo PP v2.doc Planning Commission Public Hearing 1/12/09 Page 8