Date: June 11, 2015

To: Kate Green

City Planner

Portland Bureau of Development Services

503-823-5868

kate.green@portlandoregon.gov

Case File: LU 14-235643 LDS ENM AD

Pre App: PC # 13-215938

Re: Letter of Response

Kate Green,

The South Burlingame Neighborhood Association (SBNA) has been involved with this application since

the pre-application conference in November 2013. We have met with the Developers planning and

design team three times since the pre-application conference, once while DR Horton was listed as the

developer and the remaining two while Brownstone Real Estate Group retained the option when DR

Horton backed out.

Over these two years the number of lots has slightly decreased, but layout and other substantive

elements have basically stayed the same. We were pleasantly surprised when the city stated reasons

for deeming the first application incomplete that paralleled our members comments at the September

11, 2014 neighborhood meeting with the developers team.

We met again with the developers team just prior to this application being submitted. More than 125

members attended the meeting. To our surprise, very little had changed in the land division plan. The

neighbors concerns voiced at previous meetings, regarding the environment, size of the homes, density,

traffic impacts, etc., had been not been addressed. It became obvious that the meetings were not an

honest effort to garner the support or views of the neighborhood, but were merely viewed as a code

requirement.

As a summary, here are some of the neighborhoods general feelings about the development expressed

at the meeting, to me in person, or via email. Most are paraphrased, and many are a composite and

represent a collective voice our members.

Most residents on Ruby Terrace, Second Street, and on up to the Troy and Terwilliger light are very

concerned about the additional traffic impacts to our narrow, steep, and winding streets. Our

neighborhood lacks sidewalks, and all of the pedestrians and bicyclists share the streets with cars. Theyare concerned about the additional traffic from both the land-division generated trips, and the potentialcut-through traffic, because the proposed land division plan is to connect Taylors Ferry Road to connectto Ruby Terrace. Our neighborhood is already experiencing cut-through traffic, due to the failed TaylorsFerry Road and Terwilliger controlled intersection. We are very concerned about impacts caused by theadded capacity of this land division and the completion of the Sellwood Bridge.

Most of the neighbors have concerns that the added traffic of the subdivision will degrade our low-quality roads. Fulton Park, Ruby Terrace, and Second Street have sections of the road that aresubstandard in width, grade, and quality of the road surface.

There is outright disgust from many of the neighbors over the wholesale destruction of the environmentin clear-cutting a maturing urban forest in an environmental conservation zone. For example, one of ourmembers wrote to me "This kind of wholesale destruction of trees is unnecessary, inconsistent, and inclear opposition to the codes for Environmental Conservation Zones orfor Tree Protection'."

Many are concerned the developer will not do an adequate job protecting the property from a potentiallandslide. Again, the trees seem to be an issue because there is a common understanding that thesemature trees help stabilize the soil and absorb ground water. There is genuine concern due to theunderlying deep historic landslide identified by the state, especially with the removal all of the trees.

Julie Koenig, a Ruby Terrace resident wrote The South Burlingame neighbors who live uphill from theproposed development site are astounded and alarmed that the stability of their neighborhood, and thesafety of their families and homes, will be jeopardized by the irresponsible proposed development planwhich intends to decimate the existing trees, roots and soil which currently protect us from slopeinstability and landslides.

Any plan which requires wholesale exemptions from existing environmental and zoning laws, whichdemands clearcutting 850 to 1300 mature urban trees, which dismisses evidence of landslide and seismicevents, and which minimizes multiple natural wateijflow problems, does not deserve seriousconsideration.

Many have a hard time understanding why the design cannot be more creative to integrate and savemany of the mature trees. Especially since the land is protected by a conservation zone.

I'm especially concerned about the precedent set by accepting that this approach of saving 60% of aconservation zone, while destroying the remaining 40%, meets the goal of conservation.

Sam Pearson Robert Lennox Scott RichmanVice Chairperson Land Use TransportationActing Chairperson Chairperson Chairperson

2

3

Chapter 33.610 Land Division Regulations

33.610.220 Lot Dimension Standards

A. Purpose

Lots are compatible with existing lots;

Response: While the applicant states the proposed lots should be viewed as compatible, this is

not the case. The southerly site of this development, being Lots 1-38, has an average lot size of

around 3,600 square feet. If you include the open spaces associated with this southerly site, being

Tracts B, D, E, and F, the average increases to around 4600 square feet. The average lot size of the

neighboring lots is over 8600 square feet. The proposed average building envelopes on the

southerly site and the existing buildings neighboring lots are about the same, about 1600 square

feet. The result is a development, even if you include the open space associated with this southerly

site, which is approximately twice as dense as the neighboring properties. This is not compatibility,

no matter what the applicant claims.

The applicant requests smaller setbacks due to the environmental overlays. While this is accepted

application of the code, it makes the development incompatible with the surrounding

neighborhood, which has standard R10 setbacks. The smaller setbacks, coupled with the small lot

sizes with the standard driveways, access walks, etc. will afford very little area for yard space. The

adjacent neighborhoods have gardenlike yards, making the proposed lots incompatible.

The proposed development will have 30-foot-high buildings. The code allows for the height to be

to the midline of the gable roof, making the overall height in excess of 30 feet and probably around

34. Most of the adjacent neighborhood on the southerly site has imposed building height

restrictions of 24 to the peak of the highest point on the roof. This will result in the proposed

development having buildings a full story higher than the neighborhood adjacent to the southerly

site. Reducing the setbacks from 10 feet to 4 feet, as proposed, will make these dense lots feel like

urban canyons, which again is in sharp contrast to the adjacent southerly site neighborhood.

D. 2. c. If the lot abuts a public alley, then vehicle access must be from the alley. This requirement will be

imposed as a condition of approval of the land division;

Response: Per the Permanent Administrative Rules Private Rights-of-Way Streets, Alleys, Shared

Courts, Common Greens and Pedestrian Connections, Section III Design and Construction

Requirements, Private Alley is defined as A right-of-way that provides secondary access for motor

vehicles to a lot or shared parking area. Generally, alleys provide secondary vehicle access;

however, where vehicle access from the street is not allowed or not possible, the alley may provide

primary vehicle access. The number of lots served by a private alley is not limited. Private alleys do

not serve as the primary street frontage of a lot (front lot line) as required in the Zoning Code. Alleys

are not designed to serve as the primary pedestrian access to a lot.

The applicant leads us to believe that the front of these buildings will either be accessed by the

sidewalks on the Tract D greenway or the trail in Tract E. This is not correct application of the code

by definition of an Alley in 33.910 or further defined in the Permanent Administrative Rules. This

use of the private alley in conjunction with a trail and sidewalk through a greenway shouldnt be

4

allowed. It will create garage entrances to the houses that will by practicality become the front

entrance. It is impractical for visitors entering this development to view the trails behind Lots 18

through 22 as the main entrance, or the greenway sidewalks in the greenway of Tract D. The

applicants design will, by practical use, encourage the alley as the primary pedestrian access.

The applicant also fails to apply the code properly because the private alley is not the primary

vehicular access for Lots 19-26, 29-32 or 33-28. The applicant acknowledges the improper use of

the alley of Lots 33-38 due to grade, but upon review the first two or three lots could access using

the alley by constructing the houses with the garage on the grade of the alley and the front of the

house using the second story oriented to Hume Street. This should be a requirement if the alley is

accepted and the application is approved.

Chapter 33.600 Tree Preservation

Section 33.630.300 Mitigation Option

Response: The applicant asks for relief of the mitigation options due to a request for an

adjustment to the code. The adjustment to 33.630.100 should not be granted because it is

meritless, and the mitigation should be imposed for the destruction of the trees just as it would

if the access was made through the environmental overlay for the access mentioned by the

applicant near the Ruby Creek outfall.

Chapter 33.632 Potential Landslide Hazard Area

33.632.100 Landslide Hazard Area Approval

Response: There are two distinct conflicts with the application for this development. The site is

a natural resource and has environmental overlay zones with many resources, yet it is in a

landslide hazard area.

One conflict is the majestic stand of trees on the site that is to be cleared for this proposed

development. The site to be cleared has over 870 trees with a diameter of 6 or greater. Per

33.630 of the tree protection chapter, the purpose lists one of the benefits is Stabilizing

slopes, which should be a goal of the geotechnical effort. Yet this is not mentioned in the

report, nor is there any effort made through the alternative analysis portion of the

environmental review to leave groves of trees to help stabilize areas.

The proposed method for mitigating much of the landslide hazard is by dewatering the entire

southern site. This is achieved by installing 16 drains, each separated from the next by 10

degrees. The proposed plan shows the drains extended from the outfall north of the site near

Ruby Creek and extending across the site to the southerly edges of the lots. The plan also

restricts all local infiltration. All of the roads, houses, and other impervious surfaces will be

conveyed to the outfall by an extensive storm drain system.

We have two primary concerns related to the mitigation of the landslide hazard on the

proposed southern site.

5

First, the conclusion of the geotechnical report states the sub-drains will discharge in a

subterranean chamber that should allow access for periodic cleaning, yet there is no plan for the

evaluation or the performance of the system. The geotechnical conclusion narrative also makes

reference to continued monitoring of slope stability and groundwater levels throughout the life

of the project, but the landslide hazard exists long after the project is completed. There are no

plans stated for the continued monitoring of the system for the life of the neighborhood or for

maintenance of the drains. This risks the property and lives of all the residents in the area of

this potential landslide area.

Second, the largest area being dewatered is uphill of the property between the southern site

and the abbey. It is also zoned open space with an environmental conservation overlay. It is

self-evident that if you drain near surface water with a drain field of 16 perforated pipes being

30 to 60 feet deep across the entire proposed southern site, plus collect all of the surface water

bound for the downhill property directly and convey it into Ruby Creek, the downhill property

will be partially dewatered, as well as the southern site. Neither the geotechnical report nor the

environmental review addresses these facts. It is our concern that this dewatering effort to

stabilize the southern site will cause a significant detrimental impact to more than the

permanent disturbance area identified in the plan set. The impact will include the open space

east of the southerly site. This will negate the reason the environmental overlay zones exist.

Chapter 33.634 Required Recreational Area

33.634.200 Required Recreation Area Standards

A. Size

and

33.634.300 Required Recreation Area Approval Criteria

B. Accessibility

Response: The applicant openly admits that only 2% of the total property is dedicated to this

required area. The applicant fails to ask for an adjustment.

Furthermore, the code section 33.634.300 (B) requires that Each recreational area must be

reasonably accessible from those who live in the land division site. Since neither of the sites is

accessible from the other, due to Tract A being undeveloped, it would be reasonable to require

the northerly site and the southerly site to independently meet the recreational area

requirement of ten percent.

The southerly site, being lots 1-38 plus the roads and not including the open space tracts, is

260,483 square feet. Ten percent would be 26,048 square feet or about 161 feet by 161 feet.

Tract E is almost half the size of the required ten percent for the southerly site and fails to meet

this modest code requirement for the portion of land being developed.

Furthermore, we object that the entire area of Tract E is not recreational and should not be

included toward the required area. The trail east of lots 18 through 22 is the primary and

front access to those lots. It is our opinion that using the trail as the primary access is in

violation of the code, especially with the alley being the only vehicular access, but if allowing the

applicant to state the trails to these lots are recreational, then all of the sidewalks by default

6

would be recreational. Neither is consistent with the code requirement. Also the westerly

portion of Tract E is 30 wide and is not large enough for adequate recreational activities.

The northerly site being lots 39-46 has an approximate area of 62,564 square feet. Ten percent

would be 6,256 square feet. If you deduct the 2,100 square feet for the Red Electric Trail, the

applicant should be required to have another 4,156 square feet of recreational area to meet the

required ten percent. This would roughly be a 65 feet by 65 feet.

In an already densely populated neighborhood with minimal existing public recreation sites,

allowing a large development to forego the ten percent requirement would put undue pressure

on the existing recreation sites. The one small park proposed would be a private park. Thus

existing residents would not be able access the private park. Considering the undue pressure

this proposed development would place on the neighborhood, this hardly seems fair to existing

residents. The land division should meet the ten percent requirement and it should have a

public easement for park purposes.

Because the application fails to meet the required ten percent and accessibility requirements,

the application should be denied.

Chapter 33.641 Transportation Impacts

33.641.000 Approval Criterion

Response: Below is the response to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS).

The Street Capacity and Level of Service

The local transportation system and roadway infrastructure is substandard to serve trips

generated by the existing neighborhood and environs, plus substantial traffic from other areas

(Lewis and Clark College, Lake Oswego, SE Portland and Clackamas County) that travels through

the neighborhood, and contributes to failing intersections, including Taylors Ferry Road and

Terwilliger. The proposed development would generate additional traffic that further exceeds

the availability of services for transportation, and the developer fails to provide any proposed

benefits to the affected transportation facilities. The applicant mentions proposed fee in lieu

that would need to be adequate to substantially fund needed improvements that can be directly

linked to trips generated by the proposed development.

The TIS report only presents overall intersection levels of service (LOS), while neglecting to

address individual turn movements that currently operate at LOS F during peak traffic periods

and that will only be worsened by traffic generated from the development. This is misleading

and needs to be addressed by a more thorough and objective independent traffic impact study.

A major flaw of the study is that it dismisses any additional impact from the development upon

the current failing intersection of Taylors Ferry Road/Terwilliger Boulevard, which will become

even more congested with the development-generated traffic. The report authors provide no

substantive data as basis for their claim on TIS page 24, paragraph three, that, the impact

7

projected to occur from the proposed Macadam Ridge development will be imperceptible from

daily fluctuations in traffic.

In the next paragraph on p. 24, the applicant acknowledges that, The intersection of SW Taylors

Ferry Road at 2nd Avenue is projected to also operate above (meaning worse than) the City of

Portlands performance standard when site trips are routed through the intersection. However,

the author contradicts their own analysis findings and avoids committing to any mitigation of

this development-generated traffic impact by asserting that, it is likely that before delays

become as high as report, drivers will seek alternate routes via SW 3rd Avenue and SW 4th

Avenue to reach Taylors Ferry Road. In other words, the traffic will become worse on all three

of these local streets and their intersections with Taylors Ferry Road.

Adding 48 homes will significantly increase traffic and exacerbate an already faulty intersection

at SW Terwilliger and SW Taylors Ferry Road and other local area intersections along Taylors

Ferry Road. Once the Sellwood bridge construction is complete, car and commercial truck traffic

will increase. Residents request the failing intersection be addressed by the City or by the

developer through a more comprehensive, credible, and objective traffic and engineering

analysis to include consideration of a new signalized, full-turn access intersection to serve the

new development at Taylors Ferry Road prior to the North and South developments being

initiated.

The completion of the Sellwood bridge construction and the two new proposed developments

will substantially increase traffic. Emergency responders will be impeded by heavy traffic when

they attempt to travel quickly North or South on SW Taylors Ferry Road, especially during

business hours.

The report also ignores any implications to the frequently congested major intersection of

Barbur (OR 99W) and Terwilliger Boulevards.

At a minimum, residents request the implementation of curbs, sidewalks (and storm sewers) on

SW Taylors Ferry Road between SW 4th Street and SW LaView.

The intersection of SW Terwilliger/Troy/6th Avenue is a very substandard signalized intersection

and the study omits consideration of impacts to this intersection and the neighborhood streets

that serve it. There is only queue storage area for two vehicles approaching this intersection

from Troy Street with a steep grade and poor visibility and turning radius onto a very busy

section of Terwilliger. This intersection would not pass current design criteria, and additional

traffic to this intersection is going to result in more frequent conditions of vehicle queues

blocking the intersection of 5th and Troy.

Neighborhood Impacts

In addition to the points above, the proposed development would route most of the traffic

through the local street system in South Burlingame and a portion of the South Portland

neighborhood. The report fails to acknowledge any adverse effects of adding vehicle trips

8

through the neighborhood while assigning most inbound and outbound development-generated

trips to local neighborhood streets.

The current proposed development limits traffic movements at the proposed access to right in

and right out. No left hand movement is proposed but TIS shows outbound development-

generated trips exiting through Hume, continuing to 2nd Street and to turn left on Taylors Ferry

Road. The author of TIS states on page 31 The intersection of SW Taylors Ferry Road and 2nd

Avenue is expected to experience long delays for the drivers entering Taylors Ferry Road.

However, other routes such as SW 3rd Avenue and SW 4th Avenue are available. This statement

by the author shows a lack of understanding of the traffic on Taylors Ferry Road and alternate

roads suggested intersection are deficient for left turn movement out of the neighborhood. To

help illustrate, the photographs below show the sight distance at each of these intersection on

Taylors Ferry Road including the location of the proposed intersection. SW 3rd Avenue does not

have adequate sight distance. This street should be controlled to right turn in and right turn out

movements only. SW 4th Avenue is marginally better but has the added disadvantage of being

affected by the left turn queuing for Taylors Ferry Road and Terwilliger intersection. Ironically,

of all the intersections, the proposed access of the land division is the safest place to turn left to

or from Taylors Ferry Road. Thus the left in and left turn out movement from the proposed

development should be allowed.

Additional traffic from both the proposed North and South portions of the development will

negatively impact local streets, large portions of which are substandard in terms of width and

horizontal and vertical geometry, with crumbling pavement. Many streets, or sections of streets,

are too narrow for convenient use by garbage collection, emergency vehicles, and any type of

heavy commercial trucks, including large vehicles used for the development site preparation and

construction work.

As noted above, the study omits the existing signalized intersection of Terwilliger/Troy/6th from

the analysis. The poor road conditions, blind corners etc. leading up from the Ruby Terrace area

to this constrained intersection are not acknowledged.

Furthermore, there are currently very limited sidewalks and no bike lanes, which make it near

impossible and certainly unsafe for residents to walk or bike to work, shop, or play. The

applicant proposes very limited improvements that would have no benefit to the local system.

A credible, independent, traffic impact analysis would more objectively assess the deficiencies

and impacts of the significant increase in development-generated traffic that would affect the

local streets that serve South Burlingame.

Transit Availability and Safety for All Modes

South Burlingame residents are concerned with threats to the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists,

and children, on the residential streets, as well as along SW Taylors Ferry Road between SW

Macadam and SW Terwilliger. Access to SW Taylors Ferry Road from the North and South

portions of the proposed development would be potentially hazardous without improvements

to safely separate turning vehicles from through traffic and provide safe passage for pedestrians

9

and bicyclists given 1) current and projected heavy traffic volume, 2) relatively high traffic

speeds that frequently exceed 50 mph, 3) sharp horizontal and vertical curvature with limited

visibility, and 4) steep inclines, and 5) long sections with no graded, level area outside the

striped vehicle lanes.

There are no curbs, sidewalks, or bikeways on Taylors Ferry Road near the proposed

development sites, nor on the local streets that would experience most of the burden of traffic

generated by the new development.

Additional traffic generated by the development will only exacerbate current safety concerns,

including conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists who will experience increased traffic.

The report completely neglects existing safety issues associated with vehicle turn movements

to/from Taylors Ferry Road and geometric design deficiencies on Taylors Ferry Road and local

streets that will serve the development. (See photos following this narrative regarding this and

the points below.)

The section of Taylors Ferry Road between Macadam and Terwilliger serves the TriMet route 43

bus with two stops located on Taylors Ferry Road in close proximity to the proposed Macadam

Ridge development, and to the proposed new development access to/from Taylors Ferry Road.

Additional TriMet bus routes (38, 39, and 65) are located within close proximity of the proposed

development near the intersection of Taylors Ferry Road and Terwilliger.

However, people who walk or bicycle in the area of the proposed development have no safe

sidewalk, bike lane, or clearly marked crossing of Taylors Ferry Road to access the nearest bus

stops on Taylors Ferry Road, nor stops further west on or near Terwilliger.

The study does not adequately consider improved access to transit or pedestrian facilities and

needs, or acknowledge that the development could provide an opportunity to enhance safe

connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, and access to transit. The study also appears to

assume that all new residents will use private motorized vehicles (primarily driving alone) to

access nearby services - on Barbur and the node at Taylors Ferry Road and Terwilliger. It makes

no attempt to obligate the developer to consider ways to encourage new residents to use

transit instead of driving. The applicant commits to no improvements that could encourage

residents of the proposed subdivision to walk or ride to the nearest bus stops.

On the northwest end of Taylors Ferry road near SW Fulton Park Boulevard, concrete barriers

are on the north shoulder of the road to protect the public from a potential landslide. There are

no sidewalks or designated bike lanes in this area, from SW LaView past SW Fulton Park Blvd up

to the Riverview Abbey Mausoleum. An approximately twenty foot high retaining wall in this

area is needed for people, property and traffic safety. The developer has proposed to pay a fee

in lieu of creating the wall. Neighbors are concerned that when the developer removes all the

trees in this area as proposed, and adds structured fill to the North building sites, existing homes

will be threatened by mudslides. Residents request the developer to build the retaining wall

prior to removing any trees, as well as add sidewalks and bike lanes to accommodate the

increase in new residents.

10

Photos along SW Taylors Ferry Road (east to west) between proposed Macadam Ridge

Development Approach and SW 4th Avenue (6-4-15)

(When reviewing these photos please take into the fact that the AASHTO Policy on Design of

Highways and Streets shows the stopping distance on a flat road at 40 mph is 305 feet. Taylors

Ferry is currently a 45 MPH road. The approximate sight distance is reported for each location

where it appears to be deficient of this standard. )

Proposed Front St. access - view to SE

Proposed Front St. access - view to NW

SW 2nd Ave. - view to NW

Sight distance: 225 feet

(nearest EB bus stop on opposite side of Taylors

Ferry Rd.)

SW 2nd Ave. - view to East

(nearest WB bus stop)

SW 3rd Ave. - view to SE

Sight distance: 130 feet

SW 3rd Ave. - view to NW

Sight distance: 150 feet

11

Chapter 33.654 Rights-of-Way

33.654.110 Connectivity and Location of Rights-of-Way

B. Approval Criteria

4. Alleys in all Zones.

Response: The applicant neglects to demonstrate how the alley meets the approval criteria.

The proposed alley does not move garage access from busy streets, reduce the numbers of

driveways crossing sidewalks, provide alternative locations on the site for parking, limit the

number of garage doors facing the street, and maintain on-street parking. They cannot

demonstrate this as required by code because the definition of an Alley per code 33.910 is A

right-of-way that provides vehicle access to a lot or common parking area. Generally, alleys

provide secondary vehicle access; however, where vehicle access from the street is not allowed

or not possible, the alley may provide primary vehicle access. The applicants current design

does not give a primary vehicular access to the lots by a street. Many of the lots only vehicular

access is by the private alley. The final provision states where vehicle access from the street is

not allowed or not possible. This possibility is only limited by applicants design. In fact,

previous designs by the applicant had a street where this alley now exists. This application of

the private alley without primary access to a street is in violation of the code and should not be

permitted.

Chapter 33.430 Environmental Review Criteria

Environmental Review Study

33.430.250 Approval Criteria

1. a. Proposed development locations, designs, and construction methods have the least significant

detrimental impact to identified resources and functional values of other practicable and significantly

different alternatives including alternatives outside the resource area of the environmental zone;

Alternatives

An impact evaluation requires 2) Evaluation of alternative locations, design modications, or alternative

methods of development to determine which options reduce the significant detrimental Impacts on the

SW 4th Ave. - view to East

SW 4th Ave. - view to W/SW

Sight distance: over 300 feet but often

obstructed by queuing cars as shown.

12

identified resources and functional values of the site; and (3) Determination of the alternative that best

meets the applicable approval criteria and identify significant detrimental impacts that are unavoidable.

Response: The applicants Environmental Review Study alternative analysis fails to apply the

criteria of this section of the code. First and foremost, the applicant refers to the framework of

policy direction that encourages meeting density and utilizing land efciently inside the UGB.

The code does not state this requirement. The stated purpose in the code of the environmental

zones is to protect resources and functional values that have been identified by the City as

providing benefits to the public. The environmental regulations encourage flexibility and

innovation in site planning and provide for development that is carefully designed to be

sensitive to the site's protected resources. These regulations also help meet other City goals,

along with other regional, state, and federal goals and regulations. The environmental

regulations also carry out Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. Furthermore, Chapter

33.640 Streams Springs, and Seeps, Section 33.640.200.D states Minimum density is waived in

order to better meet these standards. There is no code reason to try to reach any goal of

density.

Because all of the alternatives focus on meeting density and did not use flexibility and

innovation in site planning, each is basically a mirror image of the other with little innovation or

attempts to protect the identified environmental resource. The applicant draws the conclusion

that In spite of signicant impact to the c zone the proposed design has been identied as the

one that best meets all applicable approval criteria except as identied in this Analysis. Because

of this, the application is provided for Environmental Review. Or to put it crassly, the applicant

could have stated of the poor choices presented in the analysis, the one that is a little less

dense than the one you rejected outright is the best because it yields us the most profit.

The rest of the plan is a product of this failed analysis and is a waste of time to read and

comment on. But here are the basic issues the members of the neighborhood have with the

plan:

The density is too high and will have, in the words of the applicant, signicant impact to the c

zone, namely, all of the 879, native, six-inch or larger trees which will be removed from this

earth, this watershed, and this urban forest. As mature trees offer the bulk of these values,

mitigation through tree planting and/or financial compensation cannot replace these resources

and functional values. This proposal fails to meet the purpose of this section.

Along with those trees, the habitat for countless bugs, salamanders, mice, voles, shrews,

gophers, and on and on, as well as any endangered or threatened species that may exist.

Removing those trees will mean the loss of hundreds of nesting trees in acres of interior forest

habitat, a rare refuge within Portlands urban matrix for species sensitive to disturbance,

especially for nesting and breeding birds.

Loss of the trees will affect water quality. No matter how well we think we can engineer a water

quality facility to remove pollutants, meter water flow, etc., it will pale in comparison to the

water quality from this environmental zone with its stand of trees, surface water, seeps,

13

streams, etc. This overlay zone was placed on this property for a purpose, and the city needs to

ensure that these remaining sensitive areas are protected from those who wish to destroy it

needlessly for profit.

Because the initial analysis of the alternate options is flawed, the application should be denied.

4. c. Development, including building sites, vehicular access and utilities, within the resource area of a

conservation zone must have the least amount of detrimental impact on identied resources and

functional values as is practicable. Significantly different but practicable development alternatives,

including alternative housing types or a reduction in the number of proposed or required units or lots,

may be required if the alternative will have less impact on the identied resources and functional values

than the proposed development.

Response: The applicant states The proposed design maximizes lot numbers while maintaining

the neighborhood aesthetic and preserving significant portions of the site in an open space tract

for public use. Little to no detrimental impact on onsite resources is expected from the

proposed project. Although loss of forested area is unavoidable a connected greenway is

maintained along the entire onsite waterway. No impacts are proposed in onsite waterways or

directly adjacent buffers with the exception of 2 storm water outfalls which will outlet into the

creek. No detrimental impact is expected from this activity.

Significant Detrimental Impact is defined in Chapter 33.910 as An impact that affects the

natural environment to the point where existing ecological systems are disrupted or destroyed. It

is an impact that results in the loss of vegetation, land, water, food, cover, or nesting sites. These

elements are considered vital or important for the continued use of the area by wildlife, fish, and

plants, or the enjoyment of the area's scenic qualities. This proposed land division certainly

destroys vegetation, dewaters land, reroutes water, and destroys nesting sites, not to mention

the destruction of the areas scenic qualities. But the author of the Environmental Review Study

claims there are little to no detrimental impacts. Its clear that the impacts meet the

definition of a significant detrimental impact.

In addition to the destruction of the urban forest on this portion of the project, and in addition

to a design that grades the entire site and allows for only minimal replanting of the vegetation

on the portion of the site being disturbed, the applicant has failed to address the impacts of the

geotechnical mitigation plan to make the southerly site buildable. The plan requires no ground

water infiltration. All of the surface water entering the site from the adjacent neighborhood,

and all of the water from the impervious surfaces on the proposed southerly site will be

collected into storm sewers and conveyed directly to the outfall on Ruby Creek.

Yet this is not enough to make the site suitable to mitigate a potential landslide. The

geotechnical mitigation also intercepts near ground subsurface water being 30 to 60 feet deep

and conveys it to the same outfall at Ruby Creek.

This intercepted and surface ground water would naturally flow to the property to the east

zoned as Open Space with an environmental conservation overlay zone. This aggressive

mitigation measures could dry up downhill seeps, streams, and wetlands. This obviously is in

14

conflict with the goals of the Environmental Zones. All of these geotechnical mitigations

combined do constitute a significant detrimental impact. Since the impacts constitute a

significant detrimental impact, the applicant failed to supply the required elements under

33.430.240.

The applicant has failed to meet the purpose of this chapter and application should be denied.

33.430.280 Modification Which Will Better Meet Environmental Review Requirements

Response: The applicant misstates portions of the development plan. Tracts A and B are open

spaces, but Tract E satisfies many purposes in the application. These are the following: front

yard access to lots 18-22, required recreational area, and pedestrian connectivity required due

to the long dead end street of Front Street. Thus it cannot also be an open space zone.

The open spaces, primarily of Tract A, are offered to balance the complete destruction of

approximately 40% of the proposed development. 40% is very close to half, and it's not almost

half of the total property but of the minimum part of the property that requires protection or

conservation. The proposal would cut into the heart of the property that the City already

decided required protection.

Furthermore, the alternative analysis is flawed by only evaluating a development trying to

satisfy the framework of density set by the policy of the UGB. Doing so made the alternative

analysis meaningless.

The applicant further misstates the proposed land division Each of the proposed reduced size

lots will have a potential building envelope that will be wide enough to orient the homes

towards the street. Lots 18 through 32 are situated to orient to the Alley. The applicant would

like you to believe that they are oriented to the greenway or the trail north of the slope, but in

reality, statements like this just confirm that the alley is a really a substandard street.

The next point by the applicant is also misstated Each of the lots will have at least 30 feet of

frontage on a public right of way. Again, all of the lots that only front the alley do not have

frontage on any public right of way.

Allowing the density requested will result in postage stamp lots with buildings pushed to the

extremes of these minimal setbacks. The lots will be devoid of meaningful native landscaping or

the 870-plus over-story trees which are being destroyed by this development.

Additionally, it should be considered that these open spaces are urban forests. This urban forest

burned in the 1940s, and is the reason for the deciduous forest with the emerging conifers and

not logging as mentioned in the environmental review study. Before granting this modification,

the review body should consider the fact that this forest could burn again. Placing a dense

development at the top of vegetative steep slopes is not advisable. Especially considering the

residents will be restricted from removing vegetation, undergrowth, or dead fuel due to the

environmental overlay zone. The proposed lots should be set back from the edge of the slopes

15

with adequate front, side and rear setbacks to ensure the safety of the future residents and the

firemen.

The reduction of the lots sizes and the setbacks do not achieve the intended goals of this section

and should not be granted. The environmental review does an inadequate job with its analysis

and glosses over many of the required elements. The applicant seems to confuse a profitable

development with one that conserves the environment.

MR letter of Response - SBNA Meetingscan_bluedotgrp_com_20150612_111054