Date: June 11, 2015

To: Kate Green

City Planner
Portland Bureau of Development Services
503-823-5868
kate.green@portlandoregon.gov

Case File:
Pre App:

LU 14-235643 LDS ENM AD

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. They
are concerned about the additional traffic from both the land-division generated trips, and the potential
cut-through traffic, because the proposed land division plan is to connect Taylors Ferry Road to connect
to Ruby Terrace. Our neighborhood is already experiencing cut-through traffic, due to the failed Taylors
Ferry Road and Terwilliger controlled intersection. We are very concerned about impacts caused by the
added 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 lowquality roads. Fulton Park, Ruby Terrace, and Second Street have sections of the road that are
substandard in width, grade, and quality of the road surface.
There is outright disgust from many of the neighbors over the wholesale destruction of the environment
in clear-cutting a maturing urban forest in an environmental conservation zone. For example, one of our
members wrote to me "This kind of wholesale destruction of trees is unnecessary, inconsistent, and in
clear 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 potential
landslide. Again, the trees seem to be an issue because there is a common understanding that these
mature trees help stabilize the soil and absorb ground water. There is genuine concern due to the
underlying 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 the
proposed development site are astounded and alarmed that the stability of their neighborhood, and the
safety of theirfamilies and homes, will be jeopardized by the irresponsible proposed development plan
which intends to decimate the existing trees, roots and soil which currently protect us from slope
instability and landslides.
Any plan which requires wholesale exemptions from existing environmental and zoning laws, which
demands clearcutting 850 to 1300 mature urban trees, which dismisses evidence of landslide and seismic
events, and which minimizes multiple natural wateijflow problems, does not deserve serious
consideration.
Many have a hard time understanding why the design cannot be more creative to integrate and save
many 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 a
conservation zone, while destroying the remaining 40%, meets the goal of conservation.

Sam Pearson
Vice Chairperson
Acting Chairperson

Robert Lennox
Land Use
Chairperson

Scott Richman
Transportation
Chairperson

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
3

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.

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
5

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

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

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 developmentgenerated 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
8

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.
9

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
10

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.

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
11

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,
12

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
13

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

14

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.

15